- Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
- Mitsubishi Pajero io (2009)
- Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
- Tamiya 49490 Mitsubishi Pajero
- Mitsubishi Pajero Sport 2009
- Автомобили MITSUBISHI PAJERO
- Автомобили MITSUBISHI PAJERO
- Mitsubishi Eclipse GT
- Mitsubishi Pajero Sport и
- Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
- 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer
- Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
- Mitsubishi - Pajero Sport
- Mitsubishi Pajero Sport 2010
- Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
- Mitsubishi Pajero Sport Friso
- Spyshot 2008 Mitsubishi Pajero
- ,Mitsubishi Pajero - 3
- like the 2009 Pajero Sport
images Mitsubishi Eclipse GT 
wallpaper Mitsubishi Pajero SportFrontARB.jpg "Mitsubishi Pajero io (2009)")
.jpg "Mitsubishi Pajero Sport")
2011 Mitsubishi Pajero io (2009)
more...
more...
2010 Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
more...
hair Tamiya 49490 Mitsubishi Pajero
more...
hot Mitsubishi Pajero Sport 2009
more...
house Spyshot 2008 Mitsubishi Pajero
tattoo Автомобили MITSUBISHI PAJERO
more...
pictures Автомобили MITSUBISHI PAJERO.jpg "Mitsubishi Pajero Sport")
dresses Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
more...
makeup Mitsubishi Pajero Sport и
girlfriend Mitsubishi Pajero Sport 2010
hairstyles 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer
Source URL: http://notgaptek.blogspot.com/2011/06/mitsubishi-pajero-sport-2009.html
Visit not gaptek for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
new_horizon
06-18 12:33 AM
I fully support this!!!
wallpaper Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
bidhanc
03-21 12:19 PM
Pl respond
Hi,
I am from Upstate NY.
Bidhan
Hi,
I am from Upstate NY.
Bidhan
2011 Mitsubishi Pajero io (2009)
sirinme
12-20 05:45 PM
The same memo also talks about AC21 - to me, it sounds like those who qualify under AC21 can also get 7th year extension even though they are currently not on H1-B status. Could someone please clarify if I can now "recapture" my now-long-gone-H1B based on this memo and the following information?
- I had a H1B visa, whose 6 year period was going to expire in Dec 2005.
- In Oct 2005, I changed to a different employer using AC21 & EAD. So the H1B became void at that time.
Now, under the clarification by this memo, can I apply for the 7th year extension of my old H1B and switch back to that (rather than using EAD to work in US)?
- I had a H1B visa, whose 6 year period was going to expire in Dec 2005.
- In Oct 2005, I changed to a different employer using AC21 & EAD. So the H1B became void at that time.
Now, under the clarification by this memo, can I apply for the 7th year extension of my old H1B and switch back to that (rather than using EAD to work in US)?
more...
stuckinretro
01-06 09:18 AM
PMP is a certification and is merely to Project and People Management. MBA is a Graduate Degree and pertains to Business Management. One cannot and should not compare a certification to a Degree.
In several responses people have compared MBA and PMP, I don't these two are comparable. Any thoughts?
In several responses people have compared MBA and PMP, I don't these two are comparable. Any thoughts?
aspiration
06-24 05:01 PM
One more co-sponsor added for HR 5882.. from California's 5th district- Sacramento...
Now total 23-Co-sponsors for HR 5882
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 6/23/2008
Now total 23-Co-sponsors for HR 5882
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 6/23/2008
more...
eb3_nepa
02-21 04:26 PM
:D This is so true of Desis. Atleast the illegals have the guts to openly conduct a rally.
It's ridiculous how some Desi minds function. I mean they seem to think "Kuch na Kuch to anth aayega hi, this cannot last forever". Arre bhiayya, if we dont do anything to end this, how is it going to end??
It's ridiculous how some Desi minds function. I mean they seem to think "Kuch na Kuch to anth aayega hi, this cannot last forever". Arre bhiayya, if we dont do anything to end this, how is it going to end??
2010 Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
gg10004
06-28 01:17 AM
Hi
In my earlier post, I dint mean to say that all Kinkos are bad, its just the particular one near me was not good enough. The photos were as if they were taken with a yellow filter on their lenses.
Sears did a very good job instead.
You can just tell them that you need photos for passport. They are the same requirements
Think it this way, your photo might be scanned by their machine to be printed on visa/notice. If the photo is not of good quality it might get pixelated after they scan.
So be your own judge, think if you were in USCIS shoes and had to scan a photo and produce it on visa/stamp. They might also use some image recognition softwares for which they require exact speicifications.
In my case the yellow tinge I got from kinkos exactly matches with the improper color on the website below. So i had to go for other option
http://travel.state.gov/passport/guide/quality/quality_875.html
In my earlier post, I dint mean to say that all Kinkos are bad, its just the particular one near me was not good enough. The photos were as if they were taken with a yellow filter on their lenses.
Sears did a very good job instead.
You can just tell them that you need photos for passport. They are the same requirements
Think it this way, your photo might be scanned by their machine to be printed on visa/notice. If the photo is not of good quality it might get pixelated after they scan.
So be your own judge, think if you were in USCIS shoes and had to scan a photo and produce it on visa/stamp. They might also use some image recognition softwares for which they require exact speicifications.
In my case the yellow tinge I got from kinkos exactly matches with the improper color on the website below. So i had to go for other option
http://travel.state.gov/passport/guide/quality/quality_875.html
more...
KanME
08-29 11:15 AM
Members planning to attend the meetings Please email your details asap to lobbyday@immigrationvoice.org . Thanks to those who have already done that...
hair Tamiya 49490 Mitsubishi Pajero
rvr_jcop
02-13 12:58 PM
I filed my 485 in June 2007 in Nebraska and yesterday my LUD changed but there was no message. This is the first change in my LUD since my finger printing in July 2007. I am EB3-I with PD of Dec 2002. Not sure what got updated. Any ideas???
I've got LUD on mine and my wife's 485 on 02/10/2009. So far I got nothing, RFE or finger prints. My previous LUD on 11/26/2007.
Also, I applied for AP and I had LUD on 02/09. So I wasnt sure if they just checking for 485 before approving my AP>
I've got LUD on mine and my wife's 485 on 02/10/2009. So far I got nothing, RFE or finger prints. My previous LUD on 11/26/2007.
Also, I applied for AP and I had LUD on 02/09. So I wasnt sure if they just checking for 485 before approving my AP>
more...
mhb
07-06 06:18 PM
watching NBC nightly news.. No mention yet... hmmmmmmmmmm..
just been informed that the newscast is going is to happen tommorow. apparently there was some "breaking" news!! guys make sure you tune in tomorrow!!
just been informed that the newscast is going is to happen tommorow. apparently there was some "breaking" news!! guys make sure you tune in tomorrow!!
hot Mitsubishi Pajero Sport 2009
485Mbe4001
12-05 11:12 AM
Pune, India in 1996, i just filled out a form, attached a no objection certificate from my company and got a check in 2 weeks. I did not have to pay a dime, i wasnt asked any. I guess it was probably because i was in no rush to get the money.
I try not to pay out money in india, it takes time to get things done, but they do get done...maybe things have changed alot since, but i hope it should not be that bad.
I do not know in which city of India you took out your PPF.,
But I heard you have to pay atleast 5% to get PPF back in Hyd.,
Hope corruption will not be that high by next 20 years in India!!
I try not to pay out money in india, it takes time to get things done, but they do get done...maybe things have changed alot since, but i hope it should not be that bad.
I do not know in which city of India you took out your PPF.,
But I heard you have to pay atleast 5% to get PPF back in Hyd.,
Hope corruption will not be that high by next 20 years in India!!
more...
house Spyshot 2008 Mitsubishi Pajero
nivasch
01-31 03:04 PM
I liked ur statement
DAYLIGHT ROBBERY
DAYLIGHT ROBBERY
tattoo Автомобили MITSUBISHI PAJERO
solaris27
10-09 07:53 PM
you can directly go to USCIS website and take printout of your approved I-140.
It will not have all informaion but more then enough to change job .
It will not have all informaion but more then enough to change job .
more...
pictures Автомобили MITSUBISHI PAJERO
mariner5555
11-18 05:58 AM
Vowww... what a wishful thinking.
Definitely nobody would have thought giving Green Cards to Legal Immigrants who are making renting industry thrive can also solve US Housing Slump.
Next time, they may even see a possibility if giving Green Cards can also solve Global Warming!!!!
You know actually it can happen with majority of desis driving green vehicles (honda/toyota).
it is not wishful thinking ..dumbo ..it is a good idea but it doesnt / wont have much support as community is divided and happy with its ead.
money makes the mare go in this world ..say if the immigration community was united and if we were to lobby with the builders and car dealers who make contribution to the politicians then lot of bills would have passed behind the scenes ..earliar h1-b was for 6 years only ..how did the extension come ..behind the scenes the business lobby worked secretly.
Definitely nobody would have thought giving Green Cards to Legal Immigrants who are making renting industry thrive can also solve US Housing Slump.
Next time, they may even see a possibility if giving Green Cards can also solve Global Warming!!!!
You know actually it can happen with majority of desis driving green vehicles (honda/toyota).
it is not wishful thinking ..dumbo ..it is a good idea but it doesnt / wont have much support as community is divided and happy with its ead.
money makes the mare go in this world ..say if the immigration community was united and if we were to lobby with the builders and car dealers who make contribution to the politicians then lot of bills would have passed behind the scenes ..earliar h1-b was for 6 years only ..how did the extension come ..behind the scenes the business lobby worked secretly.
dresses Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
cmathew
04-01 08:46 PM
send fax 10 , 11
more...
makeup Mitsubishi Pajero Sport и
aj_jadeja
04-01 07:20 PM
done . Sent 2 faxes.
aj
aj
girlfriend Mitsubishi Pajero Sport 2010
pappu
02-21 02:45 PM
This is the first time I am hearing about this. If there are more such instances/OP can provide his full details, IV can ask USCIS if this is true.
hairstyles 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer
ragz4u
03-16 03:43 PM
I tend to agree too that nothing will happen, too much talking, too much BS, but, I can only hope that the republicans know that they can loose the house control, so, maybe they will prefer to have something more conservative than nothing.
Check out the following article from the OC register here http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1053340.php
If this is true, this seems to be good news for us. The McCain Kennedy bill is the most pro-immigrant of the bills and if thats what becomes the Comprehensive Immigration Bill, we all might end up happy!
WASHINGTON � The Senate Judiciary Committee today reached agreement on proposals for a new guest-worker program and a plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to become permanent residents.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week�s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist�s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader�s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program � most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
Check out the following article from the OC register here http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1053340.php
If this is true, this seems to be good news for us. The McCain Kennedy bill is the most pro-immigrant of the bills and if thats what becomes the Comprehensive Immigration Bill, we all might end up happy!
WASHINGTON � The Senate Judiciary Committee today reached agreement on proposals for a new guest-worker program and a plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to become permanent residents.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week�s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist�s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader�s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program � most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
jfredr
05-22 04:05 PM
U r not going Madd ur already made mad
all legals are mad
all legals are mad
abqguy
04-20 02:11 PM
Just wrote to whitehouse and to my senator.
Source URL: http://notgaptek.blogspot.com/2011/06/mitsubishi-pajero-sport-2009.html
Visit not gaptek for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
No comments:
Post a Comment