From Va. Bar Could Reverse Limits On Firms Hiring Legislators (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021502096.html).
RICHMOND -- The organization charged with regulating Virginia attorneys is pushing to erase an ethics rule that for a half-century has prohibited the state's legislators from being employed alongside lobbyists at the commonwealth's largest law firms.
The change, proposed by the Virginia State Bar's standing committee on legal ethics, could spark a bidding war among Richmond's leading law firms, which would be free to hire the speaker of the House of Delegates or the Senate floor leader even as their lobbyists prowl the halls of the General Assembly.
That has outraged some in the legislature, who say the move would create dangerous conflicts of interest for the lawmakers and the lobbyists. And they say it adds to a perception that the General Assembly is a good old boys' club where deals are cut behind closed doors instead of in public committee rooms.
RICHMOND -- The organization charged with regulating Virginia attorneys is pushing to erase an ethics rule that for a half-century has prohibited the state's legislators from being employed alongside lobbyists at the commonwealth's largest law firms.
The change, proposed by the Virginia State Bar's standing committee on legal ethics, could spark a bidding war among Richmond's leading law firms, which would be free to hire the speaker of the House of Delegates or the Senate floor leader even as their lobbyists prowl the halls of the General Assembly.
That has outraged some in the legislature, who say the move would create dangerous conflicts of interest for the lawmakers and the lobbyists. And they say it adds to a perception that the General Assembly is a good old boys' club where deals are cut behind closed doors instead of in public committee rooms.
wallpaper Pratt amp; Heidi Montag have
You are a Kashmiri muslim.
Will you accept the responsibility of making hundreds of thousands Kashimiri pandits homeless? Will you accept the responsibility for the Godhra attack?
Do you have a time machine that can take you back to 1600 A.D and stop the evil islamic barbarics from pillaging our land? Can you? Or you need a proof for that as well to interpol?
1. To curb terrorism, Pakistan must destroy all the terror camps. Its not doing it, its not handing over any terrorists, what's the point of having cup of chai and talking non-sense?
2. You are a Kashmiri. Tell us, what is a possible solution? India will not hand over the remainder of the Kashmir because part of the Kashmir is already occupied by Pakistan. Period. Now, do you have a solution?
3. You are open for open visas. What good will it do except for terrorists to come in freely and legally?
4. By exchanging prisoners you mean hand over the terrorists, right. Hand over Afzal and Kasam and the other butchers. And ask president to pardon them.
Sorry, won't happen.
What else?
I agree there are issues that need to be resolved in India. But what is happening in India ia India's problem. They don't need to handover anyone to international court. India is not causing problem to other countries. There are laws and due process to handle the criminals in India. But the powerful do get away. It is silly to ask all these problems to be solved by International court. I don't think they will be interested to run trials on such cases.
Sorry this post is to engineer.
Will you accept the responsibility of making hundreds of thousands Kashimiri pandits homeless? Will you accept the responsibility for the Godhra attack?
Do you have a time machine that can take you back to 1600 A.D and stop the evil islamic barbarics from pillaging our land? Can you? Or you need a proof for that as well to interpol?
1. To curb terrorism, Pakistan must destroy all the terror camps. Its not doing it, its not handing over any terrorists, what's the point of having cup of chai and talking non-sense?
2. You are a Kashmiri. Tell us, what is a possible solution? India will not hand over the remainder of the Kashmir because part of the Kashmir is already occupied by Pakistan. Period. Now, do you have a solution?
3. You are open for open visas. What good will it do except for terrorists to come in freely and legally?
4. By exchanging prisoners you mean hand over the terrorists, right. Hand over Afzal and Kasam and the other butchers. And ask president to pardon them.
Sorry, won't happen.
What else?
I agree there are issues that need to be resolved in India. But what is happening in India ia India's problem. They don't need to handover anyone to international court. India is not causing problem to other countries. There are laws and due process to handle the criminals in India. But the powerful do get away. It is silly to ask all these problems to be solved by International court. I don't think they will be interested to run trials on such cases.
Sorry this post is to engineer.
:p :p I like this most. Lets move on...
Let�s worry about our survival rather than the survival of TCS, Infy etc.
Let�s worry about our survival rather than the survival of TCS, Infy etc.
2011 hair Heidi Montag Wedding
willwin - What we are essentially saying is to artificially retrogress EB2 than it otherwise would have so that an EB3 who is waiting for 7 years gets his GC first - thats really what the spillover break up will do. Similarly an argument can be made to artificially retrogress EB1 so that an EB2 who is waiting for 4 years gets his GC first.
