nmdial
06-22 12:51 PM
Dear All:
I am trying to add my wife (H-4 dependent) to my bank account. The bank (a credit union in PA) has asked me to fill in and submit a W-8BEN among other documents. Please shed some light on this. Your help is much appreciated.
I am trying to add my wife (H-4 dependent) to my bank account. The bank (a credit union in PA) has asked me to fill in and submit a W-8BEN among other documents. Please shed some light on this. Your help is much appreciated.
wallpaper So a big happy birthday to
EJC
07-02 03:53 PM
I just registered but I have been reading the forums a long time.
This is bad news about July visa bulletin being changed. I'm sorry for everybody who had bad news.
I think maybe it is bad news for me too.
I was waiting for interview letter, my PD is March 2006 but I am going thru consular processing. I have I140 approved since February 2006.
I have 'case complete' and was waiting for packet 4.
I don't know what this all means for me now.
This is bad news about July visa bulletin being changed. I'm sorry for everybody who had bad news.
I think maybe it is bad news for me too.
I was waiting for interview letter, my PD is March 2006 but I am going thru consular processing. I have I140 approved since February 2006.
I have 'case complete' and was waiting for packet 4.
I don't know what this all means for me now.
Blog Feeds
08-09 10:40 PM
USCIS has reminded all applicants for Adjustment of Status, Asylum, Legalization and Temporary Protected Status to obtain an Advance Parole (AP) document before traveling abroad. AP allows an applicant to re-enter the U.S. after traveling abroad.
In order to obtain Advance Parole, individuals must file Form I-131, Application for Travel Document to USCIS. The USCIS cautions individuals planning on traveling abroad to file Form I-131 well in advance of their travel plans (approximately 90 days before) in order to prevent possible conflicts.
We suggest all applicants of I-131 to file it in time to get the AP approval before leaving the U.S., otherwise it could have dire consequences and may result in an individual not being able to re-enter. Therefore, individuals that have a pending I-485 are encouraged to apply for Advance Parole before traveling abroad for easier re-entry if the circumstances of their current status changes.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/uscis_instruction_to_obtain_ad.html)
In order to obtain Advance Parole, individuals must file Form I-131, Application for Travel Document to USCIS. The USCIS cautions individuals planning on traveling abroad to file Form I-131 well in advance of their travel plans (approximately 90 days before) in order to prevent possible conflicts.
We suggest all applicants of I-131 to file it in time to get the AP approval before leaving the U.S., otherwise it could have dire consequences and may result in an individual not being able to re-enter. Therefore, individuals that have a pending I-485 are encouraged to apply for Advance Parole before traveling abroad for easier re-entry if the circumstances of their current status changes.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/uscis_instruction_to_obtain_ad.html)
2011 Happy birthday! : )
desigirl
08-31 10:05 AM
Senate Democrat: Immigration reform not happening this year - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/116321-dem-senator-immigration-reform-isnt-happening-this-year)
The party did move in recent weeks, though, to make itself seem tougher on immigration, with the Senate coming back to convene a special session to advance a $600 million bill to boost border security that the House had passed in a special session of its own.
At LEGAL IMMIGRANTS expense :eek:!!!
The party did move in recent weeks, though, to make itself seem tougher on immigration, with the Senate coming back to convene a special session to advance a $600 million bill to boost border security that the House had passed in a special session of its own.
At LEGAL IMMIGRANTS expense :eek:!!!
more...
CADude
08-23 01:44 PM
NO it's RIRO [Random In Random Out] process.
Lots of July 2nd filer are waiting.. So have faith and more wait..:)
I guess USCIS is sending Receipt Notes according to priority dates meaning with 2006-7 priority dates will get receipts later.
My 485 reached on 2nd july...No Update yet.
Can I ask any one get RN with priority date later than 2006?
Lots of July 2nd filer are waiting.. So have faith and more wait..:)
I guess USCIS is sending Receipt Notes according to priority dates meaning with 2006-7 priority dates will get receipts later.
