logiclife
07-10 10:14 AM
Did anybody contradict this caller on the show? Is the recorded show available online?
We got the CD from studio which we will try to upload on the website. Yes, we did counter that guys. Carl said that the slaves Mike is talking about drive in BMWs and Mercedes to his law firm and majority of his immigrant clients on H1B make more than 100K a year in California.
We also explained that there are safeguards in place both at temporary visa level like H1B and permenant visa (Green Card) to protect the American worker. The Department of labor has to certify that a willing, qualified, available American citizen could not be found for the position for which a foriegn worker is being hired and the foriegn worker is being paid the wages commensurate with prevailing wages. That pretty much was the rebuttal to "H1B slaves are driving down wages" theory.
We got the CD from studio which we will try to upload on the website. Yes, we did counter that guys. Carl said that the slaves Mike is talking about drive in BMWs and Mercedes to his law firm and majority of his immigrant clients on H1B make more than 100K a year in California.
We also explained that there are safeguards in place both at temporary visa level like H1B and permenant visa (Green Card) to protect the American worker. The Department of labor has to certify that a willing, qualified, available American citizen could not be found for the position for which a foriegn worker is being hired and the foriegn worker is being paid the wages commensurate with prevailing wages. That pretty much was the rebuttal to "H1B slaves are driving down wages" theory.
wallpaper who is mark zuckerberg married
NKR
03-25 02:13 PM
If you have found a nice house in a good locality and have got a good deal, and if you think that not having GC is the ONLY hurdle, then I suggest you to go ahead and buy the house.
I am on H1, I could not afford an independent house because of layers I have at work, so about 2 years ago, I went ahead and bought a town-home. I have a small kid now and we are happy. We might go for a bigger house after GC but I have not thought that far ahead.
I am on H1, I could not afford an independent house because of layers I have at work, so about 2 years ago, I went ahead and bought a town-home. I have a small kid now and we are happy. We might go for a bigger house after GC but I have not thought that far ahead.
pappu
07-15 06:55 AM
Why do you write 'I know this mess is depressing for EB3 folks' ?
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
Answering some of the posts:
Decisions taken by an employer to file in EB3 or advice by the lawyer to file in EB3 instead of EB2 (even if you disagree with the lawyer) cannot be the basis for administration to change the rules. It is an 'employment based' system and employer files the petition for the employee. You cannot write in the letter to DOS that your employer filed for EB3 even though you qualify for EB2 and thus you are entitled for xyz. Administration can only work within the legal limits. They cannot create more visas. If you are going to ask for more visas, they will tell you it will be done via a bill so that the law is changed and EB3 gets more visas. And thus we have to go for bills like recapture, STEM exemption and country caps. We already ran the admin fix campaign precisely for that reason to get things that we can get without changing the law. Recapture was added after much thought even though we knew it is a long shot. If we want more visas, then it has to be done legislatively. If we plan to do something via administration, then our list of items must be thoroughly researched they must offer solutions within the current law. It should merely be a regulation that provides guidance on the current law. Each item in the admin fix campaign did that.
And please stop taking out your anger on IV or each other. Take it out on the system that has caused problems for all of us and help each other fix this system. IV is everyone and we need to work together to fix it.
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
Answering some of the posts:
Decisions taken by an employer to file in EB3 or advice by the lawyer to file in EB3 instead of EB2 (even if you disagree with the lawyer) cannot be the basis for administration to change the rules. It is an 'employment based' system and employer files the petition for the employee. You cannot write in the letter to DOS that your employer filed for EB3 even though you qualify for EB2 and thus you are entitled for xyz. Administration can only work within the legal limits. They cannot create more visas. If you are going to ask for more visas, they will tell you it will be done via a bill so that the law is changed and EB3 gets more visas. And thus we have to go for bills like recapture, STEM exemption and country caps. We already ran the admin fix campaign precisely for that reason to get things that we can get without changing the law. Recapture was added after much thought even though we knew it is a long shot. If we want more visas, then it has to be done legislatively. If we plan to do something via administration, then our list of items must be thoroughly researched they must offer solutions within the current law. It should merely be a regulation that provides guidance on the current law. Each item in the admin fix campaign did that.
And please stop taking out your anger on IV or each other. Take it out on the system that has caused problems for all of us and help each other fix this system. IV is everyone and we need to work together to fix it.
2011 Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (age
yabadaba
08-11 12:26 PM
dont know about lou's total viewership but every day his online polls have less than 15,000 respondents
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/26653.exclude.html
i m sure its basically everybody who is a member of numbersusa, fair and other nut job establishments
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/26653.exclude.html
i m sure its basically everybody who is a member of numbersusa, fair and other nut job establishments
more...
rockstart
07-14 03:37 PM
Because when Eb3 ROW were getting approved they had no personal friends getting approved but suddenly now with Eb2 India moving forward they know people who will get GC soon and this hurts, when then see these people (friends) in temple or get together who will be (soon) GC holders and so this cry of fowl play comes in behind the mask of anonymus user id a vieled attack
All of a sudden when EB2-I moves ahead I hear voices of 'injustice', fair play and demands for visa number handovers. Sorry aint gonna happen.
All of a sudden when EB2-I moves ahead I hear voices of 'injustice', fair play and demands for visa number handovers. Sorry aint gonna happen.
another one
09-29 07:20 PM
To me collateral damage to GC is more acceptable than the same to human life.