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
fine, then why are we working so hard to remove the per country limit? That was set by law too!!!
We can't pick only those options that would favor us. Sometimes changes bring hard-luck.
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
fine, then why are we working so hard to remove the per country limit? That was set by law too!!!
We can't pick only those options that would favor us. Sometimes changes bring hard-luck.
Wow ! So you are saying that no one qualifies for EB2 after 2004 !
I kindly disagree.
I am not saying no one qualified. Most of the Eb3 jobs requirements were modified to EB2 to cut-short the EB3 line. Then, why every employer (particularly in IT) files EB2 LC, than EB3 after 2005? Why does DOL is autiting EB2 requirements for IT/Engineering jobs now?. Before 2004, even if employers requires MS+4 years or BS+8 years DOL approves the LC. Why they don't do now? It is just everyone wants to go for EB2, if they have that qualification.
I kindly disagree.
I am not saying no one qualified. Most of the Eb3 jobs requirements were modified to EB2 to cut-short the EB3 line. Then, why every employer (particularly in IT) files EB2 LC, than EB3 after 2005? Why does DOL is autiting EB2 requirements for IT/Engineering jobs now?. Before 2004, even if employers requires MS+4 years or BS+8 years DOL approves the LC. Why they don't do now? It is just everyone wants to go for EB2, if they have that qualification.
The following month, Dobbs featured ITT Industries, an engineering and manufacturing firm. One of the things he liked about ITT, he told readers, was that CEO Louis Giuliano "puts such a high premium on his employees, and their involvement in 'value creation.' A lot of CEOs view employees simply as fat to be cut in service to the bottom line or in pursuit of a better stock price. Louis is one CEO who knows better than that..." Is ITT on Dobbs' list of companies moving jobs overseas? By now, you know the answer.
And in February of this year, Dobbs focused on energy company Pinnacle West. After touting the company's "rapid growth," he told readers, "The second reason I like Pinnacle West is its model corporate governance." He went on to ask CEO William Post: "Last year, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council awarded you the Outstanding Regional Contribution award, recognizing a lasting contribution to regional economic development efforts. How important is it to you, as a corporate leader, to contribute to your region's economic development?"
Pinnacle West -- like Toro, Greenpoint, Boeing, Bank One, Washington Mutual, ITT Industries and Office Depot -- appears on Dobbs' list of companies that are "exporting America."
Dobbs is careful in his televised comments for CNN not to attack individual companies directly by name, and he's never called for viewers to boycott companies that outsource. But by posting their names on a website titled "Exporting America," and by making on-air declarations like, "U.S. multi-nationals are shipping jobs for only one reason...cheaper labor costs," Dobbs leave little doubt about how he wants his attitude toward the companies to be perceived by viewers.
Dobbs says the website was set up merely to fill a vacuum. In an email to Campaign Desk, he wrote: "We began compiling our list of companies outsourcing jobs overseas because the information was not available anywhere, and we wanted to know how widespread the practice is, and report it to our viewers. The Labor and Commerce departments, the Business Roundtable, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have never kept records of jobs lost to outsourcing. Our list of corporations now exceeds 800, and grows daily."
And he sees no contradiction in fingering outsourcers with one hand, while recommending the same companies as investment opportunities with the other: "[Y]ou seem to be suggesting that one cannot criticize corporate America without calling for its destruction," he told us. "Or because one believes a company to be well-managed that's its beyond criticism...Surely, you don't believe that your readers or my viewers are incapable of abhorring a business practice, and at the same time acknowledging the success of a corporation?" He makes a distinction, he said, between bad practices and those who practice them.
But Dobbs' newsletter doesn't just "acknowledge" successful corporation. He goes further, painting his featured companies as good corporate citizens -- and encourages readers to invest in them partly on that basis -- without mentioning that they conduct business practices that, by his own admission, he "detests."
Most of Dobbs's CNN viewers don't have access to the information in "Money Letter," his investment guide. So the larger public sees only one Lou Dobbs: the outspoken anti-outsourcing crusader. The other Lou Dobbs is available only for that $398 fee. And that's the Lou Dobbs who doesn't appear to be putting his money where his mouth is.
And in February of this year, Dobbs focused on energy company Pinnacle West. After touting the company's "rapid growth," he told readers, "The second reason I like Pinnacle West is its model corporate governance." He went on to ask CEO William Post: "Last year, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council awarded you the Outstanding Regional Contribution award, recognizing a lasting contribution to regional economic development efforts. How important is it to you, as a corporate leader, to contribute to your region's economic development?"
Pinnacle West -- like Toro, Greenpoint, Boeing, Bank One, Washington Mutual, ITT Industries and Office Depot -- appears on Dobbs' list of companies that are "exporting America."
Dobbs is careful in his televised comments for CNN not to attack individual companies directly by name, and he's never called for viewers to boycott companies that outsource. But by posting their names on a website titled "Exporting America," and by making on-air declarations like, "U.S. multi-nationals are shipping jobs for only one reason...cheaper labor costs," Dobbs leave little doubt about how he wants his attitude toward the companies to be perceived by viewers.
Dobbs says the website was set up merely to fill a vacuum. In an email to Campaign Desk, he wrote: "We began compiling our list of companies outsourcing jobs overseas because the information was not available anywhere, and we wanted to know how widespread the practice is, and report it to our viewers. The Labor and Commerce departments, the Business Roundtable, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have never kept records of jobs lost to outsourcing. Our list of corporations now exceeds 800, and grows daily."
And he sees no contradiction in fingering outsourcers with one hand, while recommending the same companies as investment opportunities with the other: "[Y]ou seem to be suggesting that one cannot criticize corporate America without calling for its destruction," he told us. "Or because one believes a company to be well-managed that's its beyond criticism...Surely, you don't believe that your readers or my viewers are incapable of abhorring a business practice, and at the same time acknowledging the success of a corporation?" He makes a distinction, he said, between bad practices and those who practice them.
But Dobbs' newsletter doesn't just "acknowledge" successful corporation. He goes further, painting his featured companies as good corporate citizens -- and encourages readers to invest in them partly on that basis -- without mentioning that they conduct business practices that, by his own admission, he "detests."
Most of Dobbs's CNN viewers don't have access to the information in "Money Letter," his investment guide. So the larger public sees only one Lou Dobbs: the outspoken anti-outsourcing crusader. The other Lou Dobbs is available only for that $398 fee. And that's the Lou Dobbs who doesn't appear to be putting his money where his mouth is.
Some paras from Fundraising Comes at Van Hollen Fast (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030601907.html)
By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Last year, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sat in the minority, with little seniority, calling for lobbyists to disclose when they're gathering stacks of campaign checks for members.
Now, his party is in power, he heads the Democrats' key fundraising arm, and he'll be judged in part by his ability to collect those bundles of checks from lobbyists.
The Democratic takeover last fall fostered change across Capitol Hill, but few are feeling the effects as directly as Van Hollen, the third-term congressman from Bethesda who will guide his party's 2008 House election efforts.
Van Hollen took over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in December, and the next month he distributed a four-page memo outlining his plans for protecting newly elected lawmakers. Central to that plan is the goal of raising $650,000 to $1 million for those "front line" lawmakers by June 30.
Typically, about a third of the money raised by the DCCC comes from member contributions, a third flows from direct mail and Internet solicitations and a third comes from individual donors, records show.
In many instances, that money comes from lobbyists tasked with collecting checks from colleagues, clients, family and friends -- bundlers. It's the same crowd Van Hollen took a crack at last year, when he attached his disclosure proposal to legislation in committee.
By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Last year, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sat in the minority, with little seniority, calling for lobbyists to disclose when they're gathering stacks of campaign checks for members.
Now, his party is in power, he heads the Democrats' key fundraising arm, and he'll be judged in part by his ability to collect those bundles of checks from lobbyists.
The Democratic takeover last fall fostered change across Capitol Hill, but few are feeling the effects as directly as Van Hollen, the third-term congressman from Bethesda who will guide his party's 2008 House election efforts.
Van Hollen took over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in December, and the next month he distributed a four-page memo outlining his plans for protecting newly elected lawmakers. Central to that plan is the goal of raising $650,000 to $1 million for those "front line" lawmakers by June 30.
Typically, about a third of the money raised by the DCCC comes from member contributions, a third flows from direct mail and Internet solicitations and a third comes from individual donors, records show.
In many instances, that money comes from lobbyists tasked with collecting checks from colleagues, clients, family and friends -- bundlers. It's the same crowd Van Hollen took a crack at last year, when he attached his disclosure proposal to legislation in committee.
2010 Heidi Montag, Spencer Pratt
What exactly is the difference between current and future employments in the context of Perm labor certification and 485. I have seen people using two things interchangeably to suit their arguments. In context of finding ability to pay is there a difference in the way adjudicator looks at two things?