My 485 reached on 2nd july...No Update yet.
Can I ask any one get RN with priority date later than 2006?
gc_perm2k6
03-11 07:50 PM
They have a petition to be signed. Should we sign? IV Core members, please advice.
more...
Macaca
09-27 05:46 PM
Bill Would Protect Frosh on Immigration (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_30/news/20086-1.html) By Jennifer Yachnin | ROLL CALL STAFF, September 20, 2007
House Democratic leaders are drafting a resolution designed to inoculate freshman lawmakers on the issue of immigration, despite concerns from within their own Caucus about reopening debate over the contentious topic.
According to several freshman Democratic lawmakers in attendance at a weekly breakfast meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), Members were told to prepare statements on the resolution, which will endorse laws already on the books that prevent illegal immigrants from participating in taxpayer-funded programs, such as Social Security or food stamps.
In a draft of the resolution obtained by Roll Call, the measure expresses the sense of the House "with respect to the importance of upholding federal immigration laws and ensuring the integrity and security of the borders of the United States."
In addition to the language on public benefits, the draft resolution also contains provisions calling on the executive branch to enforce laws on voter fraud and border security.
But one House lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said some senior Members have objected to the proposal over concerns that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to limit the scope of the debate. The House largely abandoned plans to pursue a comprehensive immigration reform bill earlier this year after the Senate failed to cut off debate on its own version of the legislation, effectively killing the bill.
Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) began work on the resolution earlier this month in response to repeated Republican efforts to force votes on immigration on the House floor through the use of procedural amendments.
"We're trying to figure out a way we can do this and maintain party unity on the motions ... without making it a crisis," said one Democratic lawmaker, who is a member of the Whip operation.
Although one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified since plans have not been finalized, said the measure could move to the floor as early as next week, a House leadership aide said it is unlikely to be that soon.
To date, Democratic leaders have not demanded that Members vote against all motions to recommit - a procedural tool that can be used by the minority party immediately before a vote on final passage of a bill - unless the amendment contains language that would shelve the legislation.
"I've resisted motions to recommit unless they're substantive and then I'll vote for them," explained Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a freshman lawmaker who has faced attacks from the National Republican Congressional Committee for votes against some GOP-authored amendments on immigration.
"It's frustrating to me," Walz added, criticizing the amendments as political footballs. "I'm appreciative that our leadership lets us vote accordingly."
But that policy led to some confusion on the House floor in early August during a vote on a GOP-authored amendment to the Agriculture spending bill to prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing certain federally funded programs, with nearly 20 Democrats initially voting in favor of the proposal.
Republicans allege that the Democratic majority mishandled that vote, resulting in the defeat of the measure. GOP leaders assert that a tied 214-214 vote - rending a defeat - announced by the Speaker Pro Tem was inaccurate and that the motion had in fact passed 215-213 as Republicans changed their votes.
But Democrats dispute that version of events, noting that their own Members were changing votes on the House floor, resulting in the final tally of 212-216.
The dispute prompted the establishment of a select committee to investigate the vote, which is scheduled to hold its first meeting this morning, and produce an interim report Sept. 30.
Republican Rep. Tom Price (Ga.), who has sponsored similar amendments addressing the use of federal funds to assist illegal immigrants, including a measure that failed Tuesday night on a federal housing bill, expressed interest in the Democratic proposal.
"I'd love to be able to talk with them about it and work on it," Price said. He could not say whether such a measure would deter him from offering such amendments in the future without seeing the details of the bill.
"When I talk to folks at home they want to know why we're not including this language on every single piece of legislation," he added.
House Democratic leaders are drafting a resolution designed to inoculate freshman lawmakers on the issue of immigration, despite concerns from within their own Caucus about reopening debate over the contentious topic.
According to several freshman Democratic lawmakers in attendance at a weekly breakfast meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), Members were told to prepare statements on the resolution, which will endorse laws already on the books that prevent illegal immigrants from participating in taxpayer-funded programs, such as Social Security or food stamps.