On economic front, the only person on either side who truly supports free market policies is Ron Paul. He is the one of the few Republicans who actually thinks about balancing the budget. Tax cuts are ok, only if you back them up with reduced spending, without increasing the national levergage. National debt is now at 100% of GDP (in the company of zimbabwe and jamiaca) , 20-30% of future income tax will go towards paying of the interest on Govt tax. It will definitely crowd out future private investments. Look at the history of national debt, and correlate them to the administrations.
"Supply side" tax reductions of Reagan admin were good but even he increased the debt during his tenure. Leveraging is good for private cos (to certain limit, as we can say from recent developments), but not for Govts, as they do not really do much economically productive activity. Keynesian economists have all been hiding in their basement in the last two weeks.
It is just my belief that Repubs dumb down everything.. from education to how to sell a war or economic plan to people.
So you are ok with "colateral damage" to your GC ? I have never seen a school force creationism on a child, as for reading its the same everywhere (i remember in india my catholic shool was at pains to teach us that Ramayan was a legend...i didnt change my religion because of that). How many wars were fought during regans adminstration? Do you remember the tax rate during the Carter years? people were shelling out 17% on home loans while banks were paying 13% interest on their CD's. Media driven pontification is ok as long as you can substantiate them with valid reasoning. (Clinton years were good for us but some say that it laid the foundation for the dot com crisis, which lead to easy credit and so on)
On economic front, the only person on either side who truly supports free market policies is Ron Paul. He is the one of the few Republicans who actually thinks about balancing the budget. Tax cuts are ok, only if you back them up with reduced spending, without increasing the national levergage. National debt is now at 100% of GDP (in the company of zimbabwe and jamiaca) , 20-30% of future income tax will go towards paying of the interest on Govt tax. It will definitely crowd out future private investments. Look at the history of national debt, and correlate them to the administrations.
"Supply side" tax reductions of Reagan admin were good but even he increased the debt during his tenure. Leveraging is good for private cos (to certain limit, as we can say from recent developments), but not for Govts, as they do not really do much economically productive activity. Keynesian economists have all been hiding in their basement in the last two weeks.
It is just my belief that Repubs dumb down everything.. from education to how to sell a war or economic plan to people.
So you are ok with "colateral damage" to your GC ? I have never seen a school force creationism on a child, as for reading its the same everywhere (i remember in india my catholic shool was at pains to teach us that Ramayan was a legend...i didnt change my religion because of that). How many wars were fought during regans adminstration? Do you remember the tax rate during the Carter years? people were shelling out 17% on home loans while banks were paying 13% interest on their CD's. Media driven pontification is ok as long as you can substantiate them with valid reasoning. (Clinton years were good for us but some say that it laid the foundation for the dot com crisis, which lead to easy credit and so on)
more...
h1techSlave
09-26 12:03 PM
Because of unexplained reasons Indians generally support Democrats. Even though Democrats generally do not care for India or Indians.
One of my collegues once told me it is because India is a democratic country:D. I told him to support the Republicans since India is a republic.
I am a big supporter of Obama and a big fan and am eagerly looking forward to see him as our next President of United States. As a legal highly skilled immigrant what can I expect? Well, not sure if I would see myself living here anymore. I have been in the green card queue for more than 8 years now and still waiting. Will Obama's administration do anything for people like me to help reduce backlog? I doubt such a thing will ever happen. I would see myself and people like me discouraged and start packing our bags and move on with life.
Why do I feel discouraged? If anything is going to happen for the immigrant community when Sen. Obama becomes the President, it is going to be in the lines of CIR 2007. There would be provisions to make illegal immigrants as legal and remove backlogs to family based quota whereas posing harsh restrictions on H1b visas and reducing Green Card quotas and scrap AC21 portability and try to experiment with some new kind of skilled immigration system.
The above is very evident based on the fact that Senator Durbin has been very hostile to EB immigrants. It is evident that Senator Durbin will make the calls when Senator Obama becomes the president.
Please post your opinions. This is a very important discussion. It is very important that the community see what is in store for us when the new Administration takes charge.
A lot of folks in the EB community are looking forward to 2009 thinking something will definitely happen. Yes, something will definitely happen - and that may not help us
One of my collegues once told me it is because India is a democratic country:D. I told him to support the Republicans since India is a republic.
I am a big supporter of Obama and a big fan and am eagerly looking forward to see him as our next President of United States. As a legal highly skilled immigrant what can I expect? Well, not sure if I would see myself living here anymore. I have been in the green card queue for more than 8 years now and still waiting. Will Obama's administration do anything for people like me to help reduce backlog? I doubt such a thing will ever happen. I would see myself and people like me discouraged and start packing our bags and move on with life.
Why do I feel discouraged? If anything is going to happen for the immigrant community when Sen. Obama becomes the President, it is going to be in the lines of CIR 2007. There would be provisions to make illegal immigrants as legal and remove backlogs to family based quota whereas posing harsh restrictions on H1b visas and reducing Green Card quotas and scrap AC21 portability and try to experiment with some new kind of skilled immigration system.
The above is very evident based on the fact that Senator Durbin has been very hostile to EB immigrants. It is evident that Senator Durbin will make the calls when Senator Obama becomes the president.
Please post your opinions. This is a very important discussion. It is very important that the community see what is in store for us when the new Administration takes charge.
