skymoon
06-20 10:21 AM
In case, if we dont have a birth certificate, I understand we need to submit 2 affidavits and NA certificate from the place where we were born.
My question is, do we need them in original or copies will work?
If we need originals, getting them from India takes time...
Pl advice. Thanks
My question is, do we need them in original or copies will work?
If we need originals, getting them from India takes time...
Pl advice. Thanks
wallpaper MILWAUKEE — October 28
dealsnet
04-28 05:19 PM
I did send my wife's and my daughter's RFE in one package. But have separate cover lettter and folder. One packet is enough, clearly distiguish between two set of papers.
My wife and I got RFE on medical. Now I am sending response to RFE. Do I need to send the RFE response individually by FEDEX or Can I send both of us responses in one FEDEX package? Please advise. Thanks.
My wife and I got RFE on medical. Now I am sending response to RFE. Do I need to send the RFE response individually by FEDEX or Can I send both of us responses in one FEDEX package? Please advise. Thanks.
rajeshj_18
12-29 12:32 PM
Hi,
If a H1B visa holder is in US, i know it is possible to transfer H1B to a different comapny in US. But can anyone help me understand if the same is possible if the person having the H1B visa is in india currently?
Details
Using H1B visa, the person has worked in US for first 3 years. Now the person has applied for H1B extension and still the petition papers have not yet come. After applying extension the person has gone back to India. The person's current company is hesitating to send him back to US.
Question
After getting the petition papers, can one transfer H1B visa to a different company staying in india itself and them come to US via new comapany?
Thanks in advance.
If a H1B visa holder is in US, i know it is possible to transfer H1B to a different comapny in US. But can anyone help me understand if the same is possible if the person having the H1B visa is in india currently?
Details
Using H1B visa, the person has worked in US for first 3 years. Now the person has applied for H1B extension and still the petition papers have not yet come. After applying extension the person has gone back to India. The person's current company is hesitating to send him back to US.
Question
After getting the petition papers, can one transfer H1B visa to a different company staying in india itself and them come to US via new comapany?
Thanks in advance.
2011 Summerfest#39;s south end
TheHulk
11-30 08:22 PM
Hi,
My spouse was on H1, the applied for H4 which was approved but he start date was incorrect, so an I102 was applied to get the I-94 corrected , we got the dates incorrect again so the lawyer applied for correct of dates again (October 2010). This whole thing has been going on for an year now.
In the mean time, we had a family emergency and my wife had to go to India , She went on a valid AdvanceParole. ( We have a pending 485 , so got an AP also)
Today we received a mail from USCIS, asking her to attend an interview regarding this I-94 replacement.
. She is not in US
. She submitted all the I94 cards she had at the Aiport
1. Will she have any problem coming back. She was always on Status. NO issues there
2. Is there any way to postpone the interview ?
3. Does it affect my I-485
4. What is the best course of action
My spouse was on H1, the applied for H4 which was approved but he start date was incorrect, so an I102 was applied to get the I-94 corrected , we got the dates incorrect again so the lawyer applied for correct of dates again (October 2010). This whole thing has been going on for an year now.
In the mean time, we had a family emergency and my wife had to go to India , She went on a valid AdvanceParole. ( We have a pending 485 , so got an AP also)
Today we received a mail from USCIS, asking her to attend an interview regarding this I-94 replacement.
. She is not in US
. She submitted all the I94 cards she had at the Aiport
1. Will she have any problem coming back. She was always on Status. NO issues there
2. Is there any way to postpone the interview ?
3. Does it affect my I-485
4. What is the best course of action
more...
kirupa
08-22 06:13 PM
Simply create a button that links to the zip file. Instead of linking to a web site, link to the URL of the file instead!
chanduv23
10-04 07:07 PM
Tri State has a volunteer Mr Mukund who has dedicated his time and efforts in developing this portal
http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com
This will be the focal point for information and activities in the Tri State Area.
Tri State members, please add a link to this site to your signature.
http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com
This will be the focal point for information and activities in the Tri State Area.
