Blog Feeds
05-18 10:10 AM
One of my long-time paralegals at Siskind Susser, PC is Esther Schacther Fridman. Esther, who grew up here in Memphis, is the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors. In 2005, she married Benny Fridman, an Israeli who was on a work visa in Memphis at the time. The two moved to Israel shortly thereafter and Esther continues working with the firm on writing projects. Esther and Benny are the subject of a new documentary which premiered in Memphis last night. The union of Esther and Benny is unusual - their eight grandparents were all Holocaust survivors. I am friends with two of...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/a-testimony-to-survival.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/a-testimony-to-survival.html)
wallpaper Vikings Sidney Rice Kids
Blog Feeds
05-08 01:30 AM
Computerworld, which has been the media outlet of choice for the protectionist crowd, reports on one subject addressed by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano during her testimony this week. Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee that USCIS is stepping up enforcement in the H-1B program. Anti-fraud measures being instituted include site visits. Some of the antis out there probably think that I have a problem with this. They would be wrong. Many of the anecdotes of bad behavior reported by critics of the H-1B program are quite unlawful under existing law.The vast majority of employers comply with the law and are...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/napolitano-uscis-to-focus-on-going-after-h1b-violators.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/napolitano-uscis-to-focus-on-going-after-h1b-violators.html)
MetteBB
05-20 02:58 AM
Nice one!
And welcome to the boards, dont be shy... hardly anyone bites ;)
/mette
And welcome to the boards, dont be shy... hardly anyone bites ;)
/mette
2011 Jersey Minnesota Vikings
dns2828
09-21 11:06 AM
I took the citizenship test, biometic now the second time .passed it 2 1/2 years ago . I was told the immigration did not have my filed . So Wait. Went to immirgation office 3 times. no result . Case under review ????? what is that mean????? Am confused ... No one can tell me what was going on . I have done no wrong. pay my taxes....
I even write to my congress woman , no reply .. so sad
Where should I go .... . please advise . thanks
I even write to my congress woman , no reply .. so sad
Where should I go .... . please advise . thanks
more...
prabhakarm22
02-25 07:15 PM
My wife is working as a consultant, her client is ready to give her full time and also ready to do her H1-B transfer. Her H1-B is valid till April 2011 and GC process has not been started yet. Client is hesitant to start GC because they are new to the process.
Questions
-----------
1. Can she take the offer from client company, get H1-B transferred and start GC process with another company X?
2. If that happens can she apply for H1-B extension with client company early next year?
3. Should her PERM application be submitted before April 2010?
Thanks in Advance
Prabhakar
Questions
-----------
1. Can she take the offer from client company, get H1-B transferred and start GC process with another company X?
2. If that happens can she apply for H1-B extension with client company early next year?
3. Should her PERM application be submitted before April 2010?
Thanks in Advance
Prabhakar
admin
02-10 05:58 PM
The House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform held a full committee hearing on February 9, 2006, to address issues important to U.S.
national interests especially with reference to the recent American Competitiveness Initiative. Here is the report on it.
national interests especially with reference to the recent American Competitiveness Initiative. Here is the report on it.
more...
pappu
02-16 08:11 PM
We need help from IV members to add content in IV wiki at a single place (probably http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Immigration_to_US under frequently asked questions) that will be a guide for anyone that needs such information. People should know how to complain against any exploitation, fraud, not paying etc or anything illegal related to Immigration or Labor laws.
One such link that can be added in this section is :
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/forms/fts_wh4.htm
One such link that can be added in this section is :
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/forms/fts_wh4.htm
2010 Minnesota Vikings Kids NFL
trump_gc
02-05 11:39 AM
Current VISA availability date is 01AUG02. So u r looking at 5-9 yrs ,,may be worse, or may be even better with any law comin in
more...
atlgc
01-10 12:06 PM
thanks
so just send to NSC ,that's prettymuch to it?
Thanks
so just send to NSC ,that's prettymuch to it?
Thanks
hair Vikings with Ted
martinvisalaw
06-17 05:06 PM
In theory, you can be the beneficiary of 2 H-1B petitions pending at the same time. This happens fairly often. Both could be approved and then you would be eligible to work for either company as long as that approval had not later been withdrawn.
more...
Macaca
07-31 05:23 PM
It's Time to End Or Reduce The Cloture Clog (http://rollcall.com/issues/53_15/guest/19599-1.html) By Robert Weiner and John Larmett, July 31 2007
Robert Weiner, president of Robert Weiner Associates Public Affairs, worked for 16 years in the House of Representatives and for six years in the Clinton White House. John Larmett, senior policy analyst at Robert Weiner Associates, was legislative assistant/press secretary to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and former Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.).
The Senate's cloture rule defeats democracy. It lets public servants hide and obfuscate behind a parliamentary quirk never intended by the framers of the Constitution. It's time to end or significantly change the cloture rule, as was last done in 1975, and move to a true democracy so that the House and Senate equally represent the American people.
There are checks and balances, the only ones the Founding Fathers stated and intended: a presidential veto, which Congress can override with two-thirds, the only supermajority specified in the Constitution; the courts; and elections. No one ever foresaw parliamentary sleight of hand as a block of the will of the majority. If Congress wants to restore Americans' confidence in its work from the current all-time lows, it needs to allow the system to work as common sense, the Constitution and the framers dictate.
During the April-May 2005 "crisis" on judicial nominations, the "Gang of 14," seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, agreed to oppose the constitutional or "nuclear" option and to oppose filibusters of judicial nominations except in "extraordinary circumstances." However, the Senate has failed to cut off debate on other issues 57 times since then, making clear that the system has failed.
Democrats are right to scream Republican "obstructionism," but Republicans, when they were in the majority, also were right to scream Democratic obstructionism. Both sides use and abuse the rule when they are in the minority to create some supermajority fantasy the public will not understand - and then blame the other side for not getting a legislative agenda accomplished.
In last year's campaigns, House Democrats promised to change the way Congress does business - and do it within the first 100 hours they were in session. With a majority of 30-60 votes, but no supermajority requirement, the House passed its entire agenda. Despite majority support, hindered by the supermajority "cloture," the Senate has struggled all year just to pass a few bills. The American people get the feeling the Senate is a train that never quite leaves the station.
The slow train continued July 17-18 when Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown capping an all-night debate. The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, the 27th time this year alone that body has been unable to proceed on significant pieces of legislation. In the previous Congress (controlled by Republicans), Democrats were successful 34 times in blocking Republican legislation. Cloture has become the third rail of Congressional politics. It's time for the train to move on a different track.
Everyone has been properly complaining about obstructionism, but no one has said anything about changing the Senate rule on cloture. Since Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is talking about changing Senate rules to make it easier to restrict amendments on the floor, then why shouldn't the Senate also start the discussion about changing the cloture rule right now? It could be the difference in getting bills passed.
In early July, the minority's decision to filibuster the amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), which stated that men and women serving in the military deserved the same amount of time at home that they served overseas, died on a 56-41 failed cloture vote - a majority supporting it but the media saying it "failed."
In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, and it should change it again. If not an end outright, the best approach to guarantee the will of the majority, why not at least drop the requirement to 55 votes - necessitating just a little bit of extra consensus to end debate. Let the will of the American people, and of a majority of the Senate itself, be acted upon.
It's time to end the cloture clog, regardless of who's in charge.
Robert Weiner, president of Robert Weiner Associates Public Affairs, worked for 16 years in the House of Representatives and for six years in the Clinton White House. John Larmett, senior policy analyst at Robert Weiner Associates, was legislative assistant/press secretary to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and former Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.).
The Senate's cloture rule defeats democracy. It lets public servants hide and obfuscate behind a parliamentary quirk never intended by the framers of the Constitution. It's time to end or significantly change the cloture rule, as was last done in 1975, and move to a true democracy so that the House and Senate equally represent the American people.
There are checks and balances, the only ones the Founding Fathers stated and intended: a presidential veto, which Congress can override with two-thirds, the only supermajority specified in the Constitution; the courts; and elections. No one ever foresaw parliamentary sleight of hand as a block of the will of the majority. If Congress wants to restore Americans' confidence in its work from the current all-time lows, it needs to allow the system to work as common sense, the Constitution and the framers dictate.
During the April-May 2005 "crisis" on judicial nominations, the "Gang of 14," seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, agreed to oppose the constitutional or "nuclear" option and to oppose filibusters of judicial nominations except in "extraordinary circumstances." However, the Senate has failed to cut off debate on other issues 57 times since then, making clear that the system has failed.
Democrats are right to scream Republican "obstructionism," but Republicans, when they were in the majority, also were right to scream Democratic obstructionism. Both sides use and abuse the rule when they are in the minority to create some supermajority fantasy the public will not understand - and then blame the other side for not getting a legislative agenda accomplished.
