gc_check
04-07 07:42 PM
H1B program for sure needs to be reformed, a constructive reform, not the one we see in this bill now. Some of the items in bill would indirectly kill the program than reform it. I'm very concerned, given the current situation; the H1B numbers running out on the opening day itself, this bill might get some consideration and attention. At least if we manage a get a clause that allows people with approved I-140 or labour apply for AOS, even when the EB Visa numbers are not available will help many many members of this group. Atleast you can get an EAD and get out of this H1B mess...
Every one going through this process have a moral responsibility and have to do their part, Even if not part of the core, we need to atleast email, mail or call Senator/Congressmen office when required and contribute what you can to IV to help the folks who put in their precious time and work more or less full time on time, in spite having their own family and full time work.
Every one going through this process have a moral responsibility and have to do their part, Even if not part of the core, we need to atleast email, mail or call Senator/Congressmen office when required and contribute what you can to IV to help the folks who put in their precious time and work more or less full time on time, in spite having their own family and full time work.
wallpaper cash flow statements.
file485
07-08 09:24 AM
Please post URL of this file. Thanks!
googled it and found the link..it might be helpful to many folks..
http://www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
googled it and found the link..it might be helpful to many folks..
http://www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
sanju
12-30 01:20 AM
I think you missed my point. Which was that the 'solution' that Mr rinku1112 was suggesting, destabilizing Pakistan by funding dissident groups, is something that Pakistan already suspects India is doing. And there might be some truth to it. So, then, Pakistan would want to fund groups that would try to destabilize India.
Thats the vicious cycle.
Your point is understood and well taken, however, the only difference is, Pakistan is already committed and entirely focused in their attempts to destabilize India. The way Pakistan behaves, it seems that their sole purpose is to destabilize India. Pakistan have carried such activities since 1947, the more so after 1971. On the other hand, India is not committed to destabilize Pakistan, not yet. Which is ok, because Pakistan has enough percentage of its committed population doing a good job in destabilizing Pakistan. India is not yet spending its resources, and we all want India to spend substantial budget, say over $50 billion an year, to destabilize & disintegrate Pakistan. India is not directly involved in any destabilization of Pakistan, and the news on Geo TV and other bull shit channels are all pure lies. But those news will be ok once Indian government gets directly involved in the counter offensive.
.
Thats the vicious cycle.
Your point is understood and well taken, however, the only difference is, Pakistan is already committed and entirely focused in their attempts to destabilize India. The way Pakistan behaves, it seems that their sole purpose is to destabilize India. Pakistan have carried such activities since 1947, the more so after 1971. On the other hand, India is not committed to destabilize Pakistan, not yet. Which is ok, because Pakistan has enough percentage of its committed population doing a good job in destabilizing Pakistan. India is not yet spending its resources, and we all want India to spend substantial budget, say over $50 billion an year, to destabilize & disintegrate Pakistan. India is not directly involved in any destabilization of Pakistan, and the news on Geo TV and other bull shit channels are all pure lies. But those news will be ok once Indian government gets directly involved in the counter offensive.
.
2011 to the cash flow statement
rockstart
07-14 08:29 PM
I agree, does anybody have a link to the policy of how spill over of visa numbers works?
Still better abolish Eb1/ Eb2/ Eb3 when there is no EBx in H1 then why EBx in GC? come on guys stratification on EB is reality along with preference order set by CIS. What is stopping eb3 guys from moving to eb2?
Still better abolish Eb1/ Eb2/ Eb3 when there is no EBx in H1 then why EBx in GC? come on guys stratification on EB is reality along with preference order set by CIS. What is stopping eb3 guys from moving to eb2?
more...
damialok
04-08 01:27 AM
No, I aint a realtor but just a savvy investor who is waiting for his GC and wants to make passive income. I dont suggest ppl to buy 3 homes. What I wanted to convey is that in my humble opinion, its one way to make money while you wait for GC. Be judicious and assume risk based on your tolerance levels. I felt that if I could present folks with real life examples of making money, thats a compelling statement,.