Tri State members, please add a link to this site to your signature.
more...
semiGator
12-16 10:39 AM
As the article stated there are 47 million latinos and majority of them are citizens.....we don't have that kind of numbers to make an impact on either party.
2010 About Summerfest
Macaca
05-19 07:54 AM
3 Months of Tense Talks Led to Immigration Deal (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) and ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
more...
doshhar
07-04 01:31 PM
Illegal non-immigrants did the rally to local USCIS offices. It would be good if we pick one day in 2nd week of July and have a rally to local USCIS offices. This will immediately catch the media attention.
Rally news should be spread out to media so we can get enough coverage?
Let's discuss if you guys like this idea.
Rally news should be spread out to media so we can get enough coverage?
Let's discuss if you guys like this idea.
hair Rodrigo y Gabriela, Summerfest
Blog Feeds
09-18 10:10 AM
From TPMMuckraker: Late Update: AILA spokesman George Tzamaras confirms to TPMmuckraker that, according to an extensive search of the group's membership database, no one from South Carolina by the name Joe Wilson or Addison Wilson has ever been a member.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/american-immigration-lawyers-association-confirms-joe-wilson-was-never-a-member.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/american-immigration-lawyers-association-confirms-joe-wilson-was-never-a-member.html)
more...
.jpg "Summerfest in Milwaukee on")
imh216
06-25 06:44 PM
I am US citizen since March 2009. Husband just received an interview notice for August 11 after having filed all required documents and application for I-485 adjustmnent of status. Along with other documents, we submitted a xerox copy of his I-94 which he overstayed. Unfortunately, he lost the original. My concern is, the interview notice states he is to bring the original I-94, which he no longer has. He can prove however the date of his last entry to the US, as he still has a stamp in his passport with admission date, a sticker on his passport cover for baggage and I can probably dig up his boarding pass. Again - we also made a xerox copy of both sides of I-94 when we still had it. What do I do? Should I get a duplicate? Or is the xerox enough for the interview? I would hate his application to be denied because of this. Please let me know if you had a similar experience or any advice on what I should do.
hot The Summerfest Fundraising
JunRN
08-26 05:54 PM
We can see more of these GC approvals and visa number allocation in September because USCIS and DOS have to use up all available visa numbers.
If not, we can see again about 10,000 visa numbers unused and wasted.
If not, we can see again about 10,000 visa numbers unused and wasted.
more...
house the Summerfest grounds and
Raj Iyer
09-13 12:18 PM
My responses are below:
My question:
1) Shall I disclose the arrest to the attorney ? I am concern that it may backfire as I said "NO" for arrest in the background check forms etc.
You Should say "YES" and produce all the court records.
2) Can I travel & enter US without any issues ? Do I need to carry the expungement letter with me all times entering US?
I would advise not to travel unless you get an attorney to review all your documents and get a confirmation that you are not subjected to any bar under Sec 212 of the INA.
3) Does my arrest go to FBI ? Will I be asked for interview when my PD becomes current ?
You could called in for an interview. But there shouldn't be any problem once you have all the records.
4) What should I beware ?
My question:
1) Shall I disclose the arrest to the attorney ? I am concern that it may backfire as I said "NO" for arrest in the background check forms etc.
You Should say "YES" and produce all the court records.
2) Can I travel & enter US without any issues ? Do I need to carry the expungement letter with me all times entering US?
I would advise not to travel unless you get an attorney to review all your documents and get a confirmation that you are not subjected to any bar under Sec 212 of the INA.
3) Does my arrest go to FBI ? Will I be asked for interview when my PD becomes current ?
You could called in for an interview. But there shouldn't be any problem once you have all the records.
4) What should I beware ?
tattoo Milwaukee Summerfest T-Shirt
Macaca
11-16 08:35 AM
Pelosi: War, Immigration Hurt Public Approval of Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111501631.html) Speaker Says Clinton Can 'Hold Her Own' By David S. Broder and Chris Cillizza | Washington Post Staff Writers, November 15, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today blamed Congress' failure to bring an end to the war in Iraq and deal effectively with the reform of immigration laws as the primary causes of the institution's near-record low approval ratings.
