Better_Days
10-14 07:30 PM
Yes. It happened in my case as well. My I-140 was denied from NSC after having filed I-485. It was refiled (yes refiled in TSC, not MTR and got a different case number). After the I-140 denial my I-485 was also denied. Upon approval on my new I-140 the I-485 was reopened automatically. The online status had not changed from 'Denied". I was surprised when I got my second round of FP notices in August 09. Now the status says "Case has resumed processing". I would however suggest that you ask your attorney to send a letter to USCIS.
I had an I-485 pending when my first I-140 was denied. The cases ended up with AAO.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".
I had an I-485 pending when my first I-140 was denied. The cases ended up with AAO.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".
wallpaper Kitty, Korea, Make up,
desi3933
02-11 10:34 AM
Sanju is correct.
Look at his posts. He is making up stuff.
hi everyone..i try to long story short.i came here 2001 with b1 then i stay since date.. 2004 my employer apply for gc. so far i got my i 140 approved notice about about 1 year ago..
but law we have to wait.they my lawyer said we have wait mayby long time.. my case date is april 2006 ..
Q1-do i have rigth to work here now?
Q2-do i have to wait realy long time?
Q3- can i do anything for waiting time shorter?
MY lawyer is good man but i can even talk to him when i need
...
i lostmy legal in 2002 (b2). during 2003 i won gc lottery . we did al paper work till last step.my lawyer toll me dont go couse deportation. In 2005 my employer apply gc for me (em3) In April 2006 I-140 aproved.now we waiting for priority date..
My question to you .. my lottery case priority date can be use for my eb3 case?
Look at his posts. He is making up stuff.
hi everyone..i try to long story short.i came here 2001 with b1 then i stay since date.. 2004 my employer apply for gc. so far i got my i 140 approved notice about about 1 year ago..
but law we have to wait.they my lawyer said we have wait mayby long time.. my case date is april 2006 ..
Q1-do i have rigth to work here now?
Q2-do i have to wait realy long time?
Q3- can i do anything for waiting time shorter?
MY lawyer is good man but i can even talk to him when i need
...
i lostmy legal in 2002 (b2). during 2003 i won gc lottery . we did al paper work till last step.my lawyer toll me dont go couse deportation. In 2005 my employer apply gc for me (em3) In April 2006 I-140 aproved.now we waiting for priority date..
My question to you .. my lottery case priority date can be use for my eb3 case?
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTVKEe5JlMuY06SgS9r9VT1mh2EjN_ouwgx5jWP28TFFQQBeVben6wMbIUk8jkpXKNoJ3vLsz7lRNHjv8nK0yWGWvhSn83IeYxahfHIgYxQTAoP0XdNHf2VGEBpnpxv0xyI563Qsu89Ok/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTVKEe5JlMuY06SgS9r9VT1mh2EjN_ouwgx5jWP28TFFQQBeVben6wMbIUk8jkpXKNoJ3vLsz7lRNHjv8nK0yWGWvhSn83IeYxahfHIgYxQTAoP0XdNHf2VGEBpnpxv0xyI563Qsu89Ok/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTVKEe5JlMuY06SgS9r9VT1mh2EjN_ouwgx5jWP28TFFQQBeVben6wMbIUk8jkpXKNoJ3vLsz7lRNHjv8nK0yWGWvhSn83IeYxahfHIgYxQTAoP0XdNHf2VGEBpnpxv0xyI563Qsu89Ok/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTVKEe5JlMuY06SgS9r9VT1mh2EjN_ouwgx5jWP28TFFQQBeVben6wMbIUk8jkpXKNoJ3vLsz7lRNHjv8nK0yWGWvhSn83IeYxahfHIgYxQTAoP0XdNHf2VGEBpnpxv0xyI563Qsu89Ok/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
2011 I want my Korean Makeup!
REEF�
06-06 06:10 PM
Oh I see it :). Evil is over it and too much grass covers it up.
more...
shaikhshehzadali
07-11 11:35 AM
No big deal man...mine was approved in 2 days from NSC..;)
gcpain
03-28 01:30 PM
Let us form a group who are pushing to introduce Ammendment for Filling I485, AP &EAD when I140 approved/pending, eventhough Cut-off dates are not reached for EB category immigration. Please discuss here weather any work being done to introduce this ammendment with present Comprehencive Bill.
more...
raj2007
02-20 08:43 PM
Thank you for advice. i did not realize the issue was so complex. I did call uscis after i got married before i sent in my OAS papers and asked them how can i maintain legal status after my j-1 expires. they said that since i came legally, haven't broken any rules and got married before status expiration - i maintain "somewhat legal status"(i do not have j-1 2 year mandatory homecoutry stay either). My wife is US citizen.
So i thought even thought period from 10/01 to 11/26 (receipt for receiving both i-485 and i-130) can be considered out of status - after that i can be considered a resident alien which would mean that it is still a legal status.
Your status is fine once you files I-485, but travelling can be risky.
So i thought even thought period from 10/01 to 11/26 (receipt for receiving both i-485 and i-130) can be considered out of status - after that i can be considered a resident alien which would mean that it is still a legal status.
Your status is fine once you files I-485, but travelling can be risky.
2010 (Isa Knox Korea Makeup)
Ann Ruben
02-23 04:44 PM
Even though you entered under the VWP, and even though you remained here after your I-94 expired, you can file for AOS based on your marriage to a US Citizen.
Your wife is required to provide an affidavit of support. However, if her income and/or resources combined with your income/resources are insufficient, you can rely on a second affidavit from someone willing to be a "co-sponsor". The co-sponsor must be: a US Citizen or Permanent Resident, over 18 years old, and domiciled in the US.
Your wife is required to provide an affidavit of support. However, if her income and/or resources combined with your income/resources are insufficient, you can rely on a second affidavit from someone willing to be a "co-sponsor". The co-sponsor must be: a US Citizen or Permanent Resident, over 18 years old, and domiciled in the US.
more...
kartikiran
05-06 11:08 AM
if a couple of members attend with immigration voice badge on their shirts, this could be a good platform for immigrationvoice as a group to get noticed.
Maybe people who are living around Washington DC neighborhood can attend to represent IV and their registration can be sponsored by IV.
Just a thought. As we push our agenda, IV as an organization must get noticed in more places where USCIS is putting its face on.
Maybe people who are living around Washington DC neighborhood can attend to represent IV and their registration can be sponsored by IV.
Just a thought. As we push our agenda, IV as an organization must get noticed in more places where USCIS is putting its face on.
hair makeup and hair ( Korea
wleebrown
November 14th, 2007, 01:32 PM
I used to reformat my CF card when I put it in the camera. But I started getting card read errors from Lightroom, when in fact the files were readable. This may have been strictly a Mac issue, but once I stopped reformatting the card each time the errors stopped occuring.
Just my $0.02 worth on formatting.
Blessings,
Lee
Just my $0.02 worth on formatting.
Blessings,
Lee
more...
nrakkati
08-15 12:28 PM
Congrats and welcome to IV, hope you become an active member and contribute your efforts to IV.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
hot The Beauty of South Korea,
rajuram
01-14 03:47 PM
It is just frustrating to visit these forums and see nothing is happening. We need more members and more money. But if that happens in 10 years, what is the use. Not much anyone can do. Might as well as start packing.
more...
house Korean stars: before / after
chanduv23
08-05 10:56 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tattoo Famous makeup artist Lee Kyung
aandrew_19
07-26 07:21 PM
Guys�
Urgent advise is required.
My PERM was approved in April-07 and now I have just filed the concurrent 140/485. Now the company is transferring me to a new location (State) early next month with a possible change in the salary than what�s mentioned on my PERM. Can anyone please advise if there will be some impact on my 140/485 applications if:
a) I moved to a different state and, (My work location on PERM is California)
b) If I will be getting less salary than what�s mentioned on my PERM
Thanks much,
Urgent advise is required.
My PERM was approved in April-07 and now I have just filed the concurrent 140/485. Now the company is transferring me to a new location (State) early next month with a possible change in the salary than what�s mentioned on my PERM. Can anyone please advise if there will be some impact on my 140/485 applications if:
a) I moved to a different state and, (My work location on PERM is California)
b) If I will be getting less salary than what�s mentioned on my PERM
Thanks much,
more...
pictures Co-produced by W Korea and
immi2006
08-21 09:40 PM
All the fresh H1's wait little longer, while older h1 case gets adjucated. Presently, a guy who filed in 1999, 2000, 2001 is clue less, on what is happening, a guy who filed in 2005/6 had a 140 already, is this fair ?
So to make it more evenly distributed, delay the process by 2/3 years for every new h1 applicant, and also insisting on 2 years of tax filing , will ensure, the older applications gets processed in the meanwhile, and also help the newer applications get streamlined.
Hope u got the point...
So to make it more evenly distributed, delay the process by 2/3 years for every new h1 applicant, and also insisting on 2 years of tax filing , will ensure, the older applications gets processed in the meanwhile, and also help the newer applications get streamlined.
Hope u got the point...
dresses what South Korean cosmetic
gc_75
07-17 05:48 PM
Here is the link:
http://www.murthy.com/uscis_update.pdf
no you have until august 17, 2007.
see murthy.com
pk
http://www.murthy.com/uscis_update.pdf
no you have until august 17, 2007.
see murthy.com
pk
more...
makeup no makeup adriana lima.
immigrationvoice1
10-05 12:05 PM
What does your online status say? Mine changed today and says the following:
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On October 3, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT.
No idea what it means though. If you are a July 2nd filer, the above surely should not mean I am about to receive mine anytime now...Confused:confused:
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On October 3, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT.
No idea what it means though. If you are a July 2nd filer, the above surely should not mean I am about to receive mine anytime now...Confused:confused:
girlfriend theas a makeup into Korea,
aug2007
02-24 12:27 PM
Thank you chanduv23. Your response clarified and gave the information on what I'm looking for.
hairstyles House, Korea, Make up,
ingegarcia
04-17 09:08 AM
Hi All,
I am an aspiring US immigrant, and currently work with a desi-like employer who has not been paying me for last 3 months. I have resigned and started working at a new employer, using portability options. I will also contact DOL and report this to get my money back, however, DOL may not be able to recover it if the employer files for bankruptcy. I donot care much about money now, as its not too much and my new job increment covers it.
Here are my questions
1) Is there a way i can report this misdoing to USCIS directly. Is there any phone number/contact info to report frauds on I-140s and I-485s as he is holding some employees hostage (not allowing them to move out because of this situation where your money is stuck and so is your immigration).
2) What else should i do to make this injustice visible? I will work with DOl and get my money back.
3) I am thinking of reporting this directly to the I-140 processing centers. Is this is a good idea?
PK
My guess would be to report it with Labor Department instead...
I am an aspiring US immigrant, and currently work with a desi-like employer who has not been paying me for last 3 months. I have resigned and started working at a new employer, using portability options. I will also contact DOL and report this to get my money back, however, DOL may not be able to recover it if the employer files for bankruptcy. I donot care much about money now, as its not too much and my new job increment covers it.
Here are my questions
1) Is there a way i can report this misdoing to USCIS directly. Is there any phone number/contact info to report frauds on I-140s and I-485s as he is holding some employees hostage (not allowing them to move out because of this situation where your money is stuck and so is your immigration).
2) What else should i do to make this injustice visible? I will work with DOl and get my money back.
3) I am thinking of reporting this directly to the I-140 processing centers. Is this is a good idea?
PK
My guess would be to report it with Labor Department instead...
mzafar125
08-19 12:40 AM
Folks,
I am a July filer, I called USCIS last week and they stated that they need a new set of biometrics. I had initially given my biometrics after I filed my AOS last year in July 2007. According to what I have read USCIS should be able to retrieve my biometrics from their Biometric storage system. Should I call USCIS and argue with them which may be futile. Or should I just bite the bullet and await the new biometric appointment. I would appreciate any input.
PD: 10/2002
I-140 - Approved Jan 2007
Category - EB3, ROW
I am a July filer, I called USCIS last week and they stated that they need a new set of biometrics. I had initially given my biometrics after I filed my AOS last year in July 2007. According to what I have read USCIS should be able to retrieve my biometrics from their Biometric storage system. Should I call USCIS and argue with them which may be futile. Or should I just bite the bullet and await the new biometric appointment. I would appreciate any input.
PD: 10/2002
I-140 - Approved Jan 2007
Category - EB3, ROW
arnet
09-15 01:18 PM
if they take the bill, they might listen to us and include our provisions in this bill because our provisions are part of the CIR bill which they passed it.
but they will make changes to 'secure act' and pass it in such a way it goes to conference committee (big chance of this going because senate wants 370 miles fence, house wants 700miles) and they wont have time for that committee now, so they will work on it next yr after elections. again after elections, it is diff game as you said. anyhow we caught in the middle of their game.
Now that the "Secure Fence Act" has been approved in the house, will senate take on this bill and pass its own version? Has there been any indication at all from the senate leadership that they intend to pass something similar and if so, when? The reason I ask is that I strongly believe that if this bill were to taken on by the senate then our friendly senators like Specter might include some relief for us. This is the only chance I can see this year and next year is a whole different ball game.
but they will make changes to 'secure act' and pass it in such a way it goes to conference committee (big chance of this going because senate wants 370 miles fence, house wants 700miles) and they wont have time for that committee now, so they will work on it next yr after elections. again after elections, it is diff game as you said. anyhow we caught in the middle of their game.
Now that the "Secure Fence Act" has been approved in the house, will senate take on this bill and pass its own version? Has there been any indication at all from the senate leadership that they intend to pass something similar and if so, when? The reason I ask is that I strongly believe that if this bill were to taken on by the senate then our friendly senators like Specter might include some relief for us. This is the only chance I can see this year and next year is a whole different ball game.
0 comments:
Post a Comment