In last year's campaigns, House Democrats promised to change the way Congress does business - and do it within the first 100 hours they were in session. With a majority of 30-60 votes, but no supermajority requirement, the House passed its entire agenda. Despite majority support, hindered by the supermajority "cloture," the Senate has struggled all year just to pass a few bills. The American people get the feeling the Senate is a train that never quite leaves the station.
The slow train continued July 17-18 when Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown capping an all-night debate. The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, the 27th time this year alone that body has been unable to proceed on significant pieces of legislation. In the previous Congress (controlled by Republicans), Democrats were successful 34 times in blocking Republican legislation. Cloture has become the third rail of Congressional politics. It's time for the train to move on a different track.
Everyone has been properly complaining about obstructionism, but no one has said anything about changing the Senate rule on cloture. Since Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is talking about changing Senate rules to make it easier to restrict amendments on the floor, then why shouldn't the Senate also start the discussion about changing the cloture rule right now? It could be the difference in getting bills passed.
In early July, the minority's decision to filibuster the amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), which stated that men and women serving in the military deserved the same amount of time at home that they served overseas, died on a 56-41 failed cloture vote - a majority supporting it but the media saying it "failed."
In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, and it should change it again. If not an end outright, the best approach to guarantee the will of the majority, why not at least drop the requirement to 55 votes - necessitating just a little bit of extra consensus to end debate. Let the will of the American people, and of a majority of the Senate itself, be acted upon.
It's time to end the cloture clog, regardless of who's in charge.
hot Vikings Kids Combine
puriyu
09-15 10:47 AM
http://imminfo.com/library/calculatingvisabulletinmovementarticle.html
more...
house Vikings Purple Pride Kids
ramus
06-14 10:45 AM
Please do not create new thred for single question you have..
Also please follow other threds and see if your question is answerd some where.
Yes you can file for 485 even if you have 140 pending.
Since all categories are current as of july 1st, can i file for 485/EAD/AP even if my 140 is still pending. thanks.
Also please follow other threds and see if your question is answerd some where.
Yes you can file for 485 even if you have 140 pending.
Since all categories are current as of july 1st, can i file for 485/EAD/AP even if my 140 is still pending. thanks.
tattoo Vikings Kids Combine
san3297
06-19 09:36 AM
HI All,
I currently work for a desi consulting company and applied for H1B Extension.I applied H1B Extension with Current Client Letter and also a copy of PO.But my contract may end in a month or so.I am near to finalising a new contract oppurtunity which if seleted needed to join immediately.Now if i change the job does it effect my pending H1B extension.
I am not changing my consulting company who holds visa i am only changing client.As i already submitted client letter and PO i am kind of nervous if i get RFE regarding the current client, which i may not be able to answer it.Waiting for your valuable feedback.
I currently work for a desi consulting company and applied for H1B Extension.I applied H1B Extension with Current Client Letter and also a copy of PO.But my contract may end in a month or so.I am near to finalising a new contract oppurtunity which if seleted needed to join immediately.Now if i change the job does it effect my pending H1B extension.
I am not changing my consulting company who holds visa i am only changing client.As i already submitted client letter and PO i am kind of nervous if i get RFE regarding the current client, which i may not be able to answer it.Waiting for your valuable feedback.
more...
pictures Vikings Kids Combine
jungalee43
11-24 06:53 PM
The following news items suggest there would be a serious attempt to pass CIR early in 2009 in both the houses of congress. That makes DC rally really more important as we just cannot afford to let even a single Durbin/Grassley provision to slip into CIR.
We should not only wake up but act !!!!
Following link is interview with senate majority leader.
http://www.freep.com/article/20081123/NEWS07/811230493/1009
and
this link also refers to the remarks by senate majority leader's representitive.
http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20081123/NEWS02/811230374/1001/NEWS
We should not only wake up but act !!!!
Following link is interview with senate majority leader.
http://www.freep.com/article/20081123/NEWS07/811230493/1009
and
this link also refers to the remarks by senate majority leader's representitive.
http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20081123/NEWS02/811230374/1001/NEWS
dresses Minnesota Vikings jerseysHome
kirupa
07-16 10:22 PM
Added :)
more...
makeup Vikings Kids Reebok Jersey
bulgarian
11-22 06:13 AM
Hey,
I'm sorry, I still don't have a solution, but I am working on it... I will write you if I come up with something.
Regards,
I'm sorry, I still don't have a solution, but I am working on it... I will write you if I come up with something.