In an interview at the U.S. Capitol, Pelosi said the Democratic takeover of Congress had raised expectations on action to end the conflict in Iraq, and that the Senate's initial willingness to tackle immigration reform followed by its failure to do so left the American public disappointed in Congress.
The House on Wednesday night passed spending legislation that sought to tie funding for the Iraq war to hard deadlines for beginning troop withdrawals, a proposal that has little hope of passage in the Senate.
"People thought it was a problem that could be solved and when it didn't happen I think it was a big disappointment," she said. "Usually those low numbers relate to expectations and there were high expectations" on both Iraq and immigration.
Pelosi made her comments in an interview for washingtonpost.com's "PostTalk" program (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/11/15/VI2007111501443.html?hpid=topnews), just hours before seven of her party's presidential candidates are scheduled to gather in Las Vegas for a televised debate.
Pelosi said that the heavy wave of criticism directed at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in recent days stemmed from her status as the frontrunner, not as the lone woman in the race. "I believe that any 'picking on' ... [of] Senator Clinton has to do with her being a frontrunner," she said. "Frontrunners always have to undergo that."
Pelosi, who had a chance to closely evaluate six of the candidates at last weekend's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101732.html), said that she saw up close that night that Clinton can "hold her own."
Discussing her own rise to the speakership, Pelosi said she did little to emphasize her gender in lining support within the caucus. "The last thing I could have said to any of my colleagues would have been: 'Vote for me because we need a woman in the leadership.'"
On Wednesday night, the House narrowly passed a measure -- 218 to 203 -- that would tie funding for the Iraq war to a specific redeployment plan for the troops in the country.
Pelosi cast the Bush administration's plan to draw down 30,000 American troops from the country as "inadequate," arguing that such a proposal would leave more soldiers in Iraq next year than were there in November 2006.
Citing a story in Thursday's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402524.html), Pelosi said that leading U.S. generals have concluded that the stubbornness of the Shiite government in Iraq is causing more problems than al Qaeda or other insurgent groups. "The government is not taking political steps," said Pelosi.
While Pelosi said she hoped the House action would help move the debate forward, she acknowledged that Senate action on the bill was unlikely.
Pelosi sounded a conciliatory note on the current spending showdown with the White House but repeatedly referenced the President's much larger requests for Iraq funding when discussing Democratic priorities like children's health insurance and medical research.
She did, however, express confidence that a deal would be reached with the president on the remaining appropriations bills -- dismissing the possibility of a repeat of the 1995-1996 government shutdown that left House Republicans deflated and President Clinton triumphant.
While admitting that she must do a better job at ensuring the American people are aware of what the Democratic-led House has accomplished in its first 10 months, she expressed confidence that her party's brand was still strong.
She repeatedly cited polling that showed Democrats with a double-digit leads over their Republican counterparts in both specific battleground congressional districts as well as nationally.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today blamed Congress' failure to bring an end to the war in Iraq and deal effectively with the reform of immigration laws as the primary causes of the institution's near-record low approval ratings.
In an interview at the U.S. Capitol, Pelosi said the Democratic takeover of Congress had raised expectations on action to end the conflict in Iraq, and that the Senate's initial willingness to tackle immigration reform followed by its failure to do so left the American public disappointed in Congress.
The House on Wednesday night passed spending legislation that sought to tie funding for the Iraq war to hard deadlines for beginning troop withdrawals, a proposal that has little hope of passage in the Senate.
"People thought it was a problem that could be solved and when it didn't happen I think it was a big disappointment," she said. "Usually those low numbers relate to expectations and there were high expectations" on both Iraq and immigration.
Pelosi made her comments in an interview for washingtonpost.com's "PostTalk" program (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/11/15/VI2007111501443.html?hpid=topnews), just hours before seven of her party's presidential candidates are scheduled to gather in Las Vegas for a televised debate.
Pelosi said that the heavy wave of criticism directed at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in recent days stemmed from her status as the frontrunner, not as the lone woman in the race. "I believe that any 'picking on' ... [of] Senator Clinton has to do with her being a frontrunner," she said. "Frontrunners always have to undergo that."
Pelosi, who had a chance to closely evaluate six of the candidates at last weekend's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101732.html), said that she saw up close that night that Clinton can "hold her own."
Discussing her own rise to the speakership, Pelosi said she did little to emphasize her gender in lining support within the caucus. "The last thing I could have said to any of my colleagues would have been: 'Vote for me because we need a woman in the leadership.'"
On Wednesday night, the House narrowly passed a measure -- 218 to 203 -- that would tie funding for the Iraq war to a specific redeployment plan for the troops in the country.
Pelosi cast the Bush administration's plan to draw down 30,000 American troops from the country as "inadequate," arguing that such a proposal would leave more soldiers in Iraq next year than were there in November 2006.
Citing a story in Thursday's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402524.html), Pelosi said that leading U.S. generals have concluded that the stubbornness of the Shiite government in Iraq is causing more problems than al Qaeda or other insurgent groups. "The government is not taking political steps," said Pelosi.
While Pelosi said she hoped the House action would help move the debate forward, she acknowledged that Senate action on the bill was unlikely.
Pelosi sounded a conciliatory note on the current spending showdown with the White House but repeatedly referenced the President's much larger requests for Iraq funding when discussing Democratic priorities like children's health insurance and medical research.
She did, however, express confidence that a deal would be reached with the president on the remaining appropriations bills -- dismissing the possibility of a repeat of the 1995-1996 government shutdown that left House Republicans deflated and President Clinton triumphant.
While admitting that she must do a better job at ensuring the American people are aware of what the Democratic-led House has accomplished in its first 10 months, she expressed confidence that her party's brand was still strong.
She repeatedly cited polling that showed Democrats with a double-digit leads over their Republican counterparts in both specific battleground congressional districts as well as nationally.
more...
pictures at Summerfest Milwaukee!
berryberry6
12-15 07:58 AM
American Family Visas are permanent Immigrant Visas, meaning genuine applicants under this category may obtain permanent residency in America if they meet qualifying requirements.
Family migration is based around 2 general categories; one is based on a preference system and the other offers permanent residency regardless of the demand for Immigrant Visas. The latter, the Non-preference Category, is for immediate relatives of American citizens.
Fiancee's of American citizens will need to apply for a temporary non-immigrant K1 Visa if they wish to join their partner in America.
Tummy Tuck Complications (http://tummytuckguide.com/tummytuckcomplications.php)
Scanning Stages (http://labface.com/suppliers/Scanning-Stages-191)
Family migration is based around 2 general categories; one is based on a preference system and the other offers permanent residency regardless of the demand for Immigrant Visas. The latter, the Non-preference Category, is for immediate relatives of American citizens.
Fiancee's of American citizens will need to apply for a temporary non-immigrant K1 Visa if they wish to join their partner in America.
Tummy Tuck Complications (http://tummytuckguide.com/tummytuckcomplications.php)
Scanning Stages (http://labface.com/suppliers/Scanning-Stages-191)
dresses 18, 2010 at 7:53 a.m.
Macaca
11-01 05:29 PM
Conservatives Launch Caucus (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_52/news/20766-1.html) By John Stanton | ROLL CALL STAFF, October 31, 2007
Frustrated by what they see as a party gone astray, a group of House and Senate conservatives led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) today will announce a new bicameral caucus aimed at returning fiscal restraint, ethics and national defense to the fore of the GOP's philosophical and policy platforms.
The group - which in addition to DeMint and Hensarling is made up of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) - will officially announce the creation of their new caucus - dubbed Reagan21. They also will unveil their "statement of policy commitment," which includes 10 key positions on issues ranging from Congressional earmarks to health care reform.
While participants are billing the new caucus as a complement to the leadership teams in place in the House and Senate, Republicans familiar with the project acknowledge that to a certain degree it is a challenge to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), because implicitly the call for a new direction is a rejection of the course they have steered along with President Bush.
"When you're saying, 'Here's the vision of what the party should be,' you're saying the vision isn't there right now," said a House Republican not directly involved with the effort.
A second Republican agreed, arguing that a more broad change in how the party runs is needed.
"Whenever there's a vacuum in elected or political leadership, there's a need to fill it. When you have leadership positions not resulting in leadership, people will go elsewhere," the second Republican said, adding the problems of the party go far beyond simple messaging conflicts.
"It's a fight for [the GOP's] soul, not just a superficial divide. There are people who believe it's the job of Republican Members to come here and send money home to their states and to expand government. And that's just not what rank-and-file party members want."
Today's announcement of the group's principles for reform of the Republican Party are the first in a series of steps that the caucus will take over the next several months. Members are in the process of setting up independent outside institutions - similar to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation - to support their activities, and they will have a Web site up and running in the next few weeks.
Although details of those plans were unclear at press time Tuesday, one member of the group said the caucus will use the foundation as a semi-independent apparatus to communicate with Republicans outside Washington, D.C., as well as the general public.
Although members of the group declined to comment on the caucus on the record, one Member involved said the lawmakers believe the GOP's elected leaders have strayed from the party's traditional fiscal conservative roots.
"A few of us here are trying to change the culture" of the GOP, the lawmaker said, adding that "the core values of the Republican Party are not being adhered to by the party inside Congress. But there's a yearning for it outside the Beltway."
According to Republicans familiar with the effort, it arose from meetings between DeMint, who chairs the Republican Steering Committee in the Senate, and Hensarling, who chairs the Republican Study Committee in the House. Both organizations are the hub for conservative efforts in the chambers, and following the disastrous 2006 election, DeMint and Hensarling began holding meetings in an effort to better coordinate their efforts.
Eventually, the two began to bring other lawmakers into these Member-only meetings. Following months of discussion, the group decided to start the caucus, choosing a name that would invoke the core fiscal principles of former President Ronald Reagan for the 21st century.
The principles - which new members will be required to make a pledge to follow and which will be the centerpiece of the group's legislative and public outreach efforts - cover a wide variety of issues. For instance, members of the caucus will be required to foreswear asking for any new earmarks in legislation. The principles also call for reforms to the tax code and entitlement programs, including the implementation of personal "ownership" of retirement security and health care decisions, according to a copy of a document obtained by Roll Call. Members of the caucus also will support expansion of intelligence and other national defense programs, as well as an aggressive border security approach to immigration.
While all of the members of the group would likely fall under the broad rubric of "social conservatives," the principles steer clear of issues like abortion or gay marriage. According to those involved in the effort, members of Reagan21, according to one, have decided that while those issues are important to them, they have decided to "focus on the fiscal policy issues that I think really killed us last year."
Republicans privately also applauded the decision to stay with traditional fiscal issues rather than expand the group's focus into social topics. One source noted that while most base Republican voters are fierce social conservatives, many independent voters and disaffected Democrats - who agree with the GOP on fiscal issues and ethics - are turned off by the party's heavy tilt toward its social wing.
According to GOP aides, the group has operated under strict confidentiality rules as it has hashed out how it will operate and what its mission should be - so much so that staff continue to have only a sketchy idea of what their bosses are envisioning. Additionally, the members of the group have agreed to not tip their hand to either Boehner or McConnell before today's news conference, although they have begun reaching out to like-minded Members in the House and Senate to join the group.
The formation of the caucus is the latest in a series of breaks between conservatives, particularly in the Senate, and the party's traditional power centers this year. DeMint and Coburn have openly and repeatedly attacked "Old Bulls" in the party like Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) for their use of earmarks. Additionally, conservatives openly broke with their leaders this spring over the immigration bill.
The Reagan21 member cautioned that the caucus's critique of current GOP positions should not be seen as members "tak[ing] a swipe at anybody" in leadership positions. "They've got a tough job and it's hard to get your arms around the whole party" in a way that could facilitate reform, the lawmaker explained, adding that Reagan21 participants see themselves as "the conscience of the Republican Party here" in Washington.
But reform will be key if Republicans are to avoid further electoral loses next year, this member said.
"Unless the Republicans get together and define themselves we're going to get caught in fog. ... I don't want to be Democrat-lite," the lawmaker said, adding that the group hopes to attract Members who have long been fiscal conservatives as well as new recruits. Reagan21 hopes "that a lot of these Republicans who like to think they can have it both ways - go home and talk like conservatives but come here and vote for whatever they want - will be forced to come to our side. We can't continue to allow a few people in our party continue to pervert what we are about."
Frustrated by what they see as a party gone astray, a group of House and Senate conservatives led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) today will announce a new bicameral caucus aimed at returning fiscal restraint, ethics and national defense to the fore of the GOP's philosophical and policy platforms.
The group - which in addition to DeMint and Hensarling is made up of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) - will officially announce the creation of their new caucus - dubbed Reagan21. They also will unveil their "statement of policy commitment," which includes 10 key positions on issues ranging from Congressional earmarks to health care reform.
While participants are billing the new caucus as a complement to the leadership teams in place in the House and Senate, Republicans familiar with the project acknowledge that to a certain degree it is a challenge to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), because implicitly the call for a new direction is a rejection of the course they have steered along with President Bush.
"When you're saying, 'Here's the vision of what the party should be,' you're saying the vision isn't there right now," said a House Republican not directly involved with the effort.
A second Republican agreed, arguing that a more broad change in how the party runs is needed.
"Whenever there's a vacuum in elected or political leadership, there's a need to fill it. When you have leadership positions not resulting in leadership, people will go elsewhere," the second Republican said, adding the problems of the party go far beyond simple messaging conflicts.
"It's a fight for [the GOP's] soul, not just a superficial divide. There are people who believe it's the job of Republican Members to come here and send money home to their states and to expand government. And that's just not what rank-and-file party members want."
Today's announcement of the group's principles for reform of the Republican Party are the first in a series of steps that the caucus will take over the next several months. Members are in the process of setting up independent outside institutions - similar to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation - to support their activities, and they will have a Web site up and running in the next few weeks.
Although details of those plans were unclear at press time Tuesday, one member of the group said the caucus will use the foundation as a semi-independent apparatus to communicate with Republicans outside Washington, D.C., as well as the general public.
Although members of the group declined to comment on the caucus on the record, one Member involved said the lawmakers believe the GOP's elected leaders have strayed from the party's traditional fiscal conservative roots.
"A few of us here are trying to change the culture" of the GOP, the lawmaker said, adding that "the core values of the Republican Party are not being adhered to by the party inside Congress. But there's a yearning for it outside the Beltway."
According to Republicans familiar with the effort, it arose from meetings between DeMint, who chairs the Republican Steering Committee in the Senate, and Hensarling, who chairs the Republican Study Committee in the House. Both organizations are the hub for conservative efforts in the chambers, and following the disastrous 2006 election, DeMint and Hensarling began holding meetings in an effort to better coordinate their efforts.
Eventually, the two began to bring other lawmakers into these Member-only meetings. Following months of discussion, the group decided to start the caucus, choosing a name that would invoke the core fiscal principles of former President Ronald Reagan for the 21st century.
The principles - which new members will be required to make a pledge to follow and which will be the centerpiece of the group's legislative and public outreach efforts - cover a wide variety of issues. For instance, members of the caucus will be required to foreswear asking for any new earmarks in legislation. The principles also call for reforms to the tax code and entitlement programs, including the implementation of personal "ownership" of retirement security and health care decisions, according to a copy of a document obtained by Roll Call. Members of the caucus also will support expansion of intelligence and other national defense programs, as well as an aggressive border security approach to immigration.
While all of the members of the group would likely fall under the broad rubric of "social conservatives," the principles steer clear of issues like abortion or gay marriage. According to those involved in the effort, members of Reagan21, according to one, have decided that while those issues are important to them, they have decided to "focus on the fiscal policy issues that I think really killed us last year."
Republicans privately also applauded the decision to stay with traditional fiscal issues rather than expand the group's focus into social topics. One source noted that while most base Republican voters are fierce social conservatives, many independent voters and disaffected Democrats - who agree with the GOP on fiscal issues and ethics - are turned off by the party's heavy tilt toward its social wing.
According to GOP aides, the group has operated under strict confidentiality rules as it has hashed out how it will operate and what its mission should be - so much so that staff continue to have only a sketchy idea of what their bosses are envisioning. Additionally, the members of the group have agreed to not tip their hand to either Boehner or McConnell before today's news conference, although they have begun reaching out to like-minded Members in the House and Senate to join the group.
The formation of the caucus is the latest in a series of breaks between conservatives, particularly in the Senate, and the party's traditional power centers this year. DeMint and Coburn have openly and repeatedly attacked "Old Bulls" in the party like Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) for their use of earmarks. Additionally, conservatives openly broke with their leaders this spring over the immigration bill.
The Reagan21 member cautioned that the caucus's critique of current GOP positions should not be seen as members "tak[ing] a swipe at anybody" in leadership positions. "They've got a tough job and it's hard to get your arms around the whole party" in a way that could facilitate reform, the lawmaker explained, adding that Reagan21 participants see themselves as "the conscience of the Republican Party here" in Washington.
But reform will be key if Republicans are to avoid further electoral loses next year, this member said.
"Unless the Republicans get together and define themselves we're going to get caught in fog. ... I don't want to be Democrat-lite," the lawmaker said, adding that the group hopes to attract Members who have long been fiscal conservatives as well as new recruits. Reagan21 hopes "that a lot of these Republicans who like to think they can have it both ways - go home and talk like conservatives but come here and vote for whatever they want - will be forced to come to our side. We can't continue to allow a few people in our party continue to pervert what we are about."
more...
makeup MILWAUKEE – February 4
Blog Feeds
07-24 04:40 PM
Judge Susan Bolton, who heard arguments this week on the first of the Arizona lawsuits, has narrowed the issues she is considering blocking before the law takes effect next week. Some sections that are not in dispute, such as the provisions on day laborers, will take effect on the scheduled date. More controversial provisions, such as those allowing police to enforce immigration laws and the criminalization of illegal immigration status under Arizona law.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/judge-considering-partial-injunction-in-arizona-case.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/judge-considering-partial-injunction-in-arizona-case.html)
girlfriend This is the home of Summerfest
bijualex29
06-20 06:48 PM
If doctors says to get two MMR or Varicella shots in 1 months aparts, do we need to wait for one month to get Medical reports? Can some one explain me ?
hairstyles Summerfest in Milwaukee on
dreamgc_real
04-14 09:06 AM
I have not yet filed my I-485 and my employer is laying off employees. should I be worried? and to be on the safe side what should my next steps be.
Please help
Please help
njdude26
07-03 08:43 AM
My wife was working for a company before. They had filed for her GC. She has an approved I140. She had to convert to H4 because of some legal reasons and could not continue to work for the company. Now she has a valid H4.
She has already been here 7 years on her old H1. Now can she file for a H4-H1 and get a 3 year visa based on an approved 140 ?
The lawyer says that the 3 year extension rule just states that H can be continued beyond 6 years based on approved 140 and so she can go back to a H1...
Anyone here has had a similiar experience ?
She has already been here 7 years on her old H1. Now can she file for a H4-H1 and get a 3 year visa based on an approved 140 ?
The lawyer says that the 3 year extension rule just states that H can be continued beyond 6 years based on approved 140 and so she can go back to a H1...
Anyone here has had a similiar experience ?
kirupa
05-16 02:05 PM
Added this one up! Btw, should I put Jamie or fasterthanlight below the stamps you have created?
:P
:P
No comments:
Post a Comment