And since Uncle Sam provides tax benefits that include interest deductions and capital gains waivers, its a very viable option.
My point is, think of your home as an investment that also serves as a place to reside.
Figuratively, this is like a Thanksgiving Day sale and the door busters are already gone!
And since Uncle Sam provides tax benefits that include interest deductions and capital gains waivers, its a very viable option.
My point is, think of your home as an investment that also serves as a place to reside.
Figuratively, this is like a Thanksgiving Day sale and the door busters are already gone!
amsgc
08-08 11:44 PM
.
more...
logiclife
02-21 11:16 AM
Today, Lou Dobbs has written on more article.
This time, Lou Dobbs is having a lot of admiration and good words to say about.....guess what ...LOU DOBBS.
Yes, Lou Dobbs loves Lou Dobbs. He has created a whole new class of people in this country. He says that there are 150 million "Lou Dobbs Democrats" in the country the no ones knows about.
Read the whole article here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/Dobbs.February21/index.html)
Excerpts of Lou Dobbs talking about how great and popular Lou Dobbs is...
The ascension of the so-called Lou Dobbs Democrats in the November election gave hope to many that our representatives and senators were awakening to the need to represent the largest single group of voters in the country, 150 million working men and women and their families.
--Lou Dobbs, Feb 21 2007.
The Democratic Leadership Council is obviously frightened that my brand of independent populism is a threat.
--Lou Dobbs again, on Feb 21 2007, when absolutely in awe of Lou Dobbs.
I call that independent populism, not neo-populism. And I also call that truth.
--Lou Dobbs, calling Lou Dobbs an INDEPENDENT populist while writing a column praising Lou Dobbs.
In the case of the Democratic Party, there seems to be a rising fear that more Lou Dobbs Democrats are on the way and are going to demand truth over slogans and an improving reality for working men and women rather than ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.
--Lou Dobbs, describing the Lou Dobbs brand of Democrats.
Geeezzz...really. Why doesnt he just run for office instead of campaigning from CNN.
This time, Lou Dobbs is having a lot of admiration and good words to say about.....guess what ...LOU DOBBS.
Yes, Lou Dobbs loves Lou Dobbs. He has created a whole new class of people in this country. He says that there are 150 million "Lou Dobbs Democrats" in the country the no ones knows about.
Read the whole article here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/Dobbs.February21/index.html)
Excerpts of Lou Dobbs talking about how great and popular Lou Dobbs is...
The ascension of the so-called Lou Dobbs Democrats in the November election gave hope to many that our representatives and senators were awakening to the need to represent the largest single group of voters in the country, 150 million working men and women and their families.
--Lou Dobbs, Feb 21 2007.
The Democratic Leadership Council is obviously frightened that my brand of independent populism is a threat.
--Lou Dobbs again, on Feb 21 2007, when absolutely in awe of Lou Dobbs.
I call that independent populism, not neo-populism. And I also call that truth.
--Lou Dobbs, calling Lou Dobbs an INDEPENDENT populist while writing a column praising Lou Dobbs.
In the case of the Democratic Party, there seems to be a rising fear that more Lou Dobbs Democrats are on the way and are going to demand truth over slogans and an improving reality for working men and women rather than ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.
--Lou Dobbs, describing the Lou Dobbs brand of Democrats.
Geeezzz...really. Why doesnt he just run for office instead of campaigning from CNN.
2010 Format Of Indirect Cash Flow
Macaca
03-05 09:08 AM
Some paras from Slowing Down The Revolving Door (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401201.html)
A House committee has approved legislation that would lengthen employment restrictions for federal procurement officials who take certain jobs when they leave government, from one year to two years. It also would prohibit newly hired procurement officials from awarding contracts to their former employers for two years.
Tightening employment restrictions will bring more accountability to government, contends Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Recent lobbying and procurement scandals are proof that something needs to be done, he points out.
Congress has been trying to regulate the revolving door -- the rotation of federal officials and business executives into and out of government -- since at least 1872, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Over the decades, Congress has sought to protect the government from former employees who took sensitive information with them and used it to promote the interests of a private party. Congress also has devised rules to discourage federal employees from cashing in on their inside knowledge or becoming snarled in conflicts of interest with companies doing business with the government.
A House committee has approved legislation that would lengthen employment restrictions for federal procurement officials who take certain jobs when they leave government, from one year to two years. It also would prohibit newly hired procurement officials from awarding contracts to their former employers for two years.
Tightening employment restrictions will bring more accountability to government, contends Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Recent lobbying and procurement scandals are proof that something needs to be done, he points out.
Congress has been trying to regulate the revolving door -- the rotation of federal officials and business executives into and out of government -- since at least 1872, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Over the decades, Congress has sought to protect the government from former employees who took sensitive information with them and used it to promote the interests of a private party. Congress also has devised rules to discourage federal employees from cashing in on their inside knowledge or becoming snarled in conflicts of interest with companies doing business with the government.
more...
bfadlia
01-07 04:09 PM
Thank you so much for the information although I think I never asked about the trinity or salvation or the return of the messiah (only said the yearning for that return should not be used to justify one people displacing another and taking their land).. I respect jesus.. all muslims do.. let god deal with us for not accepting jesus as his son and just please stop using him as a scarecrow and leave Mohamed alone too..
peace.
these are the comments i got for this post
Getting into wrong area!
you moron
did u even read the posts.. I'm asking people to get out of that area.. to stop mixing religion with politics
peace.
these are the comments i got for this post
Getting into wrong area!
you moron
did u even read the posts.. I'm asking people to get out of that area.. to stop mixing religion with politics
hair Finance Charge Calculator - examples of indirect method cash flow statement
ingegarcia
05-16 11:32 AM
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
It makes me very sad to read this kind of comments. Are we DISHONEST because we work for a consultant company? I see that DISCRIMINATION comes in a GREAT variety of flavors.
It makes me very sad to read this kind of comments. Are we DISHONEST because we work for a consultant company? I see that DISCRIMINATION comes in a GREAT variety of flavors.
more...
paskal
07-14 05:37 PM
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.
Paskal,
Your post made me look again into the text. Alright, I see some things now, doesnt fully explain the lack of EB3 numbers but let me summarize..
EB2-ROW-> EB2(general-pool). I have always conceded that this should be the case. (for those who disagree, see my initial posts).
My point always has been on the spillover of EB1 numbers, that very clearly is to be shared amongst EB2 and EB3 (and if you apply USCIS "new" yard-stick), this will be first-come-first serve, so pretty much will help the most regressed category. However, it is my contention that in making the change of the Veritcal/Horizontal spillover (is there any "memo" on this?), USCIS went a step further than what they should have done. They denied EB1 spillover to EB3.
For the rest EB3ers, here is the relevant post that supports EB2-ROW to Eb2->general-pool. But it does not say anything about EB1 numbers
"If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limit ....
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.
Paskal,
Your post made me look again into the text. Alright, I see some things now, doesnt fully explain the lack of EB3 numbers but let me summarize..
EB2-ROW-> EB2(general-pool). I have always conceded that this should be the case. (for those who disagree, see my initial posts).
My point always has been on the spillover of EB1 numbers, that very clearly is to be shared amongst EB2 and EB3 (and if you apply USCIS "new" yard-stick), this will be first-come-first serve, so pretty much will help the most regressed category. However, it is my contention that in making the change of the Veritcal/Horizontal spillover (is there any "memo" on this?), USCIS went a step further than what they should have done. They denied EB1 spillover to EB3.
For the rest EB3ers, here is the relevant post that supports EB2-ROW to Eb2->general-pool. But it does not say anything about EB1 numbers
"If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limit ....
hot For the rest of the cash flow
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.
more...
house Cash Flow Statement
chintu25
08-28 09:36 AM
Parts of the conversetion in Embassy between the Visa Officer and an applicant for a visa:
O: All your responses must be oral, OK?
A: OK
O: What school did you go to?
A: Oral.
After a short explaination, the conversation continued:
O: What is your date of birth?