A lot of folks in the EB community are looking forward to 2009 thinking something will definitely happen. Yes, something will definitely happen - and that may not help us
2010 Mark Zuckerberg
langagadu
02-12 06:45 PM
Finally Pak agreed Mumbai terror attacks are partly planned on its soil. I hope they come back after few months and say ISI partly involved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7886469.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7886469.stm
more...
Macaca
05-27 05:20 PM
U.S. Probes Infosys Over Visas (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576343070058872708.html) By MIRIAM JORDAN | Wall Street Journal
U.S. authorities are investigating whether an Indian software giant repeatedly violated American visa laws in order to place its own foreign employees in temporary jobs at some big corporate clients in the U.S.
The probe is examining whether Infosys Technologies Ltd. used inexpensive, easy-to-obtain visas meant to cover short-term business visits to the U.S.�instead of the appropriate, but harder to get, work visas�to bring in an unknown number of its employees for longer-term stays, according to people familiar with the matter.
These so-called B-1 business visas are intended for foreign nationals who come to the U.S. for purposes such as attending business conventions, consulting with business associates or installing machinery.
A State Department spokeswoman said the department is investigating Bangalore-based Infosys but declined further comment.
A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, said ICE agents had visited Infosys's U.S. offices. However, she said that "as a matter of policy, the agency can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing investigation."
In a statement Tuesday, Infosys said it "received a subpoena from a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The subpoena requires us to provide information to the grand jury regarding our sponsorships for, and uses of, B-1 business visas."
In a filing Tuesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it "intends to comply with the subpoena and to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation."
Infosys is best known as an outsourcing company that provides India-based computing and other technology services to Western clients. But it also boasts thousands of U.S.-based employees who develop and install software for back-office accounting, logistics and supply-chain management for companies in the retail, finance and manufacturing industries. Infosys doesn't disclose the identity of its clients.
The visa investigation comes amid a national debate in the U.S. over whether foreign workers, particularly in the software sector, are displacing qualified Americans because they are cheaper to employ.
The investigation has spurred the government to say it intends to tighten visa regulations to close loopholes that critics say enable employers to abuse the immigration system.
The probe was sparked by a lawsuit filed in Alabama state court earlier this year by an Infosys employee named Jack "Jay" Palmer Jr., alleging that Infosys misused the B-1 visa program. The lawsuit, which was recently moved to federal court, alleges that Infosys should have used a different visa program, known as H-1B, under which high-skilled professionals, such as software developers, are allowed into the U.S. for longer-term work.
The U.S. issues just 65,000 H-1B visas a year, and demand sometimes exceeds supply. H-1Bs take several months to get and can cost upward of $3,000 per individual. The is no cap on B-1 visas, which can be obtained in a matter of days for $140 each.
In a court filing, Infosys, which acknowledges using B-1 visas, denied the lawsuit's allegations that it had abused them.
In an interview, Paul Gottsegen, Infosys's chief marketing officer, said he couldn't comment on a matter before the court, but he added: "We are currently in the midst of a detailed internal review to understand whether we need to change or tighten controls with the visa-application process. We are moving as quickly as possible on this important work."
After learning of Mr. Palmer's lawsuit, Sen. :DChuck Grassley (R, Iowa):D wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, his staff said, citing the suit and demanding an investigation of the B-1 visa program.
"I'm concerned about fraudulent actions that at least one foreign-based company has allegedly been taking in order get around the requirements and U.S. worker protections�.," said the April 14 letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Visa fraud can carry penalties of 10 years in prison, in addition to fines. Companies found to violate the terms of a visa program such as H-1B can be temporarily suspended from participating in the program.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Infosys had revenue of $6 billion, about two-thirds of which came from North America. To service its U.S. clients, Infosys has become one of the top users of the H-1B visa program, employing about 10,000 H-1B holders in the U.S., according to its annual report. Other large users of the visas include Microsoft Corp. and Indian tech titans Wipro Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
H-1B visa holders can remain in the U.S. for as long as three years and are paid locally; their employers withhold federal and state income tax. B-1 visa holders are paid by the employer from their home country.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Palmer, a principal consultant at Infosys, alleges that Infosys was affected by the limited number of H-1Bs in 2009 and began using B-1s to circumvent H-1B requirements.
His attorney, Kenny Mendelsohn, said: "We are cooperating with investigators from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security."
In March 2010, Mr. Palmer attended meetings in Bangalore, where Infosys officials discussed the need to find "ways to creatively get around the H-1B limitations and process to work the system to increase profits and the value of Infosys' stock," according to the lawsuit. Infosys denies the allegation.
Later, according to Mr. Palmer's complaint, he was asked to prepare letters in support of B-1 applications stating "the employee was coming to the United States for meetings, rather than to work at a job."
After he refused to write such letters, Mr. Palmer was instructed "to keep quiet" by a manager sent from India who confirmed the violations, according to the suit�a claim Infosys denies.
Mr. Palmer reported his concerns to Infosys' corporate counsel, Jeff Friedel, who told him to report them to the company's whistle-blower team, which he did in October 2010, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Friedel didn't reply to a request for comment.
Mr. Palmer's suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for, among other things, breach of terms of employment and emotional distress. Mr. Palmer remains employed by Infosys, but he is not currently doing any work, according to his attorney.
In recent years, Congress has introduced anti-fraud, training and other fees that have significantly raised the price of securing an H-1B visa.
"As Congress has made the H-1B visa category more expensive and more difficult to obtain, companies have searched for alternatives. The B-1 is one such alternative," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University.
