franklin
09-27 03:44 PM
Could you please translate this into layman's English? What you appear to be saying is that speed (CIS efficiency) is more important than number (quotas), but your expample confirms that cases are stuck because of number unavailability (quotas), not because of CIS inefficiency. You got your own green card in three months, did not you? That tells me that CIS darn well capable of processing applications in a timely manner.
Like I said, its a combination of the 2 main things, the efficiency of processing and the quota limits. Changing either 1 without the other other probably won't get us far.
Yes, USCIS IS capable of processing quickly (for example, my own case - but I'd say I was very VERY lucky, rather than an indication of system wide improvements). Remember, my GC was approved whilst my PD was not current, and I am still baffled why this happened. Having talked to many people about it, there is a strong suspicion of "squeaky wheel" helping.
What I was trying to say was - the perceived improvement in speed in the last quota 1/4 of this year (May- Sept) was NOT because USCIS suddenly streamlined and improved their processing speed. It was because there was a backlog of approved applications just waiting for PDs to move so that visa numbers can be assigned.
Like I said, its a combination of the 2 main things, the efficiency of processing and the quota limits. Changing either 1 without the other other probably won't get us far.
Yes, USCIS IS capable of processing quickly (for example, my own case - but I'd say I was very VERY lucky, rather than an indication of system wide improvements). Remember, my GC was approved whilst my PD was not current, and I am still baffled why this happened. Having talked to many people about it, there is a strong suspicion of "squeaky wheel" helping.
What I was trying to say was - the perceived improvement in speed in the last quota 1/4 of this year (May- Sept) was NOT because USCIS suddenly streamlined and improved their processing speed. It was because there was a backlog of approved applications just waiting for PDs to move so that visa numbers can be assigned.
wallpaper cool hairstyles guys. cool
pappu
05-24 01:24 PM
DescriptionUnit priceQtyAmount
Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: aruny5)
$100.00 USD1$100.00 USD
Insurance:$0.00 USD
Total: $100.00 USD
Receipt No: 5471-3470-1608-2798
Thank you aruny5
Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: aruny5)
$100.00 USD1$100.00 USD
Insurance:$0.00 USD
Total: $100.00 USD
Receipt No: 5471-3470-1608-2798
Thank you aruny5
SmSm
12-01 11:00 AM
The more I think about free MATH tutoring the more it makes sense. It conveys what we are really good at, "MATH", "Sciences", which unfortunately a lot of people lack here in this country. Gets the SKIL bill agenda in focus.
May be can get to the "No Child Left Behind" eyes and ears.
May be can get to the "No Child Left Behind" eyes and ears.
2011 Cool Hairstyles Guys
div_bell_2003
11-03 05:09 PM
My company lawyer did the filing for me and I just followed the same instructions to file for AP renewal for my wife. I did paper filing (trying to save a trip to the USCIS office for photo/fingerprints).
Supporting docs I sent other than I-131
1. $305 check for US Dept of Homeland Security ( write the A# on the "for" part just for safety)
2. 2 photographs ( name and A#s at the back , again for safety, in case the great people in USCIS manage to loose the photo from the application )
3. Valid photo identity ( Passport photo page )
4. I-94 for both me and wife ( I have a valid I-94 from my new H1B extension, wife's has expired, still sent it)
5. I-485 receipt
6. Cover letter ( just stating these docs are attached, and my I-485 pending, please be kind and give me AP ;) yada yada yada ... )
Hope that helps. My lawyer only wanted my passport photo page and I-94. I know people applying for any kind of immigration document tend to send more supporting documents with the belief "more is good", but I believe ( and my law firm supports) USCIS have all the documents in our files, so it's better to send only what is required and not to confuse the USCIS staff with redundant bunch of documents. Just my thoughts, please, no preaching !
Supporting docs I sent other than I-131
1. $305 check for US Dept of Homeland Security ( write the A# on the "for" part just for safety)
2. 2 photographs ( name and A#s at the back , again for safety, in case the great people in USCIS manage to loose the photo from the application )
3. Valid photo identity ( Passport photo page )
4. I-94 for both me and wife ( I have a valid I-94 from my new H1B extension, wife's has expired, still sent it)
5. I-485 receipt
6. Cover letter ( just stating these docs are attached, and my I-485 pending, please be kind and give me AP ;) yada yada yada ... )
Hope that helps. My lawyer only wanted my passport photo page and I-94. I know people applying for any kind of immigration document tend to send more supporting documents with the belief "more is good", but I believe ( and my law firm supports) USCIS have all the documents in our files, so it's better to send only what is required and not to confuse the USCIS staff with redundant bunch of documents. Just my thoughts, please, no preaching !
more...
Munna Bhai
04-10 02:34 PM
Does anybody know how long an H1B visa can remain valid (including grace period) after a layoff ? What I know, is an H1B technically becomes invalid the day you stop rendering your services to your employer. The firm's lawyer suggested me to file for B1/B2 visitors visa to avoid going out-of-status.
If I do that, can I transfer my H1B visa (from B1B2) once I get a job? Or will I have to struggle against some quota?
Can anybody suggest a good lawyer in New York City or near Hoboken, NJ who can help we with all this? I tried contacting Cyrus Mehta, but he seems to be booked for another week.
Btw, thanks for the overwhelming response to my request for resources to find a job. While I am evaluating my options, please keep me in consideration for any openings that you see.
Thanks.
Technically there is no grace period. Get a job ASAP and you need 2 pay-stubs for transfer.You can even do without pay-stubs but you may have to go out for I-94. Best way is to transfer to B1/B2 and you can come back to H1b without any problem.
If I do that, can I transfer my H1B visa (from B1B2) once I get a job? Or will I have to struggle against some quota?
Can anybody suggest a good lawyer in New York City or near Hoboken, NJ who can help we with all this? I tried contacting Cyrus Mehta, but he seems to be booked for another week.
Btw, thanks for the overwhelming response to my request for resources to find a job. While I am evaluating my options, please keep me in consideration for any openings that you see.
Thanks.
Technically there is no grace period. Get a job ASAP and you need 2 pay-stubs for transfer.You can even do without pay-stubs but you may have to go out for I-94. Best way is to transfer to B1/B2 and you can come back to H1b without any problem.
immique
07-17 10:59 PM
Excellent response. I have been a silent admirer of IV for some time. IV has represented the aspirations of all the EB applicants. people should understand that the US allotment of visas to foreign Nationals is only based on what is fair for the country (US). It does not matter to them to what country the applicant belongs but what matters is the qualifications and their benefit to the advancement of the US. I am appauled to see some of the members racheting up this irrational discussion about the spillovers when DOS clearly stated recently what the intent of the law was. the sooner they get over this issue, the better for them and for every one on the forum as the existing rules will NOT change regarding the spillover. we have to concentrate our efforts on how we can improve conditions for every body affected by this retroression. efforts aimed at one category and that too one country will almost certainy fail. I am also shocked to see a few EB3 I expressing anger over dates moving for EB2. personally if I see a person from my country getting his visa approved, then I would feel very happy for him even if I am waiting for some time. I know it will be difficult, but atleast spare some joy for your country men and women who are getting some well deserved relief after such a long wait. one of my old friends told me once "if you have a friend from India, don't rely on him to help you, because you will not get much help moreover some people will only try to pull you down, but if you take people from other countries, it is exactly the opposite as they try to help each other in every possible way". I agree that it is very distressing for every one that the dates are retrogressed, but now that EB2 has moved, all of a sudden some people woke up from a deep sleep and started making these arguments that have no legal basis. None of these people expressed their anger when EB3 ROW was being preferred over more qualified EB2 I and C and making EB2 unavailable. I know a lot of people from EB2 protested at this wrong interpretation of the law, but I don't remember anyone ever criticizing IV for not taking up their cause even though we knew all along that spillover from EB1 to EB2 retrogressed countries was the right interpretation of the law. now some people are asking IV to take up an issue that is straight forward illegal as was clearly explained by DOS in a recent bulletin. instead of wasting time and efforts on such futile suggestions, people should concentrate on making some constructive effort along with IV helping every one involved in retrogression.
you must know something i don't.
aman kapoor is the president and founder of iv- of course you can argue he now has his GC but that fact is he is still the heart and soul of iv and runs the organization on a day to day basis. he is EB3.
the "core group" does not much exist in practical terms right now. there is instead a large "leaders group" that helps coordinate actions and strategy.
this group has a lot of active members- and i find it "comfortable" to say that the majority are EB3. which may actually count for something- since i actually do know somethings you don't :-)
no one stops anyone from doing anything. but whatever you do (and yes you actually have to DO, not just keep talking), has to have a sound basis. Many of the suggestions put forward have flaws, and actually papu and others have been pretty helpful in politely helping to point those out and suggesting changes. of course reddog took objection even to that! incidentally, just for the record, you may want to look at pappu's profile . HE IS EB3!
so what do you want anyway? should we go tell USCIS that leftover Gc from EB2 ROW should go to EB3 ROW instead of EB2 I/C? what about the 28.6% that should belong to EB2? and since you are EB3 I- how does this help you in any way? or should we tell them to stop the preference catogories in INA and make EB1=EB2=Eb3? somehow i do not think that is going to fly.
where were you when USCIS implemented vertical spillover in 2006 and left EB2 I in a U state while giving EB2 Gc numbers to EB3 ROW?
did you object then? did you start a campaign? did EB2 I folks here start saying that iv did not care about them?
in 2007 ordinarily, (like 06) EB2 I and EB3 I would have got only 2,800 GC each. because of iv's efforts in reversing the july bulletin, EB3 I got a huge number of Gc instead. many more than any other category. i don't remember anyone else standing up and saying that this was unfair and that iv is all about EB3I. and that's what a lot of anti iv folks say. that iv is all about EB3 India. so this is very ironical.
and i see here a comment that every campaign has been bad for EB3 india.
i guess july reversal was bad. i guess the campaign for recapture is bad. and the 2 year EAD is bad too. not to mention the gathering support to end country quotas.
you opened my eyes :-)
you must know something i don't.
aman kapoor is the president and founder of iv- of course you can argue he now has his GC but that fact is he is still the heart and soul of iv and runs the organization on a day to day basis. he is EB3.
the "core group" does not much exist in practical terms right now. there is instead a large "leaders group" that helps coordinate actions and strategy.
this group has a lot of active members- and i find it "comfortable" to say that the majority are EB3. which may actually count for something- since i actually do know somethings you don't :-)
no one stops anyone from doing anything. but whatever you do (and yes you actually have to DO, not just keep talking), has to have a sound basis. Many of the suggestions put forward have flaws, and actually papu and others have been pretty helpful in politely helping to point those out and suggesting changes. of course reddog took objection even to that! incidentally, just for the record, you may want to look at pappu's profile . HE IS EB3!
so what do you want anyway? should we go tell USCIS that leftover Gc from EB2 ROW should go to EB3 ROW instead of EB2 I/C? what about the 28.6% that should belong to EB2? and since you are EB3 I- how does this help you in any way? or should we tell them to stop the preference catogories in INA and make EB1=EB2=Eb3? somehow i do not think that is going to fly.
where were you when USCIS implemented vertical spillover in 2006 and left EB2 I in a U state while giving EB2 Gc numbers to EB3 ROW?
did you object then? did you start a campaign? did EB2 I folks here start saying that iv did not care about them?
in 2007 ordinarily, (like 06) EB2 I and EB3 I would have got only 2,800 GC each. because of iv's efforts in reversing the july bulletin, EB3 I got a huge number of Gc instead. many more than any other category. i don't remember anyone else standing up and saying that this was unfair and that iv is all about EB3I. and that's what a lot of anti iv folks say. that iv is all about EB3 India. so this is very ironical.
and i see here a comment that every campaign has been bad for EB3 india.
i guess july reversal was bad. i guess the campaign for recapture is bad. and the 2 year EAD is bad too. not to mention the gathering support to end country quotas.
you opened my eyes :-)
more...
anilsal
12-10 03:20 PM
and other IL immigration related events, people from the chapter say that they will show up. But they will not. They do not even have the courtesy later to tell that they had something important to justify their absence. This is what ticks off leaders who are working hard.
If you say you are coming to an event and are unable to do so, either inform asap or after the event, have courtesy to send an email explaining why.
Being active in IV is an indication of your character. If you are timid and scared, you will continue to be SCARED for the rest of your life (no matter the country you reside in). :)
If you say you are coming to an event and are unable to do so, either inform asap or after the event, have courtesy to send an email explaining why.
Being active in IV is an indication of your character. If you are timid and scared, you will continue to be SCARED for the rest of your life (no matter the country you reside in). :)
2010 cool haircuts men
JunRN
09-12 10:44 PM
Ofcourse, if Republicans also voted yes, CIR would have passed.
For me it's simple, majority of Republicans are anti-immigrant while majority of Democrats are pro-immigrants. The vote can speak for itself.
Look at the % on the vote:
FOR CIR (Democrat: 70%, Republicans: 22%)
Now, another reality check is HR5882.
For me it's simple, majority of Republicans are anti-immigrant while majority of Democrats are pro-immigrants. The vote can speak for itself.
Look at the % on the vote:
FOR CIR (Democrat: 70%, Republicans: 22%)
Now, another reality check is HR5882.
more...
needhelp!
02-28 11:03 AM
I dropped the letters in my garage yesterday and thought I had picked them all up. But there were few that were hiding under the car. And this morning they came under the wheels :(
Trying to see if they can be revived and cleaned up.
Trying to see if they can be revived and cleaned up.
hair teen guys hairstyles.
SOA
07-19 02:28 PM
But don't you need the original LC approval notice for concurrent filing? It was already included in the I140 filed on July 17. I will just hope and pray that I can receive the receipt notice (or at least receipt number) before August 14~15. Thank you, SVAM77!
more...
Libra
07-27 01:06 PM
indianabacklog, did you make your video and upload on you tube? you know about 2 action items posted by core right? you people are the right one who should stand first in the line to show our problems. I really appreciate if make a video along with your family.
Nice idea but does anyone honestly think the DOL cares. I am somewhat fortunate that my 2002 labor finally got approved in the middle of 2006. My son is not so lucky since he turned 21 while I was waiting. When my senators office took the matter of my son aging out up with the DOL I was told to put him on an F1 visa and send him to college so he can REMAIN (he wants to LIVE here, big difference) in the United States. These people do NOT care what they are doing to your lives. They do not care that my son has NO path to permanent residency any more and that I have to write the enormous check for his tuition twice each year so that I can still have him in the same country as me and his father. I feel awful for anyone still waiting for their labor certification but at least you will eventually get in line for your green card and will get ahead of those filing now with much later priority dates. You are indeed victims but I just wanted to point out that there are thousands of young adult children who have had their hopes for getting a green card totally shattered by this backlog center fiasco.
Nice idea but does anyone honestly think the DOL cares. I am somewhat fortunate that my 2002 labor finally got approved in the middle of 2006. My son is not so lucky since he turned 21 while I was waiting. When my senators office took the matter of my son aging out up with the DOL I was told to put him on an F1 visa and send him to college so he can REMAIN (he wants to LIVE here, big difference) in the United States. These people do NOT care what they are doing to your lives. They do not care that my son has NO path to permanent residency any more and that I have to write the enormous check for his tuition twice each year so that I can still have him in the same country as me and his father. I feel awful for anyone still waiting for their labor certification but at least you will eventually get in line for your green card and will get ahead of those filing now with much later priority dates. You are indeed victims but I just wanted to point out that there are thousands of young adult children who have had their hopes for getting a green card totally shattered by this backlog center fiasco.
hot emo guys hairstyles. cool
rweworld1
06-11 01:30 PM
Hi,
This is one of my friends case: Please guide him....
"My wife's employer filed for her GC during 2007 August rush for all of us. Her case is in EB3 with Feb 2005 PD. My labor is approved and filed for I-140 about a year ago and still hasn't been approved. Now, my PD is current based on yesterday's Visa Bulletin. Can I file another I-485 for me with a pending I-485 thru my wife's employer?"
Thanks in advance....
This is one of my friends case: Please guide him....
"My wife's employer filed for her GC during 2007 August rush for all of us. Her case is in EB3 with Feb 2005 PD. My labor is approved and filed for I-140 about a year ago and still hasn't been approved. Now, my PD is current based on yesterday's Visa Bulletin. Can I file another I-485 for me with a pending I-485 thru my wife's employer?"
Thanks in advance....
more...
house Short Hairstyles for Men
needhelp!
06-30 12:45 PM
Nixstor: I have sent you a PM. Do you have information on the representatives we should try and contact personally?
You can look up your local representative at http://www.house.gov
You can look up your local representative at http://www.house.gov
tattoo Short Hairstyles for Cool Men
santb1975
04-26 04:07 PM
login to paypal and then click on send money. you will then see a text box saying To: Enter donations@immigrationvoice.org corresponding to that. Enter the amount you are willing to contribute and click on send money.Please PM me if you need further help
Its kind of confusing to make a one time donation.. and there should be two more options of $25 and $50 for one time contribution....
Can anyone tell me how to contribute one time and for the amount not mentioned on first page..
I think we should follow Hillary and Obama's grassroot campaign, whereby asking for smaller amount and that way make people more willing to contribute in smaller amounts...
Its kind of confusing to make a one time donation.. and there should be two more options of $25 and $50 for one time contribution....
Can anyone tell me how to contribute one time and for the amount not mentioned on first page..
I think we should follow Hillary and Obama's grassroot campaign, whereby asking for smaller amount and that way make people more willing to contribute in smaller amounts...
more...
pictures cool guys hairstyles. long men
delhiguy79
07-18 07:01 AM
Hi frens,
My employer filed I-140 on July 12th and at Nebraska Service Center which must have been deleivered by now. And my employer persist that they cannot file I-485 until I get receipt notice. I even came to know on another thread even without receipt notice I-485 can be filed with an application as a cover letter.
So can I do that myself without the help of the employer or I have to wait for the receipt notice.
Is there any way we can get the info by USCIS by calling them or by taking InfoPass Appointment and asking them..
Please advise. Thanks in advance.
My employer filed I-140 on July 12th and at Nebraska Service Center which must have been deleivered by now. And my employer persist that they cannot file I-485 until I get receipt notice. I even came to know on another thread even without receipt notice I-485 can be filed with an application as a cover letter.
So can I do that myself without the help of the employer or I have to wait for the receipt notice.
Is there any way we can get the info by USCIS by calling them or by taking InfoPass Appointment and asking them..
Please advise. Thanks in advance.
dresses cool guys hairstyles. cool
stucklabor
03-20 07:26 AM
justAnotherFile,
I am working from a reading of the actual bill text.
The student visa provision on adjustment of status says that it applies to everyone who would have been in that position if the new visa would have been in place when they graduated - i.e., it is retroactively applicable. In addition it clearly says that it is applicable to students who join an accredited graduate program in STEM to obtain an advanced degree. The contrast with Specter is clear - Specter's markup clearly mentions PhDs, where Frist's bill only mentions advanced degrees. I really haven't mentioned the 1 year provision and the $1000 provision in my earlier posts. Those are givens.
If you can tell me why I am wrong looking at the bill text, instead of from a bill summary posted by someone else, it would be a lot more helpful to everyone on this forum.
Please read section 405 of Bill Frists summary for his bill
http://frist.senate.gov/_files/031706section.pdf
It clearly mentions that the immediate application of I-140 and I-485 applies to f-4 visa holders only that too if they find a job in their field within 1 yr of graduating. and on payin $1000
it remains to be seen which category is elgibile for f-4 (only phds or more). it is possible that some current students on f-1 will be eligible for conversion to f-4.
for rest of f-1 students it simply allows for 2 yr OPT instead of curretn 1 yr.
it also implies that the labor cert exemption does not apply to already graduated MS or PhD STEM degree holders with or without 3 yrs exp.
my 2 cents
I am working from a reading of the actual bill text.
The student visa provision on adjustment of status says that it applies to everyone who would have been in that position if the new visa would have been in place when they graduated - i.e., it is retroactively applicable. In addition it clearly says that it is applicable to students who join an accredited graduate program in STEM to obtain an advanced degree. The contrast with Specter is clear - Specter's markup clearly mentions PhDs, where Frist's bill only mentions advanced degrees. I really haven't mentioned the 1 year provision and the $1000 provision in my earlier posts. Those are givens.
If you can tell me why I am wrong looking at the bill text, instead of from a bill summary posted by someone else, it would be a lot more helpful to everyone on this forum.
Please read section 405 of Bill Frists summary for his bill
http://frist.senate.gov/_files/031706section.pdf
It clearly mentions that the immediate application of I-140 and I-485 applies to f-4 visa holders only that too if they find a job in their field within 1 yr of graduating. and on payin $1000
it remains to be seen which category is elgibile for f-4 (only phds or more). it is possible that some current students on f-1 will be eligible for conversion to f-4.
for rest of f-1 students it simply allows for 2 yr OPT instead of curretn 1 yr.
it also implies that the labor cert exemption does not apply to already graduated MS or PhD STEM degree holders with or without 3 yrs exp.
my 2 cents
more...
makeup Joe Jonas Hairstyles - Cool
unitednations
03-24 08:06 PM
There is a logical fallacy here. What you are saying is:
Suppose country quotas exist to limit abuse
There are country quotas
Therefore abuse is limited
The very fact that you are complaining about abuse in the system disproves your proposition.
it's very easy to make assumptions of how the system works in this country when people want a solution that fits their own particular needs.
When people have been part of this society for less then 10 years; it is a very, very short time to understand how the system works and the whole history and what goes on behind the scenes.
I've said this in the past; many people walk around with eyes wide shut. Do some really exhaustive work of the history of immigration; the debates that happened when the laws got created; what has passed, what hasn't; what uscis/ice/dol is doing; request for evidence, denials, consulate refusals; underbidding of contracts, etc.; you may come up with different conclusions then what you may currently believe.
Suppose country quotas exist to limit abuse
There are country quotas
Therefore abuse is limited
The very fact that you are complaining about abuse in the system disproves your proposition.
it's very easy to make assumptions of how the system works in this country when people want a solution that fits their own particular needs.
When people have been part of this society for less then 10 years; it is a very, very short time to understand how the system works and the whole history and what goes on behind the scenes.
I've said this in the past; many people walk around with eyes wide shut. Do some really exhaustive work of the history of immigration; the debates that happened when the laws got created; what has passed, what hasn't; what uscis/ice/dol is doing; request for evidence, denials, consulate refusals; underbidding of contracts, etc.; you may come up with different conclusions then what you may currently believe.
girlfriend cool hairstyles boys.
amitjoey
05-31 04:38 PM
http://www.parlipro.org/table.htm
Purpose:
The Object of this motion is to enable the assembly, in order to attend to more urgent business, to lay aside the pending question in such a way that its consideration may be resumed at the will of the assembly as easily as if it were a new question, and in preference to new questions competing with it for consideration. It is to the interest of the assembly that this object should be attained instantly by a majority vote, and therefore this motion must either apply to, or take precedence of, every debatable motion whatever its rank.
The motion to Lay on the Table is undebatable, and requires only a majority vote, notwithstanding the fact that if not taken from the table the question is suppressed.
These are dangerous privileges which are given to no other motion whose adoption would result in final action on a main motion. There is a great temptation to make an improper use of them, and lay questions on the table for the purpose of instantly suppressing them by a majority vote, instead of using the previous question, the legitimate motion to bring the assembly to an immediate vote.
The fundamental principles of parliamentary law require a two-thirds vote for every motion that suppresses a main question for the session without free debate. The motion to lay on the table being undebatable, and requiring only a majority vote, and having the highest rank of all subsidiary motions, is in direct conflict with these principles, if used to suppress a question. If habitually used in this way, it should, like the other motions to suppress without debate, require a two-thirds vote. [Note: The current (Tenth) edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, does not permit this usage of Lay on the Table to suppress a question.]
As motions laid on the table are merely temporarily laid aside, the majority should remember that the minority may all stay to the moment of final adjournment and then be in the majority, and take up and pass the resolutions laid on the table. They may also take the question from the table at the next meeting in societies having regular meetings as frequently as quarterly. If not taken from the table at the next meeting, however, the motion dies.
Purpose:
The Object of this motion is to enable the assembly, in order to attend to more urgent business, to lay aside the pending question in such a way that its consideration may be resumed at the will of the assembly as easily as if it were a new question, and in preference to new questions competing with it for consideration. It is to the interest of the assembly that this object should be attained instantly by a majority vote, and therefore this motion must either apply to, or take precedence of, every debatable motion whatever its rank.
The motion to Lay on the Table is undebatable, and requires only a majority vote, notwithstanding the fact that if not taken from the table the question is suppressed.
These are dangerous privileges which are given to no other motion whose adoption would result in final action on a main motion. There is a great temptation to make an improper use of them, and lay questions on the table for the purpose of instantly suppressing them by a majority vote, instead of using the previous question, the legitimate motion to bring the assembly to an immediate vote.
The fundamental principles of parliamentary law require a two-thirds vote for every motion that suppresses a main question for the session without free debate. The motion to lay on the table being undebatable, and requiring only a majority vote, and having the highest rank of all subsidiary motions, is in direct conflict with these principles, if used to suppress a question. If habitually used in this way, it should, like the other motions to suppress without debate, require a two-thirds vote. [Note: The current (Tenth) edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, does not permit this usage of Lay on the Table to suppress a question.]
As motions laid on the table are merely temporarily laid aside, the majority should remember that the minority may all stay to the moment of final adjournment and then be in the majority, and take up and pass the resolutions laid on the table. They may also take the question from the table at the next meeting in societies having regular meetings as frequently as quarterly. If not taken from the table at the next meeting, however, the motion dies.
hairstyles Men#39;s hairstyle just as
H1B-GC
06-10 02:17 PM
EB2 China - No Change
EB2 India - October 1st 2005
Good luck to all those who are current!!
EB2 India - October 1st 2005
Good luck to all those who are current!!
raajpagare
03-06 02:49 AM
They wrote "ass" instead of "all". Is it a freudian slip or they are deliberately calling us names on the sly :)
jjava100
06-01 06:03 PM
Transaction ID: 3GC10092VD532590G
contributed $50
contributed $50
No comments:
Post a Comment