In a draft of the resolution obtained by Roll Call, the measure expresses the sense of the House "with respect to the importance of upholding federal immigration laws and ensuring the integrity and security of the borders of the United States."
In addition to the language on public benefits, the draft resolution also contains provisions calling on the executive branch to enforce laws on voter fraud and border security.
But one House lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said some senior Members have objected to the proposal over concerns that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to limit the scope of the debate. The House largely abandoned plans to pursue a comprehensive immigration reform bill earlier this year after the Senate failed to cut off debate on its own version of the legislation, effectively killing the bill.
Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) began work on the resolution earlier this month in response to repeated Republican efforts to force votes on immigration on the House floor through the use of procedural amendments.
"We're trying to figure out a way we can do this and maintain party unity on the motions ... without making it a crisis," said one Democratic lawmaker, who is a member of the Whip operation.
Although one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified since plans have not been finalized, said the measure could move to the floor as early as next week, a House leadership aide said it is unlikely to be that soon.
To date, Democratic leaders have not demanded that Members vote against all motions to recommit - a procedural tool that can be used by the minority party immediately before a vote on final passage of a bill - unless the amendment contains language that would shelve the legislation.
"I've resisted motions to recommit unless they're substantive and then I'll vote for them," explained Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a freshman lawmaker who has faced attacks from the National Republican Congressional Committee for votes against some GOP-authored amendments on immigration.
"It's frustrating to me," Walz added, criticizing the amendments as political footballs. "I'm appreciative that our leadership lets us vote accordingly."
But that policy led to some confusion on the House floor in early August during a vote on a GOP-authored amendment to the Agriculture spending bill to prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing certain federally funded programs, with nearly 20 Democrats initially voting in favor of the proposal.
Republicans allege that the Democratic majority mishandled that vote, resulting in the defeat of the measure. GOP leaders assert that a tied 214-214 vote - rending a defeat - announced by the Speaker Pro Tem was inaccurate and that the motion had in fact passed 215-213 as Republicans changed their votes.
But Democrats dispute that version of events, noting that their own Members were changing votes on the House floor, resulting in the final tally of 212-216.
The dispute prompted the establishment of a select committee to investigate the vote, which is scheduled to hold its first meeting this morning, and produce an interim report Sept. 30.
Republican Rep. Tom Price (Ga.), who has sponsored similar amendments addressing the use of federal funds to assist illegal immigrants, including a measure that failed Tuesday night on a federal housing bill, expressed interest in the Democratic proposal.
"I'd love to be able to talk with them about it and work on it," Price said. He could not say whether such a measure would deter him from offering such amendments in the future without seeing the details of the bill.
"When I talk to folks at home they want to know why we're not including this language on every single piece of legislation," he added.
2010 Happy birthday to my favorite
raghuram
11-06 07:32 PM
1. You must get paid all the time, on project or bench.
2. Yes, a problem.
2. Yes, a problem.
more...
logiclife
03-07 11:34 AM
Please dont create new threads, use the "Important CIR updates" thread to ask questions and discuss CIR.
hair happy birthday. Hello Friends,
excogitator
10-20 06:38 AM
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1169/firstalien.png
Yesss. We all know who the first man on the moon was.
Did you ever know the Alien who reached there first though.
It was meeee!! :te:
I learnt to speak English on the World Wide Web
Yesss. We all know who the first man on the moon was.
Did you ever know the Alien who reached there first though.
It was meeee!! :te:
I learnt to speak English on the World Wide Web
more...
foobar2001
08-01 01:46 AM
thanks in advance!
hot Happy birthday to my favorite
kirupa
10-27 10:36 PM
Added :)
I actually can't even see the highlight!
I actually can't even see the highlight!
more...
house Happy Birthday 1 Year Old
rajahmundry
09-08 12:11 AM
Yes, They are open on Saturday. They close on Monday.