"Because the B-1 is nebulous, some companies may be going beyond its intention," he added.
According to State Department regulations, a B-1 visa holder cannot engage in "local employment or labor for hire."
U.S. Moves from Rhetoric to Action on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/25/u-s-moves-from-rhetoric-to-action-on-visas/) By Megha Bahree and Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
What the Infosys Whistleblower Said on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/26/what-the-infosys-whistleblower-said-on-visas/) By Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
U.S. authorities are investigating whether an Indian software giant repeatedly violated American visa laws in order to place its own foreign employees in temporary jobs at some big corporate clients in the U.S.
The probe is examining whether Infosys Technologies Ltd. used inexpensive, easy-to-obtain visas meant to cover short-term business visits to the U.S.�instead of the appropriate, but harder to get, work visas�to bring in an unknown number of its employees for longer-term stays, according to people familiar with the matter.
These so-called B-1 business visas are intended for foreign nationals who come to the U.S. for purposes such as attending business conventions, consulting with business associates or installing machinery.
A State Department spokeswoman said the department is investigating Bangalore-based Infosys but declined further comment.
A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, said ICE agents had visited Infosys's U.S. offices. However, she said that "as a matter of policy, the agency can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing investigation."
In a statement Tuesday, Infosys said it "received a subpoena from a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The subpoena requires us to provide information to the grand jury regarding our sponsorships for, and uses of, B-1 business visas."
In a filing Tuesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it "intends to comply with the subpoena and to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation."
Infosys is best known as an outsourcing company that provides India-based computing and other technology services to Western clients. But it also boasts thousands of U.S.-based employees who develop and install software for back-office accounting, logistics and supply-chain management for companies in the retail, finance and manufacturing industries. Infosys doesn't disclose the identity of its clients.
The visa investigation comes amid a national debate in the U.S. over whether foreign workers, particularly in the software sector, are displacing qualified Americans because they are cheaper to employ.
The investigation has spurred the government to say it intends to tighten visa regulations to close loopholes that critics say enable employers to abuse the immigration system.
The probe was sparked by a lawsuit filed in Alabama state court earlier this year by an Infosys employee named Jack "Jay" Palmer Jr., alleging that Infosys misused the B-1 visa program. The lawsuit, which was recently moved to federal court, alleges that Infosys should have used a different visa program, known as H-1B, under which high-skilled professionals, such as software developers, are allowed into the U.S. for longer-term work.
The U.S. issues just 65,000 H-1B visas a year, and demand sometimes exceeds supply. H-1Bs take several months to get and can cost upward of $3,000 per individual. The is no cap on B-1 visas, which can be obtained in a matter of days for $140 each.
In a court filing, Infosys, which acknowledges using B-1 visas, denied the lawsuit's allegations that it had abused them.
In an interview, Paul Gottsegen, Infosys's chief marketing officer, said he couldn't comment on a matter before the court, but he added: "We are currently in the midst of a detailed internal review to understand whether we need to change or tighten controls with the visa-application process. We are moving as quickly as possible on this important work."
After learning of Mr. Palmer's lawsuit, Sen. :DChuck Grassley (R, Iowa):D wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, his staff said, citing the suit and demanding an investigation of the B-1 visa program.
"I'm concerned about fraudulent actions that at least one foreign-based company has allegedly been taking in order get around the requirements and U.S. worker protections�.," said the April 14 letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Visa fraud can carry penalties of 10 years in prison, in addition to fines. Companies found to violate the terms of a visa program such as H-1B can be temporarily suspended from participating in the program.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Infosys had revenue of $6 billion, about two-thirds of which came from North America. To service its U.S. clients, Infosys has become one of the top users of the H-1B visa program, employing about 10,000 H-1B holders in the U.S., according to its annual report. Other large users of the visas include Microsoft Corp. and Indian tech titans Wipro Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
H-1B visa holders can remain in the U.S. for as long as three years and are paid locally; their employers withhold federal and state income tax. B-1 visa holders are paid by the employer from their home country.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Palmer, a principal consultant at Infosys, alleges that Infosys was affected by the limited number of H-1Bs in 2009 and began using B-1s to circumvent H-1B requirements.
His attorney, Kenny Mendelsohn, said: "We are cooperating with investigators from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security."
In March 2010, Mr. Palmer attended meetings in Bangalore, where Infosys officials discussed the need to find "ways to creatively get around the H-1B limitations and process to work the system to increase profits and the value of Infosys' stock," according to the lawsuit. Infosys denies the allegation.
Later, according to Mr. Palmer's complaint, he was asked to prepare letters in support of B-1 applications stating "the employee was coming to the United States for meetings, rather than to work at a job."
After he refused to write such letters, Mr. Palmer was instructed "to keep quiet" by a manager sent from India who confirmed the violations, according to the suit�a claim Infosys denies.
Mr. Palmer reported his concerns to Infosys' corporate counsel, Jeff Friedel, who told him to report them to the company's whistle-blower team, which he did in October 2010, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Friedel didn't reply to a request for comment.
Mr. Palmer's suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for, among other things, breach of terms of employment and emotional distress. Mr. Palmer remains employed by Infosys, but he is not currently doing any work, according to his attorney.
In recent years, Congress has introduced anti-fraud, training and other fees that have significantly raised the price of securing an H-1B visa.
"As Congress has made the H-1B visa category more expensive and more difficult to obtain, companies have searched for alternatives. The B-1 is one such alternative," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University.
"Because the B-1 is nebulous, some companies may be going beyond its intention," he added.
According to State Department regulations, a B-1 visa holder cannot engage in "local employment or labor for hire."
U.S. Moves from Rhetoric to Action on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/25/u-s-moves-from-rhetoric-to-action-on-visas/) By Megha Bahree and Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
What the Infosys Whistleblower Said on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/26/what-the-infosys-whistleblower-said-on-visas/) By Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
hair Mark Zuckerberg (left) with
Macaca
12-23 10:53 AM
Pelosi's first year as House speaker marked by little change on war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/23/MNOUU26C5.DTL&tsp=1) By Zachary Coile | SF Chronicle, Dec 23, 2007
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
more...
xyzgc
12-25 04:30 PM
We suffer due to the unfairness of a system that hinges upon the place of your birth! We demand that there be no quotas based on "country of birth" and that we ask for equitable treatment.
Singling someone out due to his/her "national origin" should be something we backlogged EB2/3 I folks should understand more than others. And yet if someone from Pakistan gets a green card - we gang up on him and are outraged that someone from a terrorist country got it before us!!!! Does that mean we would be ok as long as he got it after us?
I apologize for singling out Talash. I just got frustrated with the fact that you can come from a small, war-mongering terrorist country and get your gc in a year's time, gloat over it, while our tax money of several years finds its way intothe coffers of the very same nation and we wait patiently for several years to see the green.
It was misdirected anger and I stand corrected for singling out some one like this but it doesn't make my point completely invalid either.
I got plenty of red dots after my mere mention of the stupidity of ganging up on the fella... red dots are ok... it was the messages that came along with that were offensive - traitor , paki pork, etc - I just deleted my posts after that and stopped commenting on that particular thread.
I never hurled insults at others and never intended to - you should see the offline messages people left me and you will be equally surprised educated people can use such a horrible language! I'm quite sure several others didn't do that as well. Most folks have been logical and consistent in their posts.
I gave reds because I got reds - I didn't insult anyone at all. And I'm sure there are many others like me, who didn't participate in this dirty name calling but posted their views openly.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the history of India and Pakistan, nothing woring in discussing organized vs. unorganized religion, nothing wrong with pointing out the the flaws in Islam or any other religion - The problem is that such discussions always end up with insults hurled at each other. While we may start with the noble intention of having a civil discussion about these issues - every thread like this ends up with offensive remarks that drives people away. The simple question then becomes - is it worth it? Is this the place to do it? Would such a thread be allowed to continue on Ron Gotcher's website? I hope the moderators of this site realize that inaction on their part seems like they condone this type of behavior.
Why are you "singling" out this particular thread?
Haven't you seen enough bickering, shouting, name calling on other threads, which are supposedly, solely focused on addressing immigration issues.
How many threads have you seen not ending up in flaming at each others? Nearly, in every thread that is related to immigration, people jump at each others throats. Otherwise, there are threads which post useless visa bulletin predictions (I've done it myself).
And what have you done to stop it, may I ask?:(
All the red dots coming my way are more than welcome... just a small request about the insults .... please be brave enough to post them publicy!
So let us now go back to solving all the controversial theological, anthropological and geopolitical issues. Let us continue to demand for fairness and an immigration system blind to our country of birth - but make sure we point out other people's national origin... no wonder the most anti-immigration people are generally the most recent immigrants.
Agreed.
Singling someone out due to his/her "national origin" should be something we backlogged EB2/3 I folks should understand more than others. And yet if someone from Pakistan gets a green card - we gang up on him and are outraged that someone from a terrorist country got it before us!!!! Does that mean we would be ok as long as he got it after us?
I apologize for singling out Talash. I just got frustrated with the fact that you can come from a small, war-mongering terrorist country and get your gc in a year's time, gloat over it, while our tax money of several years finds its way intothe coffers of the very same nation and we wait patiently for several years to see the green.
It was misdirected anger and I stand corrected for singling out some one like this but it doesn't make my point completely invalid either.
I got plenty of red dots after my mere mention of the stupidity of ganging up on the fella... red dots are ok... it was the messages that came along with that were offensive - traitor , paki pork, etc - I just deleted my posts after that and stopped commenting on that particular thread.
I never hurled insults at others and never intended to - you should see the offline messages people left me and you will be equally surprised educated people can use such a horrible language! I'm quite sure several others didn't do that as well. Most folks have been logical and consistent in their posts.
I gave reds because I got reds - I didn't insult anyone at all. And I'm sure there are many others like me, who didn't participate in this dirty name calling but posted their views openly.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the history of India and Pakistan, nothing woring in discussing organized vs. unorganized religion, nothing wrong with pointing out the the flaws in Islam or any other religion - The problem is that such discussions always end up with insults hurled at each other. While we may start with the noble intention of having a civil discussion about these issues - every thread like this ends up with offensive remarks that drives people away. The simple question then becomes - is it worth it? Is this the place to do it? Would such a thread be allowed to continue on Ron Gotcher's website? I hope the moderators of this site realize that inaction on their part seems like they condone this type of behavior.
Why are you "singling" out this particular thread?
Haven't you seen enough bickering, shouting, name calling on other threads, which are supposedly, solely focused on addressing immigration issues.
How many threads have you seen not ending up in flaming at each others? Nearly, in every thread that is related to immigration, people jump at each others throats. Otherwise, there are threads which post useless visa bulletin predictions (I've done it myself).
And what have you done to stop it, may I ask?:(
All the red dots coming my way are more than welcome... just a small request about the insults .... please be brave enough to post them publicy!
So let us now go back to solving all the controversial theological, anthropological and geopolitical issues. Let us continue to demand for fairness and an immigration system blind to our country of birth - but make sure we point out other people's national origin... no wonder the most anti-immigration people are generally the most recent immigrants.
Agreed.
hot Mark Zuckerberg
unitednations
03-25 12:35 PM
Oh, and I think I should elaborate just a little more.
I am not asking whether the USCIS can or cannot exercise scrutiny on approving 485s where a person, under AC21 provision, switches to a small consulting company.
Of course they can, the 485 is for a full time job, and whether a job with a small consulting company is of a full time nature or not, is up in the air and they can 'scrutinize' it all they want, if they choose to.
My question to UN is whether he thinks if they will choose to go after 485 AC21 job switches to small consulting companies like he thinks they will for small consulting company H-1Bs, and not whether they can.
Thanks again,
You see on all these ac21 issues we rely on uscis memos. Every one of these memos state pending change to the regulations; we are going to follow the principles of this memo.
it has been 8 years and they still haven't changed the regulations. Memos can be changed at their whim at any time.
Currently; uscis position is that if someone ports to another company; they are not supposed to check the ability to pay criteria. However; they left themselvees an out that theey can check the genuineness of the ac21 employer. Becasuse of this last statement; what they have been doing is asking for ac21 employer tax returuns, and quarterly wage reports. If you are already on payroll then size of company doesn't matter. However; if you are not on payrroll and it is a very small company then they can challnge it.
btw; I am not epecting quota to finish early this year. Many companies/lawyers are very frustrated with h-1b right now. I was talking to education evaluator and he told me that there is litteally no business right now. Companies I know of how filed 70 cases last year are not filing any this year due to a combination of issues (iowa issue, lack of approvals and great demand for tansfers by thos who were laid off or had theirr h-1b's cancelled.
Right now; newer companies who don't have much experience with h-1b are going into the lions den without knowing there is a lion in there.
I am not asking whether the USCIS can or cannot exercise scrutiny on approving 485s where a person, under AC21 provision, switches to a small consulting company.
Of course they can, the 485 is for a full time job, and whether a job with a small consulting company is of a full time nature or not, is up in the air and they can 'scrutinize' it all they want, if they choose to.
My question to UN is whether he thinks if they will choose to go after 485 AC21 job switches to small consulting companies like he thinks they will for small consulting company H-1Bs, and not whether they can.
Thanks again,
You see on all these ac21 issues we rely on uscis memos. Every one of these memos state pending change to the regulations; we are going to follow the principles of this memo.
it has been 8 years and they still haven't changed the regulations. Memos can be changed at their whim at any time.
Currently; uscis position is that if someone ports to another company; they are not supposed to check the ability to pay criteria. However; they left themselvees an out that theey can check the genuineness of the ac21 employer. Becasuse of this last statement; what they have been doing is asking for ac21 employer tax returuns, and quarterly wage reports. If you are already on payroll then size of company doesn't matter. However; if you are not on payrroll and it is a very small company then they can challnge it.
btw; I am not epecting quota to finish early this year. Many companies/lawyers are very frustrated with h-1b right now. I was talking to education evaluator and he told me that there is litteally no business right now. Companies I know of how filed 70 cases last year are not filing any this year due to a combination of issues (iowa issue, lack of approvals and great demand for tansfers by thos who were laid off or had theirr h-1b's cancelled.
Right now; newer companies who don't have much experience with h-1b are going into the lions den without knowing there is a lion in there.
more...
house pictures Mark Zuckerberg who
485Mbe4001
08-05 03:16 PM
Wow...good for you...welcome to America...
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
tattoo who is mark zuckerberg married
desi3933
03-23 05:09 PM
Wow...that is a pretty harsh list. Is it possible for you to politely point out that you need to prove legal status from your last entry into the country on H1B and not go all the way back to 2000 giving contracts and all ?
Two different things -
Legal Status to be shown from last entry for I-485 approval under 245(k). Actually the out of status days could be as much as 180 calendar days. However, USCIS can ask any information to verify any data on Form G-325a (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-325a.pdf) (Biographic Information). One of the important info is Employment History.
Two different things -
Legal Status to be shown from last entry for I-485 approval under 245(k). Actually the out of status days could be as much as 180 calendar days. However, USCIS can ask any information to verify any data on Form G-325a (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-325a.pdf) (Biographic Information). One of the important info is Employment History.
more...
pictures who is mark zuckerberg married
paskal
07-15 03:07 AM
Thanks. I will look into it further when I get a chance. the number of GC granted in a year is complicated- and for the moment I speak offhand so correct me if needed. Till 2005, the recapture clouded the numbers. After that EB3 benefited from a Schedule A recapture that went almost entirely to EB3, a lot to EB3 Philipenes and a good chunk to EB3 India.
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
sc3,
here are the allotments as posted elsewhere.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (EB India allocations)
------------------------------------
EB1 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
Continuing on what i said- till 2005 there was recapture. 2006 reflects what would happen with a vertical spillover for both EB2 and 3 India- about 3,000 GC a year. In 2007, both (esp EB3I) struck pay dirt because everyone became current in July. Under a situation where all categories are current, Gc are distributed exclusively by RD and country quota is thrown out of the window. That is why so many GC were given to EB3 I last year- it makes sense because this is the largest waiting group.
However July 07 is not coming back. If vertical spillover continues, 2006 will become the reality. In that situation the waits for both EB2 and EB3 India will be simply indefinite. Unfortunately for EB3 I, they are indefinite either way- UNLESS we get more GC numbers.
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
sc3,
here are the allotments as posted elsewhere.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (EB India allocations)
------------------------------------
EB1 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
Continuing on what i said- till 2005 there was recapture. 2006 reflects what would happen with a vertical spillover for both EB2 and 3 India- about 3,000 GC a year. In 2007, both (esp EB3I) struck pay dirt because everyone became current in July. Under a situation where all categories are current, Gc are distributed exclusively by RD and country quota is thrown out of the window. That is why so many GC were given to EB3 I last year- it makes sense because this is the largest waiting group.
However July 07 is not coming back. If vertical spillover continues, 2006 will become the reality. In that situation the waits for both EB2 and EB3 India will be simply indefinite. Unfortunately for EB3 I, they are indefinite either way- UNLESS we get more GC numbers.
dresses who is mark zuckerberg married
minimalist
08-05 10:13 AM
If you find enough people and have solid plan in place, I am willing to pay anywhere between $500 to $1000 towards the lawyer's fees....
I am EB3-I and I have no intentions to port to EB2. But if you are planning to try to stop people who are willing to go through the hoops to get it done, all the best for you. In my opinion there is no legal ground for what you are trying.
This is protectionism at it's best. Think about it.
I am EB3-I and I have no intentions to port to EB2. But if you are planning to try to stop people who are willing to go through the hoops to get it done, all the best for you. In my opinion there is no legal ground for what you are trying.
This is protectionism at it's best. Think about it.
more...
makeup who is mark zuckerberg married
babloo_73
05-01 11:29 AM
When in college students used to rag others just because they were ragged when they joined the college. It�s not because they want to, it is just because they went through it. Indian software companies are just like, I worked enough in software industry and I have even been on call 24 hours but the truth is, it was never 12 hours or 10 hours work every day. Yes, occasionally I had 12 hours work which is the same in every industry and I used to get calls in the middle of the night at least once or twice during the night, but its not 10 hours work everyday. We want to impress our boss by working 10 hours, that�s the truth; it�s not that your boss wants.
Similarly, in India people go to work on Saturday not because they have work but to show their face to their PM. Even if God comes down and says that people in India work 10 hours everyday, I cannot believe it. They might be in office for 10-12 hours but that does not mean they are working. It is the people who should be blamed for this. Yesterday�s programmer or today�s PM, and they expect the programmer to be there in the office for 10 hours just because they went through it. I am an ex TCSer, things worked exactly as I said. It is never going to change. All these talks about stress and coding 10 hours straight come on.....:cool:
I partly disagree... I had worked in 6 different companies in India and in 3 companies, i had to work for more than 12 hours a day. What you are saying might be true for Maintenance projects, but it is definitely not true for development projects particularly when you working on a tight schedule...
Similarly, in India people go to work on Saturday not because they have work but to show their face to their PM. Even if God comes down and says that people in India work 10 hours everyday, I cannot believe it. They might be in office for 10-12 hours but that does not mean they are working. It is the people who should be blamed for this. Yesterday�s programmer or today�s PM, and they expect the programmer to be there in the office for 10 hours just because they went through it. I am an ex TCSer, things worked exactly as I said. It is never going to change. All these talks about stress and coding 10 hours straight come on.....:cool:
I partly disagree... I had worked in 6 different companies in India and in 3 companies, i had to work for more than 12 hours a day. What you are saying might be true for Maintenance projects, but it is definitely not true for development projects particularly when you working on a tight schedule...
girlfriend zuckerberg married to. who
krishna
02-21 12:57 PM
I am pretty sure he has figured out that he will not last in Congress. Hence he has chosen the route of being a TV show host and wants to try and influence policy in washington thro' his rants. He is nothing but a grumpy old man who vents his frustration on immigrants through his rants on TV. It is always good to know how people like him think and can try to influence policy but we should tune him out because what he says is irrelevant.
hairstyles who is mark zuckerberg married
Macaca
12-21 09:53 AM
Despite �High Note,� Bush Scolds Congress as Wasteful (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21bush.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1198249370-yXwz0kW/+W6bJYa4zIwlqA) By STEVEN LEE MYERS | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Having beaten back most of the Democrats� legislative initiatives, President Bush chided Congress on Thursday for wasteful spending and announced that his budget director would seek ways to reverse some of the thousands of spending projects attached to a huge spending bill.
Mr. Bush said he and the Congress had ended the year �on a high note,� welcoming a new energy bill, provisions to help people struggling to refinance mortgages, a deferral of the alternative minimum tax that could have affected millions of middle-class taxpayers and an agreement on a $555 billion spending plan that avoided new taxes.
But reflecting the partisan divides that overshadowed those accomplishments, he promptly criticized Congress, citing a sluggish pace of work, refusal to adopt other pieces of legislation important to the White House and its affection for pet spending projects known as earmarks.
�The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year,� Mr. Bush said, returning to a near-constant theme of accusing the Democrats who control Congress of fiscal irresponsibility. �When Congress wastes so much time and leaves its work to the final days before Christmas, it is not a responsible way to run this government.�
The flurry of activity virtually ending the first session of the 110th Congress left many issues unresolved, setting the stage for new confrontations when Congress returns after the holidays. They include expanding a federal health care program for children, extending legislation allowing intelligence agencies to monitor communications and approving more spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress has so far agreed to $70 billion of the $196 billion the White House has requested in emergency spending for the wars.
Mr. Bush offered no indication that he would be any more compromising with the Democrats.
�Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people�s business,� he said. �The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years and campaign in even years.�
For Mr. Bush and the White House, who began the year facing Democratic majorities in Congress, the mood near the end of the session was almost ebullient. After shoring up wavering support for Iraq from Republicans in the summer, the White House managed to keep the party united, defeating Democratic initiatives, even if failing to win Mr. Bush�s own proposals, most prominently changes in immigration laws.
�On taxes, and national security issues generally, Republicans are in lockstep,� the White House director of legislative affairs, Candi Wolff, said in an interview, describing the president�s ability to hold his party. �We could hold the House on most votes at 146, and therefore had the veto-sustaining strength to say that bad legislation can�t get through.�
At his news conference, Mr. Bush said that the budget director, James A. Nussle, would review 9,800 earmarks in the last spending bill, along with 2,100 more attached to a military spending bill passed earlier.
Mr. Nussle�s spokesman, Sean M. Kevelighan, said the administration could seek to cut or redirect some spending projects approved by Congress.
�There are potential options available,� Mr. Kevelighan said, adding that it was too soon to say what, if any, spending projects could be eliminated or changed.
Frustrated Democrats accused the president of hypocrisy for attacking them after years of increasing spending under a Republican-controlled Congress. They responded by saying the earmarks in current spending bill were far more transparent � and so less wasteful � than those passed by Republican majorities during Mr. Bush�s presidency.
�Nobody said we were going to end them,� Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a telephone interview in which he boasted of two of his own earmarks for schools and the police in his district. �We said you�d know who put them in.�
WASHINGTON � Having beaten back most of the Democrats� legislative initiatives, President Bush chided Congress on Thursday for wasteful spending and announced that his budget director would seek ways to reverse some of the thousands of spending projects attached to a huge spending bill.
Mr. Bush said he and the Congress had ended the year �on a high note,� welcoming a new energy bill, provisions to help people struggling to refinance mortgages, a deferral of the alternative minimum tax that could have affected millions of middle-class taxpayers and an agreement on a $555 billion spending plan that avoided new taxes.
But reflecting the partisan divides that overshadowed those accomplishments, he promptly criticized Congress, citing a sluggish pace of work, refusal to adopt other pieces of legislation important to the White House and its affection for pet spending projects known as earmarks.
�The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year,� Mr. Bush said, returning to a near-constant theme of accusing the Democrats who control Congress of fiscal irresponsibility. �When Congress wastes so much time and leaves its work to the final days before Christmas, it is not a responsible way to run this government.�
The flurry of activity virtually ending the first session of the 110th Congress left many issues unresolved, setting the stage for new confrontations when Congress returns after the holidays. They include expanding a federal health care program for children, extending legislation allowing intelligence agencies to monitor communications and approving more spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress has so far agreed to $70 billion of the $196 billion the White House has requested in emergency spending for the wars.
Mr. Bush offered no indication that he would be any more compromising with the Democrats.
�Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people�s business,� he said. �The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years and campaign in even years.�
For Mr. Bush and the White House, who began the year facing Democratic majorities in Congress, the mood near the end of the session was almost ebullient. After shoring up wavering support for Iraq from Republicans in the summer, the White House managed to keep the party united, defeating Democratic initiatives, even if failing to win Mr. Bush�s own proposals, most prominently changes in immigration laws.
�On taxes, and national security issues generally, Republicans are in lockstep,� the White House director of legislative affairs, Candi Wolff, said in an interview, describing the president�s ability to hold his party. �We could hold the House on most votes at 146, and therefore had the veto-sustaining strength to say that bad legislation can�t get through.�
At his news conference, Mr. Bush said that the budget director, James A. Nussle, would review 9,800 earmarks in the last spending bill, along with 2,100 more attached to a military spending bill passed earlier.
Mr. Nussle�s spokesman, Sean M. Kevelighan, said the administration could seek to cut or redirect some spending projects approved by Congress.
�There are potential options available,� Mr. Kevelighan said, adding that it was too soon to say what, if any, spending projects could be eliminated or changed.
Frustrated Democrats accused the president of hypocrisy for attacking them after years of increasing spending under a Republican-controlled Congress. They responded by saying the earmarks in current spending bill were far more transparent � and so less wasteful � than those passed by Republican majorities during Mr. Bush�s presidency.
�Nobody said we were going to end them,� Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a telephone interview in which he boasted of two of his own earmarks for schools and the police in his district. �We said you�d know who put them in.�
unitednations
07-08 04:30 PM
unitednations..!!
r u the same from immigrationportal.com.. !! people r looking out for u in this immigration greencard darkness..
Yes, that is the same person. I felt discouraged and decided to not actively post; unless there is some real interesting issue.
I consider this a real interesting issue.
r u the same from immigrationportal.com.. !! people r looking out for u in this immigration greencard darkness..
Yes, that is the same person. I felt discouraged and decided to not actively post; unless there is some real interesting issue.
I consider this a real interesting issue.
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
No comments:
Post a Comment