Sheetal_MA
10-16 05:39 PM
I know that most of the people on this forum are EB filers. However, for the few stragglers here who are filing in the family based category, please share your experience on filing the I-751 (petition to remove the condition on the GC). Specifically, I'd like to know the following:
- Estimated time from filing date to receipt of permanent GC
- Did you have interview with USCIS?
- Compare / contrast with first interview during the AOS process.
Thanks
- Estimated time from filing date to receipt of permanent GC
- Did you have interview with USCIS?
- Compare / contrast with first interview during the AOS process.
Thanks
wallpaper vellore golden temple images.
Macaca
12-02 09:18 AM
Business Lobby Presses Agenda Before �08 Vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/washington/02lobby.html?hp) By ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, December 2, 2007
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 � Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year�s elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.
Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.
�There�s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,� said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. �Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.�
The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.
Even as they try to shape pending regulations, business lobbies are also looking beyond President Bush. Corporations and trade associations are recruiting Democratic lobbyists. And lobbyists, expecting battles over taxes and health care in 2009, are pouring money into the campaigns of Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House.
Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said, �I am beefing up my staff, putting more money aside for economic analysis of regulations that I foresee coming out of a possible new Democratic administration.�
At the Transportation Department, trucking companies are trying to get final approval for a rule increasing the maximum number of hours commercial truck drivers can work. And automakers are trying to persuade officials to set new standards for the strength of car roofs � standards far less stringent than what consumer advocates say is needed to protect riders in a rollover.
Business groups generally argue that federal regulations are onerous and needlessly add costs that are passed on to consumers, while their opponents accuse them of trying to whittle down regulations that are vital to safety and quality of life. Documents on file at several agencies show that business groups have stepped up lobbying in recent months, as they try to help the Bush administration finish work on rules that have been hotly debated and, in some cases, litigated for years.
At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with �the greens.�
A coalition of environmental groups has condemned the proposed rule, saying it would accelerate �the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.�
A priority for many employers in 2008 is to secure changes in the rules for family and medical leave. Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or sick relatives or to tend to medical problems of their own. The Labor Department has signaled its interest in changes by soliciting public comments.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the law had been widely abused and had caused �a staggering loss of work hours� as employees took unscheduled, intermittent time off for health conditions that could not be verified. The use of such leave time tends to rise sharply before holiday weekends, on the day after Super Bowl Sunday and on the first day of the local hunting season, employers said.
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group, said she was �very concerned that the Bush administration will issue new rules that cut back on family and medical leave for those who need it.�
That could be done, for example, by narrowing the definition of a �serious health condition� or by establishing stricter requirements for taking intermittent leave for chronic conditions that flare up unexpectedly.
The Chamber of Commerce is seeking such changes. �We want to get this done before the election,� Mr. Johnson said. �The next White House may be less hospitable to our position.�
Indeed, most of the Democratic candidates for president have offered proposals to expand the 1993 law, to provide paid leave and to cover millions of additional workers. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut was a principal author of the law. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says it has been �enormously successful.� And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says that more generous family leave is an essential part of his plan to �reclaim the American dream.�
Susan E. Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said, �Research suggests that regulatory activity increases in the final year of an administration, regardless of party.�
Whoever becomes the next president, Democrat or Republican, will find that it is not so easy to make immediate and sweeping changes. The Supreme Court has held that a new president cannot arbitrarily revoke final regulations that already have the force of law. To undo such rules, a new administration must provide a compelling justification and go through a formal rule-making process, which can take months or years.
Within hours of taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush slammed the brakes on scores of regulations issued just before he took office, so his administration could review them. A study in the Wake Forest Law Review found that one-fifth of those �midnight regulations� were amended or repealed by the Bush administration, while four-fifths survived.
Some of the biggest battles now involve rules affecting the quality of air, water and soil.
The National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association have petitioned for an exemption from laws and rules that require them to report emissions of ammonia exceeding 100 pounds a day. They argue that �emissions from poultry houses pose little or no risk to public health� because the ammonia disperses quickly in the air.
Perdue Farms, one of the nation�s largest poultry producers, said that it was �essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,� and that a reporting requirement would place �an undue and useless burden� on farmers.
But environmental groups told the Bush administration that �ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.� And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.
On another issue, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting final rules that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
The Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for power companies, said the companies needed regulatory relief to meet the growing demand for �safe, reliable and affordable electricity.�
But John D. Walke, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rules would be �the Bush administration�s parting gift to the utility industry.�
If Democrats gain seats in Congress or win the White House, that could pose problems for all-Republican lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, whose founders include Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Loren Monroe, chief operating officer of the Barbour firm, said: �If the right person came along, we might hire a Democrat. And it�s quite possible we could team up in an alliance with a Democratic firm.�
Two executive recruiters, Ivan H. Adler of the McCormick Group and Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, said they had seen a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. �It�s a bull market for Democrats, especially those who have worked for the Congressional leadership� or a powerful committee, Mr. Adler said.
Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The association has hired three Democrats this year, so its lobbying team is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research organization, said: �Defense contractors have not only begun to prepare for the next administration. They have begun to shape it. They�ve met with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.�
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 � Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year�s elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.
Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.
�There�s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,� said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. �Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.�
The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.
Even as they try to shape pending regulations, business lobbies are also looking beyond President Bush. Corporations and trade associations are recruiting Democratic lobbyists. And lobbyists, expecting battles over taxes and health care in 2009, are pouring money into the campaigns of Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House.
Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said, �I am beefing up my staff, putting more money aside for economic analysis of regulations that I foresee coming out of a possible new Democratic administration.�
At the Transportation Department, trucking companies are trying to get final approval for a rule increasing the maximum number of hours commercial truck drivers can work. And automakers are trying to persuade officials to set new standards for the strength of car roofs � standards far less stringent than what consumer advocates say is needed to protect riders in a rollover.
Business groups generally argue that federal regulations are onerous and needlessly add costs that are passed on to consumers, while their opponents accuse them of trying to whittle down regulations that are vital to safety and quality of life. Documents on file at several agencies show that business groups have stepped up lobbying in recent months, as they try to help the Bush administration finish work on rules that have been hotly debated and, in some cases, litigated for years.
At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with �the greens.�
A coalition of environmental groups has condemned the proposed rule, saying it would accelerate �the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.�
A priority for many employers in 2008 is to secure changes in the rules for family and medical leave. Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or sick relatives or to tend to medical problems of their own. The Labor Department has signaled its interest in changes by soliciting public comments.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the law had been widely abused and had caused �a staggering loss of work hours� as employees took unscheduled, intermittent time off for health conditions that could not be verified. The use of such leave time tends to rise sharply before holiday weekends, on the day after Super Bowl Sunday and on the first day of the local hunting season, employers said.
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group, said she was �very concerned that the Bush administration will issue new rules that cut back on family and medical leave for those who need it.�
That could be done, for example, by narrowing the definition of a �serious health condition� or by establishing stricter requirements for taking intermittent leave for chronic conditions that flare up unexpectedly.
The Chamber of Commerce is seeking such changes. �We want to get this done before the election,� Mr. Johnson said. �The next White House may be less hospitable to our position.�
Indeed, most of the Democratic candidates for president have offered proposals to expand the 1993 law, to provide paid leave and to cover millions of additional workers. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut was a principal author of the law. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says it has been �enormously successful.� And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says that more generous family leave is an essential part of his plan to �reclaim the American dream.�
Susan E. Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said, �Research suggests that regulatory activity increases in the final year of an administration, regardless of party.�
Whoever becomes the next president, Democrat or Republican, will find that it is not so easy to make immediate and sweeping changes. The Supreme Court has held that a new president cannot arbitrarily revoke final regulations that already have the force of law. To undo such rules, a new administration must provide a compelling justification and go through a formal rule-making process, which can take months or years.
Within hours of taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush slammed the brakes on scores of regulations issued just before he took office, so his administration could review them. A study in the Wake Forest Law Review found that one-fifth of those �midnight regulations� were amended or repealed by the Bush administration, while four-fifths survived.
Some of the biggest battles now involve rules affecting the quality of air, water and soil.
The National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association have petitioned for an exemption from laws and rules that require them to report emissions of ammonia exceeding 100 pounds a day. They argue that �emissions from poultry houses pose little or no risk to public health� because the ammonia disperses quickly in the air.
Perdue Farms, one of the nation�s largest poultry producers, said that it was �essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,� and that a reporting requirement would place �an undue and useless burden� on farmers.
But environmental groups told the Bush administration that �ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.� And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.
On another issue, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting final rules that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
The Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for power companies, said the companies needed regulatory relief to meet the growing demand for �safe, reliable and affordable electricity.�
But John D. Walke, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rules would be �the Bush administration�s parting gift to the utility industry.�
If Democrats gain seats in Congress or win the White House, that could pose problems for all-Republican lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, whose founders include Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Loren Monroe, chief operating officer of the Barbour firm, said: �If the right person came along, we might hire a Democrat. And it�s quite possible we could team up in an alliance with a Democratic firm.�
Two executive recruiters, Ivan H. Adler of the McCormick Group and Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, said they had seen a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. �It�s a bull market for Democrats, especially those who have worked for the Congressional leadership� or a powerful committee, Mr. Adler said.
Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The association has hired three Democrats this year, so its lobbying team is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research organization, said: �Defense contractors have not only begun to prepare for the next administration. They have begun to shape it. They�ve met with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.�
e3visa
01-10 07:50 PM
If you have a pending permanent residency application you should still be able to work under h1b status, particularly if your i-140 is approved.
2011 Sripuram Golden Temple
dce.deepak
05-24 03:50 PM
I just received an 3 year h1-B extension based on an approved I-140. I had only 2 years left of 6 year h1 limit but because I have an approved I-140, I got one more year.
I attached my approved I-140 copies along with H1B extension application but the Alien number A# on this new H1-B extension approval is different than what I have on I-140 approval notice. Actually its a typo, instead of A 08 it A 008 and because of one extra zero the last digit is lost.
Is this a matter of concern? Please help.
I attached my approved I-140 copies along with H1B extension application but the Alien number A# on this new H1-B extension approval is different than what I have on I-140 approval notice. Actually its a typo, instead of A 08 it A 008 and because of one extra zero the last digit is lost.
Is this a matter of concern? Please help.
more...
sagittarian
04-17 07:32 PM
Thanks for the reply and just to make sure:
I MUST enroll for summer and fall, is that what you are saying?
I MUST enroll for summer and fall, is that what you are saying?
Macaca
10-05 08:39 PM
The Failings Of Heroic Conservatism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_failings_of_heroic_conserv.html) By George Will | Indianapolis Star, November 25, 2007
A Gathering of Young Conservatives (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701329.html) Former Reagan Ranch Is Site of Annual Retreat for Politically Active Students By Krissah Williams | Washington Post Staff Writer, November 18, 2007
Conservatives Are Such Jokers (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?em&ex=1191729600&en=fb619e4d74a10758&ei=5087%0A) By PAUL KRUGMAN | New York Times, October 5, 2007
The Republican Collapse (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05brooks.html?em&ex=1191729600&en=a469b21dd5ec2170&ei=5087%0A) By DAVID BROOKS | New York Times, October 5, 2007
The New L-Word: Neocon (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04cohen.html?ref=opinion) By ROGER COHEN | New York Times, October 4, 2007
A Gathering of Young Conservatives (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701329.html) Former Reagan Ranch Is Site of Annual Retreat for Politically Active Students By Krissah Williams | Washington Post Staff Writer, November 18, 2007
Conservatives Are Such Jokers (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?em&ex=1191729600&en=fb619e4d74a10758&ei=5087%0A) By PAUL KRUGMAN | New York Times, October 5, 2007
The Republican Collapse (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05brooks.html?em&ex=1191729600&en=a469b21dd5ec2170&ei=5087%0A) By DAVID BROOKS | New York Times, October 5, 2007
The New L-Word: Neocon (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04cohen.html?ref=opinion) By ROGER COHEN | New York Times, October 4, 2007
more...
Blog Feeds
07-15 03:01 PM
General Motors emerged from bankruptcy today and promises it is the beginning of a new age for America's leading car manufacturer. Canadian-born Ray Young, the child of Chinese immigrants, is one of the folks leading GM to what will hopefully be a return to profitability. Young was interviewed by CNBC this morning and rightfully noted that every product GM launches must be a winner if the company is going to succeed. Young also indicated that GM is planning on having an initial public offering of new shares in the next few months in order to repay loans to taxpayers. GM...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-ray-young-gm-cfo.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-ray-young-gm-cfo.html)
2010 makeup VELLORE GOLDEN TEMPLE
csvinay
06-10 02:50 PM
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhEl6HdfqWM&feature=dir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhEl6HdfqWM&feature=dir
more...
Blog Feeds
08-24 07:00 PM
Every Tuesday, USCIS releases its data on the pace of usage of H-1B numbers. I'm monitoring that usage and projecting the end date for H-1B numbers. It's not complicated science, but I'm basically using a rolling average of the prior four weeks of H-1B usage to minimize the anomolies of one particular week and then assuming that usage over the prior month will continue at roughly the same pace. If usage picks up, the exhaustion date will be revised to be sooner and vice versa if usage declines. We actually saw a decline from prior weeks with 800 H-1B applications...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/h1b-quota-exhaustion-target-still-march-2011.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/h1b-quota-exhaustion-target-still-march-2011.html)
hair Sripuram Golden Temple
la_guy
05-14 08:55 PM
Did you move to a state, which comes under Nebraska Service Center? Hence your 485 application would have got moved to NSC.
more...
simmivoice
03-25 04:22 PM
Hi,
I appreciate if someone could answer the following question.
I am a Java Developer and I think my company would have filed my labor as a Programmer Analyst. Now I am planning to change my career into SAP functional analyst in financials. I even got a offer from a client and I think their job title and description definitely different.
1) Once I leave my current employer, should I need to work on same job profile or only at the time of GC interview I should have a offer from any employer with same job title & description? (assuming GC will take another 2 or 3 years for me to get and If I work these 2 or 3 years on different job title & description and produce a offer letter with same job title & description from a new employer at the time of GC interview)
If later is correct, then I can produce a offer letter with same job title & description from a new employer.
I appreciate if someone could answer the following question.
I am a Java Developer and I think my company would have filed my labor as a Programmer Analyst. Now I am planning to change my career into SAP functional analyst in financials. I even got a offer from a client and I think their job title and description definitely different.
1) Once I leave my current employer, should I need to work on same job profile or only at the time of GC interview I should have a offer from any employer with same job title & description? (assuming GC will take another 2 or 3 years for me to get and If I work these 2 or 3 years on different job title & description and produce a offer letter with same job title & description from a new employer at the time of GC interview)
If later is correct, then I can produce a offer letter with same job title & description from a new employer.
hot Narayanee Amma Golden Temple,
ak_2006
03-10 03:26 PM
By this I hope there will be lot of movement for EB2 I/C.
more...
house Golden Temple, Vellore,
samnay
02-21 04:26 PM
I think he lieing. As long as you change the employer, you can file in the same EB category.
tattoo south india golden temple
aadimanav
06-03 11:41 AM
This is my third EAD renewal. My 485 is pending at NSC. I am in CA. All my previous EADs/APs etc were filed at NSC.
This time when my EAD renewal is filed (by my new attorney, in new company) I got receipt Number starting with MSC.
Who decides where to file MSC? What's the criteria to file at MSC? Shouldn't it be file at NSC?
Is this a mistake?
This time when my EAD renewal is filed (by my new attorney, in new company) I got receipt Number starting with MSC.
Who decides where to file MSC? What's the criteria to file at MSC? Shouldn't it be file at NSC?
Is this a mistake?
more...
pictures Golden Temple Near Vellore
winguru
09-11 10:12 AM
Hi,
Some where in May I heard the news that end of this year USCIS is going to halt concurrent filing of I-140 and I485 and introduce an extra step called preApp of I485 which can be done only after an I40 approval. I would like to know if this is really going to happen?
I have an approved I140 and a PD of Apr 08. I am planning to change the company now. My doubts are
1) Suppose if USCIS changes rules and introduce an extra step for preapp of I485.
What will happen if I switch company after 180 days of preapp of 485. can I invoke Ac21 ?
2) will I be eligible for EAD/Parole after preapp of 485?
Any body having any knowledge about this please share.
Some where in May I heard the news that end of this year USCIS is going to halt concurrent filing of I-140 and I485 and introduce an extra step called preApp of I485 which can be done only after an I40 approval. I would like to know if this is really going to happen?
I have an approved I140 and a PD of Apr 08. I am planning to change the company now. My doubts are
1) Suppose if USCIS changes rules and introduce an extra step for preapp of I485.
What will happen if I switch company after 180 days of preapp of 485. can I invoke Ac21 ?
2) will I be eligible for EAD/Parole after preapp of 485?
Any body having any knowledge about this please share.
dresses Sripuram Golden Temple Vellore
blacktongue
03-24 08:34 AM
6 users are maybe same person owner/employee of others sites? They lose money for IV success. So hate IV.
more...
makeup Vellore Golden Temple: My
houston2005
07-25 10:07 AM
I got it recently from TSC, took almost 3 months.
girlfriend Sripuram Golden Temple
kondur_007
10-15 03:11 PM
Hello All,
I recently filed a labor and got A# and would like to know the options to check the status.
My employer is not willing to give the user id and password of the secured sire through which they filed the labor.
I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thanks
rk
Status of PERM can only be checked by your employer (with their user id and password of the secured site). Unfortunately there is no other way to check the status.
Good Luck.
I recently filed a labor and got A# and would like to know the options to check the status.
My employer is not willing to give the user id and password of the secured sire through which they filed the labor.
I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thanks
rk
Status of PERM can only be checked by your employer (with their user id and password of the secured site). Unfortunately there is no other way to check the status.
Good Luck.
hairstyles The Golden Temple
tinuverma
09-01 02:32 PM
Hello Gurus,
Any ideas? BTW, there is no change in the status. Still says: Case received and pending for i-485 and the same old "message was sent..." on other two.
Any ideas? BTW, there is no change in the status. Still says: Case received and pending for i-485 and the same old "message was sent..." on other two.
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.
Blog Feeds
05-19 10:00 AM
Opponents of comprehensive immigration reform often point to the 1986 legalization bill as a great failure that should not be repeated. What they don't want to talk about are the great number of success stories for people who were able to become legal. One story that is making the news 25 years later is that of Ana Hernandez Luna who gave an extraordinary speech on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives where she told her own story of her life as a young undocumented immigrant in the 1980s. The Texas Observer reported on her remarks: Tuesday, after it...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/immigrant-of-the-day-ana-hernandez-luna-legislator.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/immigrant-of-the-day-ana-hernandez-luna-legislator.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment