anilsal
06-14 11:36 PM
For the marriage, do you have any evidence of the marriage happening (like you can get something from the priest). You then go to the local registrar of marriage and show him the evidence. He will register the marriage and give you an official certificate. Your relatives in your home country should help you with this procedure.
For the DOB, look for FAQ on affidavits. Every immigration website has info on this.
For the DOB, look for FAQ on affidavits. Every immigration website has info on this.
wallpaper Beckham New Hairstyle,
tnite
01-03 10:27 AM
We have received our EAD cards without having Finger Print done. We have received FP notice and scheduled for the next week but received our EAD cards.
EAD cards says "No Finger print available" on the right corner. Will this cause any problems?
Please advice.
Thank you.
You will not have issues. That's the way it is. Its fine.
EAD cards says "No Finger print available" on the right corner. Will this cause any problems?
Please advice.
Thank you.
You will not have issues. That's the way it is. Its fine.
Blog Feeds
04-28 08:40 AM
Left-wing reporter Greg Palast argues that the new Arizona law has nothing to do with stopping illegal immigration and everything to do with targeting the Hispanic US citizens in the state - nearly 30% of Arizonans - who vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Palast lays out the case that the state's GOP has been engaged in a long war on these citizens that involves uppressing their votes and driving them from the state.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/is-real-target-of-arizona-law-hispanic-us-citizens.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/is-real-target-of-arizona-law-hispanic-us-citizens.html)
2011 edgy mullet hairstyles to
invincibleasian
02-07 10:23 AM
Hi,
I have a question:
Can a Employer who have a smoll business, a Residential Care Facility with 6 Elderly, to apply for me for a H1B Visa?. He need me as a social service Manager, with a bachelor degree.
Lelica
Yes.
I have a question:
Can a Employer who have a smoll business, a Residential Care Facility with 6 Elderly, to apply for me for a H1B Visa?. He need me as a social service Manager, with a bachelor degree.
Lelica
Yes.
more...
rimori3232
11-16 07:31 PM
Hi. I am a Canadian Citizen that was offered a Management job in US.
I would appreciate any advice in regards the best way to ensure a LONG stay in US. The company wants to start with a TN.
Strategy #1:
To stay under TN and keep it renew it for a long term �. 10-20 years. The risk is that the guys at the border will say no at some point; however I wonder if I can request an appeal since there is no limit per TN rules.
( are there any cases that have stayed that long?)
Strategy #2:
Start with a TN then file an H1b and wait for the Labor of certification to be approved. If I do not hear anything in 1 or 2 years; change to TN to revise the strategy�. in order to avoid consuming the H1b 6 years lead time allowed and try again later.
I would appreciate any advice in regards the best way to ensure a LONG stay in US. The company wants to start with a TN.
Strategy #1:
To stay under TN and keep it renew it for a long term �. 10-20 years. The risk is that the guys at the border will say no at some point; however I wonder if I can request an appeal since there is no limit per TN rules.
( are there any cases that have stayed that long?)
Strategy #2:
Start with a TN then file an H1b and wait for the Labor of certification to be approved. If I do not hear anything in 1 or 2 years; change to TN to revise the strategy�. in order to avoid consuming the H1b 6 years lead time allowed and try again later.
factoryman
06-15 11:29 AM
I haven't looked, but there is a speicific link.
AOS vs Consular Processing [JH3090] (http://www.jackson-hertogs.com/JH/memos/3090.pdf)
AOS vs Consular Processing [JH3090] (http://www.jackson-hertogs.com/JH/memos/3090.pdf)
more...
go_guy123
07-02 05:53 AM
You can even take an unpaid job/volunteer to keep you clear of the 90 days unemployed clause.
I didnt know that even the OPT rules have changed now. This is a mess.
Now OPT also you cant remain unemployed for more than 90 days. Now this OPT is becoming like another H1B.
I didnt know that even the OPT rules have changed now. This is a mess.
Now OPT also you cant remain unemployed for more than 90 days. Now this OPT is becoming like another H1B.
2010 In woman the mullet was
Acm928
01-22 11:25 PM
Hi, I was wondering how long it is going to take me to get my citizenship. I received my permanent residency when I was 17. I was told I could have gotten my citizenship then but since I married a military personnel I wasn't sure if I was still eligible. Can I get my citizenship now because I received my "green card" under age or would I still have to wait 3 years being married to a U.S Citizen? Can I get my citizenship faster being married to a military personnel?
more...
Blog Feeds
02-23 12:40 PM
Though he is undoubtedly the most famous athlete Canada has ever produced, hockey legend Wayne Gretzky is now a naturalized American citizen living in the US. Canada hasn't held that against him and gave him the spectacular honor of lighting the Olympic torch in tonight's Winter Olympics Opening Ceremonies in Vancouver.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/immigrant-of-the-day-wayne-gretzky-torchbearer.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/immigrant-of-the-day-wayne-gretzky-torchbearer.html)
hair short hairstyles 2010 2011
kirupa
07-07 06:06 AM
Added!
more...
ras
04-08 12:14 AM
Does any one have recommendations for a good immigration attorney in San Diego?
I want to start long time relationship for immigration issues as well as for my future company filings and issues. Please send me private messages as well.
I want to start long time relationship for immigration issues as well as for my future company filings and issues. Please send me private messages as well.
hot lt;igt;Savvylt;/igt; Modern mullet
prom2
10-19 05:20 PM
I know ability to pay issue is analyzed at I-140 stage, but the ability to pay the proffered wage begins at priority date and ends at the time I-485 is approved.
After I-140 approval, could be ability to pay examined again?
I read that someone went to an interview and was asked for sponsor company's taxes in order to check if the company still had ability to pay the salary.
Would be possible an RFE asking for updated financials of the company?
Thank you.
After I-140 approval, could be ability to pay examined again?
I read that someone went to an interview and was asked for sponsor company's taxes in order to check if the company still had ability to pay the salary.
Would be possible an RFE asking for updated financials of the company?
Thank you.
more...
house Teens modern mullet haircuts
buehler
01-21 04:25 PM
I am an analyst under H1B and I am involved in a sales process by developing a prototype for a client. My company wants me to give a percentage of total deal as commission. It will show in the pay stub as commission. Is it legal to get commission under H1B (please remember I am a programmer analyst) ?
As long as the payment comes from/through the company that is sponsoring your H1B, you're fine.
As long as the payment comes from/through the company that is sponsoring your H1B, you're fine.
tattoo wallpaper Mens Short Hair
Blog Feeds
01-12 07:40 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Okay, so Lou Dobbs appears on Bill O'Reilly's show last night. And Dobbs appears the more rational one. It is amazing what a desire to get into politics will do to one's "uncompromising" standards. Watch it here:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5822981281410072246?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/lou-dobbs-and-bill-orielly-surreality.html)
Okay, so Lou Dobbs appears on Bill O'Reilly's show last night. And Dobbs appears the more rational one. It is amazing what a desire to get into politics will do to one's "uncompromising" standards. Watch it here:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5822981281410072246?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/lou-dobbs-and-bill-orielly-surreality.html)
more...
pictures mullet hairstyle
mrane1
07-25 05:16 PM
My ND is july-12-2007
I am yet to receive by FP,
How will I come to know my FP appointment date, my attorney is not cooperating, please help.. :D
You will get it in the mail. Also keep a track of your application online...
I am yet to receive by FP,
How will I come to know my FP appointment date, my attorney is not cooperating, please help.. :D
You will get it in the mail. Also keep a track of your application online...
dresses hot house Teens modern mullet
Macaca
05-19 07:04 AM
House GOP Uses Procedural Tactic To Frustrate Democratic Majority Motion to Recommit Employed to Delay or Alter Legislation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801697.html?hpid=topnews) By Lyndsey Layton (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lyndsey+layton/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, May 19, 2007
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
more...
makeup Mullet Hairstyle
Blog Feeds
08-09 10:00 PM
While abolishing birthright citizenship is a long-shot issue for anti-immigrants, some are setting their hopes on a target that they hope is easier to hit - the right of all children in the US to a public school education. But you say that the Supreme Court ended the discussion on this nearly 30 years ago in the Plyler case when they held that all children in the US - even those illegally present - have the right to attend public schools under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Silly you, the antis are hoping that enough conservatives have been...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/antis-next-target-public-school-education-for-all-children.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/antis-next-target-public-school-education-for-all-children.html)
girlfriend Mens Long Hair Styles
serg
07-20 04:38 PM
Is there a web site to check I-140 and I485 status??.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp
hairstyles Short Haircuts 2010 Men
ashres11
10-29 05:15 PM
Lawyer will forward to you.
tillu
04-02 10:04 PM
Hi there,
Please correct me if i am wrong.
WH-4 Time line is within a year, means if betrayel/non payment happened with in a year from the date of reporting it will be investigated, and YOU CAN FILE WH-4 FROM OUTSIDE OF US ALSO, if your consultant company sent you back with fake commitments.
But not sure if your h1 still have time, after DOL complain, you can transfer it or not??
Anyone has any idea???
This could have been usefull to ariesbkk18.
Please confirm if this is correct.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
WH-4 Time line is within a year, means if betrayel/non payment happened with in a year from the date of reporting it will be investigated, and YOU CAN FILE WH-4 FROM OUTSIDE OF US ALSO, if your consultant company sent you back with fake commitments.
But not sure if your h1 still have time, after DOL complain, you can transfer it or not??
Anyone has any idea???
This could have been usefull to ariesbkk18.
Please confirm if this is correct.
Macaca
06-01 07:26 PM
Pelosi�s Order in the House (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/politics/01web-hulse.html) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/politics/01web-hulse.html), June 1, 2007
The differences between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her predecessor, J. Dennis Hastert, could not be more striking.
He is a burly former wrestling coach, a conservative Republican from small-town Illinois who usually ran from the microphones. She is the designer-clad member of a political family, a wealthy liberal from San Francisco who sees herself as a top party spokeswoman.
But what could turn out to be their defining contrast was exhibited on May 24, when Ms. Pelosi allowed the Iraq war spending bill to clear the House with predominantly Republican votes while most Democrats � including her � opposed it. It was a marked departure from the principle that guided Mr. Hastert during his years as speaker.
Mr. Hastert was an advocate of governing the House by a �majority of the majority� � a standard he thought best served the interests of his Republican members and, by extension, the nation. Just months into her tenure, Ms. Pelosi has shown she will deviate from that approach, balancing the potential of significant rewards against big risks.
The rewards could come from success in winning approval of major legislation that reaches beyond party label. Critics of Mr. Hastert said his self-imposed rule prevented the House from considering centrist social and economic measures that, in their view, could have benefited both parties. It is likely, for instance, that a coalition existed in the House last year to pass an immigration overhaul that Republicans and Democrats could have hailed going into the elections. But strong opposition from a majority of the majority derailed that idea.
The risks are related to party cohesion. If a leader such as Ms. Pelosi regularly cuts against the wishes of most of the people who put her in leadership, it stands to reason they would eventually wonder if new leadership was warranted. At a more subtle level, passing important bills with coalitions built outside party lines can expose and deepen fractures within them and sap the support of interest groups that can be essential to winning and holding onto power.
Republicans see internal problems for Democrats as they sort through how to govern. �The problem for Pelosi is that the majority of her majority still has a minority mindset,� said John Feehery, a lobbyist who was an adviser to Mr. Hastert. �They would rather protest than legislate. And that dynamic will weaken her control over the House in the long-run."
While some anti-war groups remain outraged at the war vote, many Democrats were not all that upset with the way she handled it. Through some procedural maneuvers, the speaker allowed Democrats to back a minimum wage increase and popular domestic spending and still vote against the war money. At the same time, Democrats got out of what the leadership saw as a political jam that could have left them being blamed for cutting off money to troops overseas.
The next test for Ms. Pelosi will come on looming votes over increased free trade. Many - perhaps most - House Democrats are leery of going along with the push by President Bush, free-trading Democrats and congressional Republicans for new trade deals that they believe ship jobs out of the country and lack labor and environmental safeguards.
To some veteran House Democrats, the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement is a particularly bitter memory. A majority of then-minority Republicans joined with a minority of then-majority Democrats to pass the deal sought by President Bill Clinton. Quite a few Democrats believe that approval of the trade deal over the objections of organized labor diluted union support in 1994 and contributed to the loss of Congress by the Democrats that year. Ms. Pelosi was among 102 Democrats who backed the 1993 trade deal; 156 Democrats, including the majority leader and whip, opposed it.
Anti-trade Democrats are worried the war vote foreshadowed Ms. Pelosi making a similar trade move this year, forgetting the hard lessons of NAFTA. They promise that such a decision will stir strong resentment. Ms. Pelosi has urged lawmakers not to jump to conclusions, but she is making no guarantees that legislation must have majority Democratic backing.
�I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus,� she told reporters.
The differences between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her predecessor, J. Dennis Hastert, could not be more striking.
He is a burly former wrestling coach, a conservative Republican from small-town Illinois who usually ran from the microphones. She is the designer-clad member of a political family, a wealthy liberal from San Francisco who sees herself as a top party spokeswoman.
But what could turn out to be their defining contrast was exhibited on May 24, when Ms. Pelosi allowed the Iraq war spending bill to clear the House with predominantly Republican votes while most Democrats � including her � opposed it. It was a marked departure from the principle that guided Mr. Hastert during his years as speaker.
Mr. Hastert was an advocate of governing the House by a �majority of the majority� � a standard he thought best served the interests of his Republican members and, by extension, the nation. Just months into her tenure, Ms. Pelosi has shown she will deviate from that approach, balancing the potential of significant rewards against big risks.
The rewards could come from success in winning approval of major legislation that reaches beyond party label. Critics of Mr. Hastert said his self-imposed rule prevented the House from considering centrist social and economic measures that, in their view, could have benefited both parties. It is likely, for instance, that a coalition existed in the House last year to pass an immigration overhaul that Republicans and Democrats could have hailed going into the elections. But strong opposition from a majority of the majority derailed that idea.
The risks are related to party cohesion. If a leader such as Ms. Pelosi regularly cuts against the wishes of most of the people who put her in leadership, it stands to reason they would eventually wonder if new leadership was warranted. At a more subtle level, passing important bills with coalitions built outside party lines can expose and deepen fractures within them and sap the support of interest groups that can be essential to winning and holding onto power.
Republicans see internal problems for Democrats as they sort through how to govern. �The problem for Pelosi is that the majority of her majority still has a minority mindset,� said John Feehery, a lobbyist who was an adviser to Mr. Hastert. �They would rather protest than legislate. And that dynamic will weaken her control over the House in the long-run."
While some anti-war groups remain outraged at the war vote, many Democrats were not all that upset with the way she handled it. Through some procedural maneuvers, the speaker allowed Democrats to back a minimum wage increase and popular domestic spending and still vote against the war money. At the same time, Democrats got out of what the leadership saw as a political jam that could have left them being blamed for cutting off money to troops overseas.
The next test for Ms. Pelosi will come on looming votes over increased free trade. Many - perhaps most - House Democrats are leery of going along with the push by President Bush, free-trading Democrats and congressional Republicans for new trade deals that they believe ship jobs out of the country and lack labor and environmental safeguards.
To some veteran House Democrats, the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement is a particularly bitter memory. A majority of then-minority Republicans joined with a minority of then-majority Democrats to pass the deal sought by President Bill Clinton. Quite a few Democrats believe that approval of the trade deal over the objections of organized labor diluted union support in 1994 and contributed to the loss of Congress by the Democrats that year. Ms. Pelosi was among 102 Democrats who backed the 1993 trade deal; 156 Democrats, including the majority leader and whip, opposed it.
Anti-trade Democrats are worried the war vote foreshadowed Ms. Pelosi making a similar trade move this year, forgetting the hard lessons of NAFTA. They promise that such a decision will stir strong resentment. Ms. Pelosi has urged lawmakers not to jump to conclusions, but she is making no guarantees that legislation must have majority Democratic backing.
�I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus,� she told reporters.
No comments:
Post a Comment