A: July fifteenth.
O: What year?
A: Every year
:D
O: All your responses must be oral, OK?
A: OK
O: What school did you go to?
A: Oral.
After a short explaination, the conversation continued:
O: What is your date of birth?
A: July fifteenth.
O: What year?
A: Every year
:D
tattoo cash flow statement
alterego
07-13 06:13 PM
Needless to say that the distincation between EB2 and EB3 has become so meaniningless now. How many positions really satisfy the EB2 requirements? From what I heard that most people just try to get around the system to get an EB2. One of the persons who filed EB2 told me that a high school graduate would probably be able to work in that position too.
Just my observation.[/QUOTE]
If you believe this to be the case. ie that a high school graduate should be able to do that job. Then that person should not get a green card for that job.
People, please think before you post and write letters. It is important to be rational and not put your foot in your mouth.
This is EB immigration and it is hierarchial. That is quite simply a fact not an opinion. The sooner people understand that, the better, and then everyone can channel their frustrations into broader fixes. Unless that can be done we will see these less than well planned, less than well coordinated, fitful efforts, and an internecine warfare that will make us a laughing stock and undermine the heroic efforts of IV core.
Just my observation.[/QUOTE]
If you believe this to be the case. ie that a high school graduate should be able to do that job. Then that person should not get a green card for that job.
People, please think before you post and write letters. It is important to be rational and not put your foot in your mouth.
This is EB immigration and it is hierarchial. That is quite simply a fact not an opinion. The sooner people understand that, the better, and then everyone can channel their frustrations into broader fixes. Unless that can be done we will see these less than well planned, less than well coordinated, fitful efforts, and an internecine warfare that will make us a laughing stock and undermine the heroic efforts of IV core.
more...
pictures Cash flow statement template
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
dresses Cash flow statement template:
psvk
08-05 12:25 PM
This thread is causing unhealthy division between EB2 and EB3. This thread should be closed and people should concentrate on the call campaign instead on fighting each other.
Prefer to refrain from adding fuel to Sunny's reply as this thread is causing more rift than good.
Agree this thread should be closed and deleted.
Moderator: Is there any way people(ID's) don't contribute, don't get to open new threads if not posting comments( and dots too).
Prefer to refrain from adding fuel to Sunny's reply as this thread is causing more rift than good.
Agree this thread should be closed and deleted.
Moderator: Is there any way people(ID's) don't contribute, don't get to open new threads if not posting comments( and dots too).
more...
makeup the cash flow statement.
hopefulgc
08-05 11:23 AM
I am requesting an amendment to the spelling of "mahaul".
I think it would sound better if we spelled it as "mahole" :D
:DGuys ,
The "mahaul"(environment) seems so Tense around the IV forums that I thought of making a thread to share some light humor / Jokes etc
Here are some funny quotes to start with
I don't think President fully understands this immigration thing.
Like today, when they asked him about amnesty, he said it's horrible
when anyone loses their memory." --Jay Leno
"As you know, today was Don't Take Your Immigrant To Work Day
here in Los Angeles. No, all across the nation they had a Day Without
Immigrants, is what they call it. Or, as Native Americans call it, the
good ol' days." --Jay Leno
I think it would sound better if we spelled it as "mahole" :D
:DGuys ,
The "mahaul"(environment) seems so Tense around the IV forums that I thought of making a thread to share some light humor / Jokes etc
Here are some funny quotes to start with
I don't think President fully understands this immigration thing.
Like today, when they asked him about amnesty, he said it's horrible
when anyone loses their memory." --Jay Leno
"As you know, today was Don't Take Your Immigrant To Work Day
here in Los Angeles. No, all across the nation they had a Day Without
Immigrants, is what they call it. Or, as Native Americans call it, the
good ol' days." --Jay Leno
girlfriend cash flow statement indirect
HopeSprings
08-06 10:48 AM
Although the discussion has deteriorated to a point where it will not be healthy anymore, these are valid questions.