Its important to understand the root cause for the retrogression. Illegals dont have categories and categories in the EB GCs are there for a reason. It makes a world of a difference for somebody who is EB2 or EB3 if the person was from say.. Bangladesh. If EB2 he is all set if EB3 he will be languishing here. I am EB2 and am in trouble because of CONSULTANTS and yes I have a problem with that.
You are not in trouble because of "CONSULTANTS", You are in trouble because country of your birth , because you did not get into queue earlier enough.
I am strictly talking about greencard retrogession here.
You are not in trouble because of "CONSULTANTS", You are in trouble because country of your birth , because you did not get into queue earlier enough.
I am strictly talking about greencard retrogession here.
hair tattoo Heidi Montag talking
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
send the damn letter, nothing happens, and then come back here and vent your frustration again. as you said, buddy, HARD LUCK indeed !!
I cannot believe the nerve that you EB-3 India guys have. You are begging for a GC based on your length of wait!!! laughable at best...........go wait a decade or so more, then come back here and start this useless BS again.
one good thing happens for the EB-2 folks, and the EB-3 community cannot stomach it. pure freaking jealousy.
guys this rolling flood guy does not look like any of us in queue of green card..he is just here to put some oil in stupid fire started here...Beware of him.....
I cannot believe the nerve that you EB-3 India guys have. You are begging for a GC based on your length of wait!!! laughable at best...........go wait a decade or so more, then come back here and start this useless BS again.
one good thing happens for the EB-2 folks, and the EB-3 community cannot stomach it. pure freaking jealousy.
guys this rolling flood guy does not look like any of us in queue of green card..he is just here to put some oil in stupid fire started here...Beware of him.....
hot pictures heidi montag wedding
I think a lot of AC21 cases are getting rejected because of the revocation of I140, Companies don't want to keep the people on their list if he/she is not working, because they have to prove the ability to pay for all those people as well. so they are revoking the I140 for people who are not with them anyore to reduce number of people in their list with USCIS.
How hard is it to figure out that people used AC21 and moved to another company, so the previous employer is out of the picture?. Why should the previous employer�s ability to pay matter?.
How hard is it to figure out that people used AC21 and moved to another company, so the previous employer is out of the picture?. Why should the previous employer�s ability to pay matter?.
house Heidi Montag#39;s wedding vows to
Its important to understand the root cause for the retrogression. Illegals dont have categories and categories in the EB GCs are there for a reason. It makes a world of a difference for somebody who is EB2 or EB3 if the person was from say.. Bangladesh. If EB2 he is all set if EB3 he will be languishing here. I am EB2 and am in trouble because of CONSULTANTS and yes I have a problem with that.
Fighting between EB categories shows how shallow our debates can turn out to be! Rhimzim & all, do the illegals differentiate between meat packers, seamstresses, window cleaners etc.? Why waste time and energy?
Fighting between EB categories shows how shallow our debates can turn out to be! Rhimzim & all, do the illegals differentiate between meat packers, seamstresses, window cleaners etc.? Why waste time and energy?
tattoo hair heidi montag wedding
hey dude. just a few posts back, you mentioned that cnn and fox are mouthpieces of a vast jewish conspriacy. and now you have no qualms in using CNN to justify another argument you are making. so i guess it's ok to switch sides in the middle of an argument? i'm not trying to demean you, but you sure have me confused now.
CNN has to post it because UN brougth the truth out. I posted it here because you guys trust CNN and Fox.
CNN has to post it because UN brougth the truth out. I posted it here because you guys trust CNN and Fox.
pictures 2011 heidi montag wedding
You/lawyer/employer may have forgotten to shred the extra/unwanted documents. Someone may have got hold of them.
Google 'identity theft' and you will be surprised.
Do not answer anyone unless to check. Ask for a call back number. Find the name , badge number. ask them to send you an email with a legit id and you will call back.
You should anyways never talk alone to such people even if they are real. Ask them to talk to your lawyer. If they ask you his number, tell them to find from the application.
Basically never give any information on the phone.
well..I guess..I will take Infopass and checkout whats going on..
I know my file is at local office..not sure if they transferred it back to NBC or TSC..(atleast there are no LUDs)..
and I hope whoever called me can see it in their system that this case is pending at local office..so dont know why they wanted all the detailsfrom me rather than taking from the file..may be thats how they work..
but I am heading to Infopass have enough doubts now :cool:
Google 'identity theft' and you will be surprised.
