smsthss
07-18 12:21 PM
Hi,
There is an article in AILA about VISA BULLETIN REVERSAL: NOW WHAT?. Does anybody have any access to that..
There is an article in AILA about VISA BULLETIN REVERSAL: NOW WHAT?. Does anybody have any access to that..
wallpaper pin up hairstyles for short
rajeshalex
09-16 04:47 AM
Ask your brother to get a leave letter from his company. It should help.
Rajesh
Rajesh
JazzByTheBay
07-10 05:19 PM
Don't recollect seeing it here, so at the risk of getting brickbats if it's appeared here already:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/opinion/07sat1.html?ex=1341460800&en=26bbfa1cf3858a3b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
jazz
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/opinion/07sat1.html?ex=1341460800&en=26bbfa1cf3858a3b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
jazz
2011 pin up hairstyles for short
leo2606
10-05 06:06 PM
There is already another thread opened, please check following link
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14205
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14205
more...
keerthisagar
01-06 09:11 AM
You being a US citizen and trying to get your spouse a green card should not matter on whether you are employed or not!
samx18
01-17 04:08 PM
Hi
My company is converting my L1B to a L1A.I wanted to know if i can apply for a green card independently after my L1A has bee approved or does my company needs to process that application.
Thanks
My company is converting my L1B to a L1A.I wanted to know if i can apply for a green card independently after my L1A has bee approved or does my company needs to process that application.
Thanks
more...
imnail
01-15 02:34 AM
I send my I485 application on Nov 6th 2007. No receipts yet. Checks have not cashed as well. Anyone in my position?
2010 pin up hairstyles for short hair. for short hair pin up
udayak
03-06 03:41 PM
Does anyone have feedback on "Saga Consulting Services"
(www.sagacs.com).
They say that, they can pay at 90/10 or 80/20
and also pay some amount in "per-diem"
This will make effective rate to be "more than 90%"
Is anyone currently working with this company ?
Any type of feedback on this company is
appreciated.
Thanks
(www.sagacs.com).
They say that, they can pay at 90/10 or 80/20
and also pay some amount in "per-diem"
This will make effective rate to be "more than 90%"
Is anyone currently working with this company ?
Any type of feedback on this company is
appreciated.
Thanks
more...
waiting4gc02
02-23 08:24 AM
Guys:
Do you know, how one could apply for a Visitor Visa without a Sponsorer in the US ?
What documents do they need to furnish ?
As I understand there are a lot of ppl who come to the US who do not have kids/relatives here, what do they have to show if they are just coming to the US for a Visit not work related ?
Thanks
Do you know, how one could apply for a Visitor Visa without a Sponsorer in the US ?
What documents do they need to furnish ?
As I understand there are a lot of ppl who come to the US who do not have kids/relatives here, what do they have to show if they are just coming to the US for a Visit not work related ?
Thanks
hair Cute Pin Up Hairstyles For
terah14
10-27 12:45 AM
Case against his employer had held in the past year and he was doing right to get his right to get the money back so he was not doing anything wrong in the past with his employer but how the new employer of his company react on that background and understand is totally depends upon them but don't worry about it, he was not wrong.
more...
sanjay02
08-08 12:44 AM
Since ur I-485 is approved which means you will get Green card in abt week to 10 days they have denied EAD. So there is nothing to be concerned.
hot pin up hairstyles for short
www.attorneyRehan.com
01-23 12:56 PM
Normally, entering into the US follows the last entry rule. Thus, whatever status a person last enters on is their status.
There are special regulations when it comes to H-1b status and travelling on AP. I would speak with an attorney prior to travelling.
There are special regulations when it comes to H-1b status and travelling on AP. I would speak with an attorney prior to travelling.
more...
house rockabilly pin up hairstyles.
Blog Feeds
03-04 08:10 AM
Indian-born Avichal Garga is a former Google employee who left to co-found PrepMe.com. The company describes its services as follows: PrepMe is a premium test preparation company dedicated to bringing high-quality, personalized test preparation to students across the world at an affordable price. We accomplish this by using our adaptive learning technology which identifies a student�s strengths and weaknesses, then adapts to that student�s needs. We couple our online curriculum and technology by hiring top students at elite universities to be personal essay coaches for our students, to help guide them through the program, answer their questions, and grade their...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/immigrant-of-the-day-avichal-garga-entrepreneur.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/immigrant-of-the-day-avichal-garga-entrepreneur.html)
tattoo pin up hairstyles for short
whattodo21
04-22 03:22 PM
this may help you R2I Dilemma, Planning (http://www.r2iclubforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php/11-R2I-Dilemma-Planning)
more...
pictures 50s pin up hairstyles. pin up
ksvreg
04-18 01:58 PM
I am planning to renew my passport. Current passport is going to expire in October 2008.
Currently my I-485 is pending. If I renew my passport, do I need to update my renewed passport number to USCIS?
Currently my I-485 is pending. If I renew my passport, do I need to update my renewed passport number to USCIS?
dresses black, Cute
dilbert_cal
06-25 02:05 AM
Dont worry and lose sleep over it. In case it is noticed, you will be asked for clarification. Most probably it will not be noticed.
more...
makeup pin up hairstyles for short hair_21. Long Hair Styles For Women
jindhal
10-05 01:16 AM
EB2 - NIW National Interest Waiver (Special Considerations for a green card)
girlfriend dresses Long Hair Styles For Women pin up hairstyles for short hair_21.
ysramu
01-02 02:05 PM
My AP approvals are lost in mail, my employer mailed them in ordinary mail during holiday season (12/11/07). What can I do next? Go thru attorney for duplicates? Please advice.
hairstyles images pin up hairstyles for
bestia
07-20 02:40 AM
PERM takes from 2 weeks and upward. Mine took 9 months. Why? nobody knows. My friend's first PERM (eb3) took 6 months. Second (eb2) took 2 weeks.
You can file for I-140 (+ I-485) only after LC approval and if your date is current (for your country and your category).
You can file for I-140 (+ I-485) only after LC approval and if your date is current (for your country and your category).
Macaca
12-13 06:23 PM
Intraparty Feuds Dog Democrats, Stall Congress (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119750838630225395.html) By David Rogers | Wall Street Journal, Dec 13, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Democrats took control of Congress last January promising a "new direction." A year later, the image that haunts them most is one symbolizing no direction at all: gridlock.
Unfinished work is piling up -- legislation to aid borrowers affected by the housing mess, rescue millions of middle-class families from a big tax increase and put stricter gas-mileage limits on the auto industry. Two months into the new fiscal year, Democrats are still scrambling just to keep the government open.
President Bush and Republicans are contributing to the impasse, but there's another factor: Intraparty squabbling between House Democrats and Senate Democrats is sometimes almost as fierce as the partisan battling.
A fracas between Democrats this week over a proposed $522 billion spending package is the latest example. The spending would keep the government running through the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2008, but it has opened party divisions over funding the Iraq war and lawmakers' home-state projects.
After enjoying an early rise, Congress's approval ratings have fallen since the spring amid the rancor. In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, just 19% of respondents said they approved of the job Congress is doing, while 68% disapproved.
Democrats are hoping to get a boost by enacting the tougher auto- mileage standards before Christmas, but other matters, such as a farm bill to continue government price supports, are likely to wait for the new year.
Republicans suffered from the same House-Senate tensions in their 12 years of rule in Congress. But the situation is more acute now for Democrats, who must cope with both Mr. Bush's vetoes and the narrowest of margins in the Senate, leaving them vulnerable to Republican filibusters.
Democrats in the House interpret the 2006 elections as a mandate for change. They are more antiwar and more willing to shed old ways -- such as "earmarks" for legislators' pet projects -- to confront the White House. Senate Democrats, by comparison, remain more tied to tradition and institutional rules that demand consensus before taking action.
"The Senate and House are out of phase with one another," says Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. "There was a big change last year, a big change that affected the whole House and one-third of the Senate. That's the fundamental disconnect."
Rather than move to the center after 2006, President Bush has moved right to shore up his conservative base. He has also adopted a confrontational veto strategy calculated to disrupt the new Congress and reduce its effectiveness in challenging him on Iraq.
Just yesterday, the president issued his second veto of Democrat- backed legislation to expand government-provided health insurance for the children of working-class families. In his first six years as president, Mr. Bush issued only one veto. Since Democrats took over Congress, he has issued six vetoes, and threats of more hang over the budget talks now.
For Democrats, teamwork is vital to challenging the president, and it's not always forthcoming. A comment by Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, suggests the distant relationship between the two houses. "We have a constitutional responsibility to send legislation over there," said Rep. Rangel. "Quite frankly I don't give a damn what they feel."
Adds Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee: "I can tell you when bills will move and you can tell me when the Senate will sell us out."
With 2008 an election year overseen by a lame-duck president, it's unlikely that Congress will be able to break out of its slump.
Sometimes the disputes resemble play-acting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has quietly invited House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) to blame the Senate if it suits her purpose to explain the slow pace of legislation, according to a person close to Sen. Reid.
At the same time, he can use her as his foil to fend off Republican demands in the Senate: "I can't control Speaker Pelosi," he said last week in debate on an energy bill. "She is a strong independent woman. She runs the House with an iron hand."
Still, the interchamber differences have real consequences, as seen in the fight over the budget.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd of West Virginia long argued against creating a big package that would combine all the main spending bills. He preferred to confront Mr. Bush with a series of targeted individual bills where he could gain some Republican support and maintain leverage over the president. But Mr. Byrd was undercut by his leadership's failure to allow more time for debate on the Senate floor. After Labor Day, the House began pressing for a single large package.
The $522 billion proposed bill ultimately emerged from weeks of talks that included moderate Republicans. The bill cut $10.6 billion from earlier spending proposals, moving closer to Mr. Bush, while giving him new money he wanted for the State Department as well as a border-security initiative.
No new money was provided specifically for Iraq but the bill gives the Pentagon an additional $31 billion for the war in Afghanistan and body armor for troops in the field. The goal was to provide enough money for Army accounts so its funding would be adequate into April, when a fuller debate could be held on the U.S.'s plans in Iraq.
For Senate Democrats and Mr. Byrd, the effort was a gamble that a moderate center could be found to stand up to Mr. Bush. The more combative Mr. Obey, the House appropriations chairman, was never persuaded this could happen.
After the White House announced its opposition over the weekend, Mr. Obey said Monday that the budget proposal was dead unless changes were made. The effect was to divide Democrats again, instead of putting up a united front against the White House's resistance.
Mr. Obey suggested that lawmakers should be willing to strip out home-state projects, acceding to Mr. Bush's tight line on spending, if that's what it took to make a tough stand on Iraq.
"I am perfectly willing to lose every dollar on the domestic side of the ledger in order to avoid giving them money for the war without conditions," Mr. Obey said. His suggestion met strong resistance from Senate Democrats. At a party luncheon, senators were almost comic in their anger, said one colleague who was present, loudly complaining of being reduced to being "puppets" or "slaves."
On the Senate floor yesterday, Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn said Democrats were showing signs of "attention deficit disorder." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, accused the new majority of being more interested in "finger pointing" and "headlines" than legislation. "It won't get bills signed into law," he said.
While Ms. Pelosi had personally supported Mr. Obey's approach, she instructed the House committee to preserve the projects as it began a second round of spending reductions yesterday, cutting an additional $6.9 billion from the $522 billion package.
The Senate committee's Democratic staff joined in the discussions by evening, but the White House denied reports that a deal had been reached at a spending ceiling above the president's initial request.
If agreement is not reached by the end of next week, lawmakers may have to resort again to a yearlong funding resolution that effectively freezes most agencies at their current levels. This would be a repeat of the collapse of the budget process last year under Republican rule -- not the "new direction" Democrats had hoped for.
Tied in Knots
The House and Senate are struggling to complete several matters before they head home this month.
Appropriations: Only the Pentagon budget is in place for the new fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The House and Senate are struggling to finish a bill covering the rest of the government.
Farm bill: The Senate still hopes to complete its version of a farm bill but negotiations with the House will wait until next year.
AMT relief: The House and Senate have passed legislation limiting the alternative minimum tax's hit on millions of middle-class taxpayers. But they differ about whether to offset the lost revenue.
Medicare: Doctors are set to see a cut in Medicare payments in 2008, which lawmakers want to prevent. The House acted, but Senate hasn't yet.
Housing: Several bills addressing the housing crisis have passed the House but are languishing in the Senate.
WASHINGTON -- Democrats took control of Congress last January promising a "new direction." A year later, the image that haunts them most is one symbolizing no direction at all: gridlock.
Unfinished work is piling up -- legislation to aid borrowers affected by the housing mess, rescue millions of middle-class families from a big tax increase and put stricter gas-mileage limits on the auto industry. Two months into the new fiscal year, Democrats are still scrambling just to keep the government open.
President Bush and Republicans are contributing to the impasse, but there's another factor: Intraparty squabbling between House Democrats and Senate Democrats is sometimes almost as fierce as the partisan battling.
A fracas between Democrats this week over a proposed $522 billion spending package is the latest example. The spending would keep the government running through the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2008, but it has opened party divisions over funding the Iraq war and lawmakers' home-state projects.
After enjoying an early rise, Congress's approval ratings have fallen since the spring amid the rancor. In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, just 19% of respondents said they approved of the job Congress is doing, while 68% disapproved.
Democrats are hoping to get a boost by enacting the tougher auto- mileage standards before Christmas, but other matters, such as a farm bill to continue government price supports, are likely to wait for the new year.
Republicans suffered from the same House-Senate tensions in their 12 years of rule in Congress. But the situation is more acute now for Democrats, who must cope with both Mr. Bush's vetoes and the narrowest of margins in the Senate, leaving them vulnerable to Republican filibusters.
Democrats in the House interpret the 2006 elections as a mandate for change. They are more antiwar and more willing to shed old ways -- such as "earmarks" for legislators' pet projects -- to confront the White House. Senate Democrats, by comparison, remain more tied to tradition and institutional rules that demand consensus before taking action.
"The Senate and House are out of phase with one another," says Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. "There was a big change last year, a big change that affected the whole House and one-third of the Senate. That's the fundamental disconnect."