I have been there recently.
You just need to walk with your passport.
I have been there recently.
You just need to walk with your passport.
tattoo That#39;s right, Happy Birthday,
Macaca
11-28 07:49 AM
As Lott Leaves the Senate, Compromise Appears to Be a Lost Art (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702358.html) By Jonathan Weisman | Washington Post, November 28, 2007; A04
In January, as a dormant Senate chamber entered its fourth hour of inaction and a major ethics bill lay tangled in knots, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) took to the Senate floor with a plaintive plea.
"Here we are, the sun has set on Thursday. It is a quarter to 6. The sun officially went down at 5:13. We are like bats," the veteran lawmaker lamented to a near-empty chamber. "Hello, it is a quarter to 6. . . . I have called everybody involved. I have been to offices. I have been stirring around, scurrying around. Is there an agenda here?"
The next 10 months appear to have given him the answer. A major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws went down in flames. Just two of a dozen annual spending bills passed Congress, and one of those was vetoed. Repeated efforts to force a course change in Iraq ended in recrimination and stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) filed 56 motions to break off filibusters to try to complete legislation, a total that is nearing the record of 61 such "cloture motions" in a two-year Congress.
And on Monday, Lott, one of the Senate's consummate dealmakers, called it quits.
"Is he the most frustrated he's ever been? Probably not," said David Hoppe, Lott's longtime chief of staff, now with the lobbying firm Quinn, Gillespie & Associates. "But frustration is cumulative."
Lott's departure from Capitol Hill in the coming weeks after 34 years in Congress -- 16 in the House, 18 in the Senate -- is further evidence that bonhomie and cross-party negotiating are losing their currency, even in the backslapping Senate. With the Senate populated by a record number of former House members, the rules of the Old Boys' Club are giving way to the partisan trench warfare and party-line votes that prevail in the House. States once represented by common-ground dealmakers, including John Breaux (D-La.), David L. Boren (D-Okla.), James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), are now electing ideological stalwarts, such as David Vitter (R-La.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
"The Senate is predicated on the ability of people being able to work together," said former senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who was majority whip for much of Lott's years as majority leader. "I'm not throwing rocks at anybody, but there's just been a lot less of that."
Former majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) agreed: "Senator Lott's resignation means the loss of one of the few Republicans in leadership who often excelled in finding compromise and common ground."
Lott has never been a policy moderate, inclined to reach agreement with Democrats on ideological grounds. But he has almost always been a pragmatist, relishing the art of the deal. Just last month, as he labored to crack a wall of Democratic opposition to the confirmation of U.S. Appeals Judge Leslie H. Southwick, Lott wondered aloud to an aide why he was working so hard for a man he did not really know and for someone who was much more closely allied with Mississippi's other Republican senator, Thad Cochran.
"I said to him, 'You know, it's not that you like Southwick. You just like the process. You want the deal,' and he just smiled," recalled the Lott aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was divulging private deliberations. "It was a game. It was, 'Let me figure out how to get this done.' "
Such dealmakers still wander the Senate's halls: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah.). And others could arise as a generation schooled in pragmatism -- such as John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) -- heads for the exits next year.
"Just because an individual leaves doesn't mean you're not going to find new centers to structure work in the United States Senate," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to former majority leader (R-Tenn.). Lott would "be the first to say that no individual is indispensable."
But with the Senate almost dysfunctional, those new power centers are difficult to find.
"The Senate is still a great deliberative body," Nickles said. "But it's a little less congenial and a little too partisan."
Lott made a career out of the art of the deal. In the summer of 1996, after then-Sen. Robert J. Dole resigned to pursue the White House full time, Lott took the reins of a Senate that had ground to a halt as Democrats moved to thwart GOP accomplishments ahead of the presidential election. Lott implored his colleagues to act.
In short order, Congress approved a major overhaul of the nation's welfare laws, cleared a bevy of other bills and cut a deal with the Clinton White House on annual spending bills. After the election, Hoppe recalled, Clinton called Lott to joke that had he not gotten the Senate back on track, the Democrats might well have recaptured a chamber of Congress.
The next year, White House Chief of Staff Erskine B. Bowles and Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin -- both wealthy Wall Street financiers -- sat huddled in Lott's office, as Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tried to cut a final deal on a balanced budget agreement that included a cut to the capital gains tax rate.
"There they were, two Democrats who had been very successful in business, squaring off with two Republicans who didn't have two nickels to rub together," Hoppe recalled.
They struck a deal: Cut the capital gains rate and create a major federal program to offer health insurance to children of the working poor.
After the 2000 election, which left the Senate deadlocked at 50 seats apiece, Lott again struck a deal that angered many in his party. Although Republicans technically had control of the Senate with the vote of newly elected Vice President Cheney, Lott and Daschle agreed to evenly divide the committees. Moreover, they agreed, if one party won a majority midstream, either through a party switch, a resignation or a death, the other party would agree to relinquish control without a fight.
Lott reasoned that the deadlocked Senate could waste the first months of George W. Bush's fledgling presidency in a process fight, or he could relent early and get to work.
But such deals are getting harder to come by.
On June 7, as Lott absorbed increasingly virulent attacks from conservatives for his support of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, he took to the Senate floor for another appeal.
"This is the time where we are going to see whether we are a Senate anymore," he intoned. "Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote."
Three weeks later, the immigration bill fell to a Republican filibuster, and Congress slithered away from the issue.
In January, as a dormant Senate chamber entered its fourth hour of inaction and a major ethics bill lay tangled in knots, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) took to the Senate floor with a plaintive plea.
"Here we are, the sun has set on Thursday. It is a quarter to 6. The sun officially went down at 5:13. We are like bats," the veteran lawmaker lamented to a near-empty chamber. "Hello, it is a quarter to 6. . . . I have called everybody involved. I have been to offices. I have been stirring around, scurrying around. Is there an agenda here?"
The next 10 months appear to have given him the answer. A major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws went down in flames. Just two of a dozen annual spending bills passed Congress, and one of those was vetoed. Repeated efforts to force a course change in Iraq ended in recrimination and stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) filed 56 motions to break off filibusters to try to complete legislation, a total that is nearing the record of 61 such "cloture motions" in a two-year Congress.
And on Monday, Lott, one of the Senate's consummate dealmakers, called it quits.
"Is he the most frustrated he's ever been? Probably not," said David Hoppe, Lott's longtime chief of staff, now with the lobbying firm Quinn, Gillespie & Associates. "But frustration is cumulative."
Lott's departure from Capitol Hill in the coming weeks after 34 years in Congress -- 16 in the House, 18 in the Senate -- is further evidence that bonhomie and cross-party negotiating are losing their currency, even in the backslapping Senate. With the Senate populated by a record number of former House members, the rules of the Old Boys' Club are giving way to the partisan trench warfare and party-line votes that prevail in the House. States once represented by common-ground dealmakers, including John Breaux (D-La.), David L. Boren (D-Okla.), James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), are now electing ideological stalwarts, such as David Vitter (R-La.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
"The Senate is predicated on the ability of people being able to work together," said former senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who was majority whip for much of Lott's years as majority leader. "I'm not throwing rocks at anybody, but there's just been a lot less of that."
Former majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) agreed: "Senator Lott's resignation means the loss of one of the few Republicans in leadership who often excelled in finding compromise and common ground."
Lott has never been a policy moderate, inclined to reach agreement with Democrats on ideological grounds. But he has almost always been a pragmatist, relishing the art of the deal. Just last month, as he labored to crack a wall of Democratic opposition to the confirmation of U.S. Appeals Judge Leslie H. Southwick, Lott wondered aloud to an aide why he was working so hard for a man he did not really know and for someone who was much more closely allied with Mississippi's other Republican senator, Thad Cochran.
"I said to him, 'You know, it's not that you like Southwick. You just like the process. You want the deal,' and he just smiled," recalled the Lott aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was divulging private deliberations. "It was a game. It was, 'Let me figure out how to get this done.' "
Such dealmakers still wander the Senate's halls: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah.). And others could arise as a generation schooled in pragmatism -- such as John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) -- heads for the exits next year.
"Just because an individual leaves doesn't mean you're not going to find new centers to structure work in the United States Senate," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to former majority leader (R-Tenn.). Lott would "be the first to say that no individual is indispensable."
But with the Senate almost dysfunctional, those new power centers are difficult to find.
"The Senate is still a great deliberative body," Nickles said. "But it's a little less congenial and a little too partisan."
Lott made a career out of the art of the deal. In the summer of 1996, after then-Sen. Robert J. Dole resigned to pursue the White House full time, Lott took the reins of a Senate that had ground to a halt as Democrats moved to thwart GOP accomplishments ahead of the presidential election. Lott implored his colleagues to act.
In short order, Congress approved a major overhaul of the nation's welfare laws, cleared a bevy of other bills and cut a deal with the Clinton White House on annual spending bills. After the election, Hoppe recalled, Clinton called Lott to joke that had he not gotten the Senate back on track, the Democrats might well have recaptured a chamber of Congress.
The next year, White House Chief of Staff Erskine B. Bowles and Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin -- both wealthy Wall Street financiers -- sat huddled in Lott's office, as Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tried to cut a final deal on a balanced budget agreement that included a cut to the capital gains tax rate.
"There they were, two Democrats who had been very successful in business, squaring off with two Republicans who didn't have two nickels to rub together," Hoppe recalled.
They struck a deal: Cut the capital gains rate and create a major federal program to offer health insurance to children of the working poor.
After the 2000 election, which left the Senate deadlocked at 50 seats apiece, Lott again struck a deal that angered many in his party. Although Republicans technically had control of the Senate with the vote of newly elected Vice President Cheney, Lott and Daschle agreed to evenly divide the committees. Moreover, they agreed, if one party won a majority midstream, either through a party switch, a resignation or a death, the other party would agree to relinquish control without a fight.
Lott reasoned that the deadlocked Senate could waste the first months of George W. Bush's fledgling presidency in a process fight, or he could relent early and get to work.
But such deals are getting harder to come by.
On June 7, as Lott absorbed increasingly virulent attacks from conservatives for his support of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, he took to the Senate floor for another appeal.
"This is the time where we are going to see whether we are a Senate anymore," he intoned. "Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote."
Three weeks later, the immigration bill fell to a Republican filibuster, and Congress slithered away from the issue.
more...
pictures She is all of 15 years old and
Macaca
10-28 09:52 AM
It's time we seriously ponder fixing the Constitution (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/28/INCHSUV9I.DTL&hw=immigration&sn=008&sc=247) By Larry J. Sabato | San Francisco Chronicle, October 28, 2007
Professor Larry J. Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country" (Walker & Company, 2007). He is the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
What is the undisturbed and unaddressed source of many of the nation's current difficulties? It's the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution has become a secularly sacred document, as though God handed it to Moses in a third tablet on the Mount. The 2008 presidential candidates have been offering us prescriptions for everything from Iraq to health care over the past several months. But here is the problem: Their fixes are situational and incremental. In the meantime, underlying structural problems with America's governmental and political system are preventing us from solving our most intractable challenges.
If progress as a society is to be made, it is time for elemental change. The last place we look to understand why the U.S. system isn't working well anymore - the Constitution - should be the first place. A careful look at constitutional reform should begin now and culminate in a new Constitutional Convention.
Does this sound radical? If so, then the framers were radicals, too. They would be both disappointed and amazed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments they could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787. Urging his future countrymen to take advantage of their own experiences with government, George Washington declared, "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
Thomas Jefferson insisted that "No society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years," the length of a generation in Jefferson's time.
The overall design of the Constitution remains brilliant and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation to a 21st century world unimaginable to the framers.
Let's explore a few: More than 14 million U.S. citizens are automatically and irrevocably barred from holding the office of president simply because they were not born in the United States - either they are immigrants or their U.S. mothers gave birth to them while outside U.S. territory. This exclusion creates a noxious form of second-class citizenship. The requirement that the president must be a "natural born citizen" should be replaced with a condition that a candidate must be a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years before election to the presidency.
Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president's war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue U.S. military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have one year to withdraw all combat troops.
If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with a total of just under 17 percent of the country's population. This small-state stranglehold is not merely a bump in the road; it is a massive roadblock to fairness that can, and often does, stop all progressive traffic. We should give each of the 10 most populated states two additional Senate seats and give each of the next 15 most populated states one additional seat. Sparsely populated states will still be disproportionately represented, but the ridiculous tilt to them in today's system can be a thing of the past.
If someone purposefully tried to conjure up the most random and illogical method of nominating presidential candidates, the resulting system would probably look much as ours does today. The incoherent lineup of primaries and caucuses forces candidates to campaign at least a year before the first nomination contest so they can become known nationwide and raise the money needed to compete. Congress should be constitutionally required to designate four regions of contiguous states; the regions would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. A U.S. Election Lottery, to be held on Jan. 1 of the presidential election year, would determine the order of regional events. The new system would add an element of drama to the beginning of a presidential year while also shortening the campaign: No one would know in which region the contest would begin until New Year's Day.
Excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court - so much so that had the framers realized the courts' eventual powers, they would have limited judicial authority. The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day. A nonrenewable term limit of 15 years should apply to all federal judges, from the district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This all is just a mere scratch on the surface in identifying long-overdue constitutional reforms. There are dozens of other worthy proposals than can and ought to be discussed, if we but have the will to imagine a better Constitution. No rational person will rush to change the Constitution, and it will take many years of thorough-going work. But let's at least start the discussion, and begin thinking about the generation-long process that could lead to a new constitutional convention sometime this century.
Professor Larry J. Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country" (Walker & Company, 2007). He is the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
What is the undisturbed and unaddressed source of many of the nation's current difficulties? It's the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution has become a secularly sacred document, as though God handed it to Moses in a third tablet on the Mount. The 2008 presidential candidates have been offering us prescriptions for everything from Iraq to health care over the past several months. But here is the problem: Their fixes are situational and incremental. In the meantime, underlying structural problems with America's governmental and political system are preventing us from solving our most intractable challenges.
If progress as a society is to be made, it is time for elemental change. The last place we look to understand why the U.S. system isn't working well anymore - the Constitution - should be the first place. A careful look at constitutional reform should begin now and culminate in a new Constitutional Convention.
Does this sound radical? If so, then the framers were radicals, too. They would be both disappointed and amazed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments they could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787. Urging his future countrymen to take advantage of their own experiences with government, George Washington declared, "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
Thomas Jefferson insisted that "No society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years," the length of a generation in Jefferson's time.
The overall design of the Constitution remains brilliant and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation to a 21st century world unimaginable to the framers.
Let's explore a few: More than 14 million U.S. citizens are automatically and irrevocably barred from holding the office of president simply because they were not born in the United States - either they are immigrants or their U.S. mothers gave birth to them while outside U.S. territory. This exclusion creates a noxious form of second-class citizenship. The requirement that the president must be a "natural born citizen" should be replaced with a condition that a candidate must be a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years before election to the presidency.
Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president's war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue U.S. military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have one year to withdraw all combat troops.
If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with a total of just under 17 percent of the country's population. This small-state stranglehold is not merely a bump in the road; it is a massive roadblock to fairness that can, and often does, stop all progressive traffic. We should give each of the 10 most populated states two additional Senate seats and give each of the next 15 most populated states one additional seat. Sparsely populated states will still be disproportionately represented, but the ridiculous tilt to them in today's system can be a thing of the past.
If someone purposefully tried to conjure up the most random and illogical method of nominating presidential candidates, the resulting system would probably look much as ours does today. The incoherent lineup of primaries and caucuses forces candidates to campaign at least a year before the first nomination contest so they can become known nationwide and raise the money needed to compete. Congress should be constitutionally required to designate four regions of contiguous states; the regions would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. A U.S. Election Lottery, to be held on Jan. 1 of the presidential election year, would determine the order of regional events. The new system would add an element of drama to the beginning of a presidential year while also shortening the campaign: No one would know in which region the contest would begin until New Year's Day.
Excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court - so much so that had the framers realized the courts' eventual powers, they would have limited judicial authority. The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day. A nonrenewable term limit of 15 years should apply to all federal judges, from the district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This all is just a mere scratch on the surface in identifying long-overdue constitutional reforms. There are dozens of other worthy proposals than can and ought to be discussed, if we but have the will to imagine a better Constitution. No rational person will rush to change the Constitution, and it will take many years of thorough-going work. But let's at least start the discussion, and begin thinking about the generation-long process that could lead to a new constitutional convention sometime this century.
dresses boy is ONE year old today.
seaken75
07-17 04:43 PM
D. JULY EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
GO IV!
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
GO IV!
more...
makeup Happy 17th Birthday
EndlessWait
03-25 02:51 PM
I had FP done way back in October 07..but there is no status change LUD on I-485..what to do??.:confused:..Do I take an appointment to talk to an officer or simply call USCIS ..
why r u worried about LUD..cmon guys..u've done ur part..so why r u worried ..they'll update when they do.
why r u worried about LUD..cmon guys..u've done ur part..so why r u worried ..they'll update when they do.
girlfriend he was about 17 years old
pd_recapturing
05-27 11:40 AM
Guys, I am efiling 765 for EAD renewal. last year, my lawyer filed 765 and sent a G-28 along with that. This time, I am efiling on my own, do I need to send the G-28 ?
also, please let me know if photos are required to sent after efiling 765.
my AP is expiring sometime in mid Oct and EAD is expring on 30 Sep. I am efiling EAD on 30th of May, can I do the same for AP though, it will still be more that 120 remaining for AP?
also, please let me know if photos are required to sent after efiling 765.
my AP is expiring sometime in mid Oct and EAD is expring on 30 Sep. I am efiling EAD on 30th of May, can I do the same for AP though, it will still be more that 120 remaining for AP?
hairstyles Happy birthday to Taylor
vivache
10-07 03:11 PM
I haven't been following the news latetly.
Last year .. the h1 visas got filled on Oct 1st .. the day it opened.
Any idea what the status is this year?
If i need to apply for someone's fresh h1 visa, when can I do it?
Last year .. the h1 visas got filled on Oct 1st .. the day it opened.
Any idea what the status is this year?
If i need to apply for someone's fresh h1 visa, when can I do it?
sunny1000
01-30 03:45 PM
Hello Seniors,
Can you please let me know what is the process to open an already approved case in USCIS? Is it possible ?
Your help really vital for me.
Thanks a lot
why?
Can you please let me know what is the process to open an already approved case in USCIS? Is it possible ?
Your help really vital for me.
Thanks a lot
why?
Rym
01-25 08:06 PM
HI,
I am in US and have changed a job recently (changed status from L1 to H1 while in US). I plan to travel to india soon in Feb 2010. My passport is valid till March 2011 and my H1b approval is till 2012. Will this be a problem for me when I go for stamping in India.
- rym
I am in US and have changed a job recently (changed status from L1 to H1 while in US). I plan to travel to india soon in Feb 2010. My passport is valid till March 2011 and my H1b approval is till 2012. Will this be a problem for me when I go for stamping in India.
- rym
No comments:
Post a Comment