Do not answer anyone unless to check. Ask for a call back number. Find the name , badge number. ask them to send you an email with a legit id and you will call back.
You should anyways never talk alone to such people even if they are real. Ask them to talk to your lawyer. If they ask you his number, tell them to find from the application.
Basically never give any information on the phone.
well..I guess..I will take Infopass and checkout whats going on..
I know my file is at local office..not sure if they transferred it back to NBC or TSC..(atleast there are no LUDs)..
and I hope whoever called me can see it in their system that this case is pending at local office..so dont know why they wanted all the detailsfrom me rather than taking from the file..may be thats how they work..
but I am heading to Infopass have enough doubts now :cool:
dresses heidi montag wedding
So my view is that inflation is a bigger problem that Ben B does not want to tackle in the near future(3-4 months). Well in times of inflation your savings/investment is better in real-estate than anything else. But definitely NOT cash.
So although we might be near the bottom of real estate market, we can never guesstimate the bottom until it has passed. My advice is, negotiate hard(buyers market) and get into a deal now. As a safety net, you can ask for a long escrow(around 180 days). That way you can backout of the deal if things head south. You've only lost the deposit(subject to arbitration at least in California).
Someone pointed out that Visa Status is a smaller issue, the big issue is if you can hold onto your investment for atleast 5 years, you are golden.
-----------
5 years is too less (you have to hold it for around 10 yrs minimum). 2 years the prices may/will fall. 2 years it would be steady and maybe start increasing slowly after that. so if you buy a house (depends on area ....but broadly) ..a 100K investment in RE (And if we take the best case scenario) after 5 years would be worth 80, 000. if you take inflation in to account.
in the end it is supply and demand -- supply is huge. where is the demand going to come from ?? immigration is tight and in the fast moving life -- people have fewer and fewer kids. if u want to be safe - cash is good (atleast principal is safe if you get around 4 percent return) ..it is best to have diversified portfolio. many of my friends have put everything in RE and are worried now
Good points. If I recall correctly baby boomers started retiring 2-3 years ago. With economy going south, I wonder how many of them are in financial trouble. Also, they are growing older and some of them dying. You have to believe this will add to the supply.
So although we might be near the bottom of real estate market, we can never guesstimate the bottom until it has passed. My advice is, negotiate hard(buyers market) and get into a deal now. As a safety net, you can ask for a long escrow(around 180 days). That way you can backout of the deal if things head south. You've only lost the deposit(subject to arbitration at least in California).
Someone pointed out that Visa Status is a smaller issue, the big issue is if you can hold onto your investment for atleast 5 years, you are golden.
-----------
5 years is too less (you have to hold it for around 10 yrs minimum). 2 years the prices may/will fall. 2 years it would be steady and maybe start increasing slowly after that. so if you buy a house (depends on area ....but broadly) ..a 100K investment in RE (And if we take the best case scenario) after 5 years would be worth 80, 000. if you take inflation in to account.
in the end it is supply and demand -- supply is huge. where is the demand going to come from ?? immigration is tight and in the fast moving life -- people have fewer and fewer kids. if u want to be safe - cash is good (atleast principal is safe if you get around 4 percent return) ..it is best to have diversified portfolio. many of my friends have put everything in RE and are worried now
Good points. If I recall correctly baby boomers started retiring 2-3 years ago. With economy going south, I wonder how many of them are in financial trouble. Also, they are growing older and some of them dying. You have to believe this will add to the supply.
makeup known heidi montag wedding
http://www.bluelatinos.org/firelou?from=0
I encourage IV members to go to the above website and add themselves to the list of petitioners asking CNN to fire Lou.
I encourage IV members to go to the above website and add themselves to the list of petitioners asking CNN to fire Lou.
girlfriend heidi montag wedding ring.
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.
hairstyles (r. heidi montag wedding
Israeli shelling kills more than 40 at UN school in Gaza.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-death-un
More killing while the world watches silently.
Its barberian to kill innocent people.
My prayers for innocents who got killed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-death-un
More killing while the world watches silently.
Its barberian to kill innocent people.
My prayers for innocents who got killed.
Does any one knows the answer to this?
Thanks
Thanks
Well, all of the above were done to Kashmiri Pandits by terrorists. Yet we don't find any terrorists among the Pandits, who are the real victims of the Kashmir situation.
Stop trying to find excuses for terrorism. Stop this perverted sympathy for terrorists.
Well said!
Stop trying to find excuses for terrorism. Stop this perverted sympathy for terrorists.
Well said!