Rather than move to the center after 2006, President Bush has moved right to shore up his conservative base. He has also adopted a confrontational veto strategy calculated to disrupt the new Congress and reduce its effectiveness in challenging him on Iraq.
Just yesterday, the president issued his second veto of Democrat- backed legislation to expand government-provided health insurance for the children of working-class families. In his first six years as president, Mr. Bush issued only one veto. Since Democrats took over Congress, he has issued six vetoes, and threats of more hang over the budget talks now.
For Democrats, teamwork is vital to challenging the president, and it's not always forthcoming. A comment by Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, suggests the distant relationship between the two houses. "We have a constitutional responsibility to send legislation over there," said Rep. Rangel. "Quite frankly I don't give a damn what they feel."
Adds Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee: "I can tell you when bills will move and you can tell me when the Senate will sell us out."
With 2008 an election year overseen by a lame-duck president, it's unlikely that Congress will be able to break out of its slump.
Sometimes the disputes resemble play-acting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has quietly invited House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) to blame the Senate if it suits her purpose to explain the slow pace of legislation, according to a person close to Sen. Reid.
At the same time, he can use her as his foil to fend off Republican demands in the Senate: "I can't control Speaker Pelosi," he said last week in debate on an energy bill. "She is a strong independent woman. She runs the House with an iron hand."
Still, the interchamber differences have real consequences, as seen in the fight over the budget.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd of West Virginia long argued against creating a big package that would combine all the main spending bills. He preferred to confront Mr. Bush with a series of targeted individual bills where he could gain some Republican support and maintain leverage over the president. But Mr. Byrd was undercut by his leadership's failure to allow more time for debate on the Senate floor. After Labor Day, the House began pressing for a single large package.
The $522 billion proposed bill ultimately emerged from weeks of talks that included moderate Republicans. The bill cut $10.6 billion from earlier spending proposals, moving closer to Mr. Bush, while giving him new money he wanted for the State Department as well as a border-security initiative.
No new money was provided specifically for Iraq but the bill gives the Pentagon an additional $31 billion for the war in Afghanistan and body armor for troops in the field. The goal was to provide enough money for Army accounts so its funding would be adequate into April, when a fuller debate could be held on the U.S.'s plans in Iraq.
For Senate Democrats and Mr. Byrd, the effort was a gamble that a moderate center could be found to stand up to Mr. Bush. The more combative Mr. Obey, the House appropriations chairman, was never persuaded this could happen.
After the White House announced its opposition over the weekend, Mr. Obey said Monday that the budget proposal was dead unless changes were made. The effect was to divide Democrats again, instead of putting up a united front against the White House's resistance.
Mr. Obey suggested that lawmakers should be willing to strip out home-state projects, acceding to Mr. Bush's tight line on spending, if that's what it took to make a tough stand on Iraq.
"I am perfectly willing to lose every dollar on the domestic side of the ledger in order to avoid giving them money for the war without conditions," Mr. Obey said. His suggestion met strong resistance from Senate Democrats. At a party luncheon, senators were almost comic in their anger, said one colleague who was present, loudly complaining of being reduced to being "puppets" or "slaves."
On the Senate floor yesterday, Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn said Democrats were showing signs of "attention deficit disorder." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, accused the new majority of being more interested in "finger pointing" and "headlines" than legislation. "It won't get bills signed into law," he said.
While Ms. Pelosi had personally supported Mr. Obey's approach, she instructed the House committee to preserve the projects as it began a second round of spending reductions yesterday, cutting an additional $6.9 billion from the $522 billion package.
The Senate committee's Democratic staff joined in the discussions by evening, but the White House denied reports that a deal had been reached at a spending ceiling above the president's initial request.
If agreement is not reached by the end of next week, lawmakers may have to resort again to a yearlong funding resolution that effectively freezes most agencies at their current levels. This would be a repeat of the collapse of the budget process last year under Republican rule -- not the "new direction" Democrats had hoped for.
Tied in Knots
The House and Senate are struggling to complete several matters before they head home this month.
Appropriations: Only the Pentagon budget is in place for the new fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The House and Senate are struggling to finish a bill covering the rest of the government.
Farm bill: The Senate still hopes to complete its version of a farm bill but negotiations with the House will wait until next year.
AMT relief: The House and Senate have passed legislation limiting the alternative minimum tax's hit on millions of middle-class taxpayers. But they differ about whether to offset the lost revenue.
Medicare: Doctors are set to see a cut in Medicare payments in 2008, which lawmakers want to prevent. The House acted, but Senate hasn't yet.
Housing: Several bills addressing the housing crisis have passed the House but are languishing in the Senate.
Macaca
05-19 07:54 AM
3 Months of Tense Talks Led to Immigration Deal (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) and ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
No comments:
Post a Comment