Regards,
girlfriend Vikings Purple Kids NFL
Blog Feeds
04-18 07:10 AM
22 Democratic Senators are urging President Obama to stop deporting young people who are likely to be eligible for legalization if the DREAM Act passes. The White House has so far rebuffed such requests with the not very believable excuse that it's hands are tied. That's simply not so and the President's executive authority to solve immigration problems Congress is ignoring has been well documented. Hopefully, the pressure will start to pay off.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/04/senate-dems-to-obama-stop-deporting-dream-act-kids.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/04/senate-dems-to-obama-stop-deporting-dream-act-kids.html)
hairstyles Minnesota Vikings
Macaca
05-25 08:10 PM
Making History, Reluctantly (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402069.html) In a Hill Anomaly, Pelosi Shepherds Iraq Bill She Opposes, By Jonathan Weisman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jonathan+weisman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, May 25, 2007
In public, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had done nothing to suppress her frustration as she assented to funding the Iraq war without a deadline to end it. But behind closed doors Wednesday night, she was all business.
With its members gathered in her office, she told the House's "Progressive Caucus" that she would vote against the war funding bill, but that she also had no choice but to facilitate its passage. Funds were running out for the troops, and she had promised to protect them. The Memorial Day break loomed, and without the money President Bush would have a week to hammer her party for taking a vacation while the Pentagon scrambled to keep its soldiers fed.
Was she agonized over the situation? Sure, said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who attended the meeting. But "we all feel that way," he added. "I feel that way, too. Are we going to just walk away now, or are we going to continue this process, to keep the pressure on?"
Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party.
Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature.
Over his objections and the opposition of most Republicans, Hastert did allow passage of campaign finance reform in 2002, but only because a petition drive was about to force the bill to the floor. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law.
"We don't relish bringing a package to the floor that we're not going to vote for," Obey conceded before last night's vote.
Pelosi's agonized decision put her in the company of Foley, who in 1991 brought to the floor the resolution authorizing the Persian Gulf War and then voted against it, and Thomas Brackett Reed, a speaker in the 1890s who voted against the annexation of Hawaii, and then against the Spanish-American War, but allowed both to go forward.
"To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it," Hastert said.
But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions.
Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about. A parliamentary vote to bring the Iraq funding legislation to the floor included language demanding a showdown vote in September over further funding. A second vote allowed Democrats to vote in favor of funds for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, agricultural drought relief and children's health insurance. Finally, the House got around to funding the war.
Republicans cried foul over what they saw as an abuse of the legislative system, but Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats.
"It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), who is personally close to Pelosi. "You can't just walk away."
In public, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had done nothing to suppress her frustration as she assented to funding the Iraq war without a deadline to end it. But behind closed doors Wednesday night, she was all business.
With its members gathered in her office, she told the House's "Progressive Caucus" that she would vote against the war funding bill, but that she also had no choice but to facilitate its passage. Funds were running out for the troops, and she had promised to protect them. The Memorial Day break loomed, and without the money President Bush would have a week to hammer her party for taking a vacation while the Pentagon scrambled to keep its soldiers fed.
Was she agonized over the situation? Sure, said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who attended the meeting. But "we all feel that way," he added. "I feel that way, too. Are we going to just walk away now, or are we going to continue this process, to keep the pressure on?"
Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party.
Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature.
Over his objections and the opposition of most Republicans, Hastert did allow passage of campaign finance reform in 2002, but only because a petition drive was about to force the bill to the floor. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law.
"We don't relish bringing a package to the floor that we're not going to vote for," Obey conceded before last night's vote.
Pelosi's agonized decision put her in the company of Foley, who in 1991 brought to the floor the resolution authorizing the Persian Gulf War and then voted against it, and Thomas Brackett Reed, a speaker in the 1890s who voted against the annexation of Hawaii, and then against the Spanish-American War, but allowed both to go forward.
"To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it," Hastert said.
But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions.
Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about. A parliamentary vote to bring the Iraq funding legislation to the floor included language demanding a showdown vote in September over further funding. A second vote allowed Democrats to vote in favor of funds for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, agricultural drought relief and children's health insurance. Finally, the House got around to funding the war.
Republicans cried foul over what they saw as an abuse of the legislative system, but Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats.
"It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), who is personally close to Pelosi. "You can't just walk away."
ciber.couger
07-15 11:54 AM
I sign it twise one for me and one for my wife, but signature numbers didn't change :confused:
zoozee
04-17 10:27 PM
Has anybody directly received any communication from BEC regarding the pending LC application? I just received one and am not sure if that is the norm?
Regards
Regards
No comments:
Post a Comment