I think a good compromise would be if interfiling is allowed only if the candidate was eligible for the EB2 position at the time of filing the EB3 labor. The current rule punishes those who go to grad school full-time, especially if you did a PhD but do not qualify for EB1.
sroyc,
What a resolution!!! I completely agree with you. Interfiling should NOT be scrapped but limited to people who qualified for the later category (EB2/EB1) on the date of their PD.
I think a good compromise would be if interfiling is allowed only if the candidate was eligible for the EB2 position at the time of filing the EB3 labor. The current rule punishes those who go to grad school full-time, especially if you did a PhD but do not qualify for EB1.
sroyc,
What a resolution!!! I completely agree with you. Interfiling should NOT be scrapped but limited to people who qualified for the later category (EB2/EB1) on the date of their PD.
hairstyles Indirect method cash flow
axp817
04-07 01:28 PM
I wonder what the chances are, of this passing and becoming Law and CIR not passing.
Anyway, I am going to/already have started spreading the word, and will continue to support IV through funds and other means to help prevent this from happening.
Anyway, I am going to/already have started spreading the word, and will continue to support IV through funds and other means to help prevent this from happening.
learning01
05-24 02:09 PM
threads and postings. Since he is challenging and throwing baby tantrums on a forum, of all things, let's have it.
Here, I quote from his first troll post in this thread:
wages have been stagnated for the last five years.
Now, my friend Communique can you back this up with reliable references and links. Also, can you rebut, point by point on what I said about Lou Dobbs.
Even in the commentary in the link given by this thread's starter, there is all kinds of rants from Lou and not one, I repeat not one senctence, let alone one paragraph on issues affecting legal immigration.
I have said earlier: we have to stay focussed on the retrogression and backlog issues. That's what I have been urging Communique and others in this thread. Increase or decrease of H1 is not our goal here. In fact, I should not discussing this. I was trying to bring all folks here to our focussed goals and action on hand.
I've said this before: I usually dont like casting aspersions, but take a look at a lot of Communique's posts. Some look like they were copied and pasted word for word from the NumbersUsa or FAIR site. And now he's defending Lou Dobbs. Using terms like "mass migration" "unchecked immigration", etc. He claims to be an H1B, and he's trolling Lou Dobbs. I think most people on this site can see through the facade.
Here, I quote from his first troll post in this thread:
wages have been stagnated for the last five years.
Now, my friend Communique can you back this up with reliable references and links. Also, can you rebut, point by point on what I said about Lou Dobbs.
Even in the commentary in the link given by this thread's starter, there is all kinds of rants from Lou and not one, I repeat not one senctence, let alone one paragraph on issues affecting legal immigration.
I have said earlier: we have to stay focussed on the retrogression and backlog issues. That's what I have been urging Communique and others in this thread. Increase or decrease of H1 is not our goal here. In fact, I should not discussing this. I was trying to bring all folks here to our focussed goals and action on hand.
I've said this before: I usually dont like casting aspersions, but take a look at a lot of Communique's posts. Some look like they were copied and pasted word for word from the NumbersUsa or FAIR site. And now he's defending Lou Dobbs. Using terms like "mass migration" "unchecked immigration", etc. He claims to be an H1B, and he's trolling Lou Dobbs. I think most people on this site can see through the facade.
mirage
08-05 08:05 AM
In your example the EB-3 guy was in the green card line before the EB-2 guy. Why on earth should he be asked to come in line after EB-2 guy if he decides to file a new one under EB-2. Why did not you wake up when Labor Substitution was going on. that was something which was utter non sense. People deciding to go for Green card in 2007 stood ahead of people from 2002 by substittuting a 2001 labor. Thank God it's gone.
What i mean is: Porting should not be an option based on the LENGTH OF WAITING TIME in EB3 status. That is what it is most commonly used for, thus causing a serious disadvantage to EB2 filers (who did not port).
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
What i mean is: Porting should not be an option based on the LENGTH OF WAITING TIME in EB3 status. That is what it is most commonly used for, thus causing a serious disadvantage to EB2 filers (who did not port).
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment