Comments on: In which a bill is being unconstitutionally treated as law

In which a bill is being unconstitutionally treated as law

rxrfrx — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:39:30 -0800

Did he do so intentionally, and will the error be corrected?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:45:18 -0800

You must be mistaken. George W. Bush makes no errors.

By: Doorstop

Doorstop — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:47:57 -0800

oh i really hope he DID do it. a) they'd rescind the law b) they would have a firm argument to kick the idiot out of office ...glee :).

By: MrMoonPie

MrMoonPie — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:48:12 -0800

The bill in question is The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, S. 1932.

By: willnot

willnot — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:48:18 -0800

Bush obviously signs anything that's put in front of him. Incompetence is a better explanation of this than malice.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:56:14 -0800

I think he combines incompetence and malice into a new construct that I like to call malcompetence.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:56:53 -0800

b) they would have a firm argument to kick the idiot out of office Yeah, right.

By: poppo

poppo — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:59:16 -0800

I think he combines incompetence and malice into a new construct that I like to call malcompetence. This is brilliant

By: daveleck

daveleck — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:59:49 -0800

b) they would have a firm argument to kick the idiot out of office because, until now, such arguments have been woefully few and far between...

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:00:48 -0800

I think he combines incompetence and malice into a new construct that I like to call malcompetence. There's a certain truthiness to that.

By: elr

elr — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:00:58 -0800

Could someone paraphrase that first link for me? All I could gather from it was that John Dean prefers difficult, run-on-sentences to Republicans. Also, is this just another situation where Bush will say oops, that pig spokesperson of his will tell the media to stop hounding the man while he's got a war to fight, and the American public won't give a shit. [Oh fuck it's contagious...I prefer run-on-sentences to Republicans, too.]

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:02:30 -0800

Astro Zombie writes "I think he combines incompetence and malice into a new construct that I like to call malcompetence." But he's still full of truthiness. Don't misunderestimate him. That could be a ruinous strategery.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:03:16 -0800

doh! eyeballkid beat me to it.

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:03:41 -0800

malcompetence For the win, sir. I saw this FPP after writing up a reply to the Oil and Bases one below. I'd like to say something insightful, but my head just frigging hurts now and I'm going to lay down for a bit.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:03:49 -0800

"John Dean prefers difficult, run-on-sentences to Republicans" Who doesn't?

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:04:59 -0800

This is truly a great country, where any overprivileged frat boy of substandard intelligence can overcome a history of business failures and go on to demonstrate his ~~incontinence~~ malcompetence as President.

By: The Jesse Helms

The Jesse Helms — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:09:14 -0800

Edward Gibbon is like, "Damn."

By: rkent

rkent — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:13:04 -0800

For anyone who doesn't want to wade through Dean's crapulence, here's what happened: 1) Senate barely passes S. 1932, a terrible bill which tries to reduce the deficit by cracking down on benefits to the poor and elderly; sends bill to House. 2) Due to a single typo in many many pages of legislation, the House version is very slightly less terrible for the poor and elderly. Barely passes house. 3) Version submitted to the president is the more terrible Senate version. President obviously signs it. 4) Instead of passing a quick piece of patch legislation unanimously in both houses, as typically happens in this situation, Democrats sense opportunity for political gain, get all in a huff, insist on re-voting on the whole damn bill. Rarely has there been a "nothing to see here" moment like this one in the present administration. C'mon guys, seriously. This is a clerical error, and the fact that the Congress is getting procedurally sloppy is really rather less important than the fact that the bills they're passing are so substantively atrocious.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:14:56 -0800

Yeah, yeah, Bush is incompetent (disastrously so), but can you really blame this mistake on his incompetence? I mean, there are supposed to be people proofreading these things, right? Certainly there's enough incompetence in Washington DC to go around...

By: rxrfrx

rxrfrx — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:17:21 -0800

Dean links to a PDF of the lawsuit challenging the Act as signed... this is the relevant press release

By: edverb

edverb — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:17:55 -0800

but can you really blame this mistake on his incompetence? Ummmm...yes. Dennis Hastert called him to alert him of the error before signing it. He signed it anyway.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:17:56 -0800

since when does he, or the GOP-controlled House and Sentate, actually give a shit for the law--any law?

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:18:04 -0800

Why no mention of the conference committee in the article?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:18:23 -0800

Must we carry on about such a trivial thing? Don't you know everything changed on 9/11? A few hundred billion here, a few hundred billion there, meh, who cares about tiny mistakes like that. And just because the Constitution demands it means nothing if Dear Leader chooses to ignore it y'all. The Constitution's just a piece of paper for God's sake, not a real, fearless foe of terror (please pardon my evil twin today, he's on a tear)

By: JWright

JWright — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:19:34 -0800

Sometimes I think these gaffes are engineered by the Republicans to generate scandal fatigue. With so many little things here and there, the President's detractors lose focus on the big issues, making them seem insignificant like everything else. Who can keep up with everything these idiots are doing wrong?

By: Vetinari

Vetinari — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:20:40 -0800

but can you really blame this mistake on his incompetence? If he signs a law that isn't and his Executive Branch enforces it as if it were, yes, absolutely. "Clerical Error" is the "Blame Game" of the week on this one, but though this bill isn't (directly) killing anyone or forcing them to live on their rooftops for a week, "enforcing a non-law" is a much more clear-cut case of malcompetence (thanks Astro Zombie!) than "failing to stop a hurricane".

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:20:44 -0800

I believe the error will be corrected - by the media not making mention of it. Just examine the NSA spying issue - which went from a "clear breach of law" to "a debate over the powers of the president during war-times" to "a potential violation of our civil liberties, which is bad, but obviously necessary to thwart the terrorist threat." Clear cut case of the Lord Bush's Underlings relying on media silence to cover up his jaw-dropping malcompetence. We shall hear no more of this thing.

By: rxrfrx

rxrfrx — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:24:13 -0800

We shall hear no more of this thing. Sounds about right to me, considering that the NYTimes and WaPo pieces covering the Zeigler lawsuit are already behind the paywall, and there's been no coverage since then.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:26:20 -0800

Is any precedent being set here, or not?

By: marvin

marvin — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:33:26 -0800

"Former top judge says US risks edging near to dictatorship"

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:33:56 -0800

The question is not "was an error made," it's "was an error made deliberately and in full knowledge."

By: lodurr

lodurr — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:34:34 -0800

Well, rkent, maybe this is only a smidgen off from the way things are normally done. But then, the way things are normally done is quite a ways off from the way that the vast majority of people think they're done. Here's how we get taught that it's done:

Bill is introduced into a [House/Senate] committee.
Bill is recommended for a vote.
Bill is passed by [House/Senate], and handed off to [Senate/House].
Bill is passed by [Senate/House], and handed off to Executive.
Executive signs.
A law is born.

Here's how it really works:

Bill is introduced into a [House/Senate] committee.
Bill is recommended for a vote.
Bill gets heavily re-written, and gets a lot of unrelated stuff tacked onto it that didn't make it out of committee when it was introduced there.
Bill is passed by [House/Senate], and handed off to [Senate/House].
Bill is heavily re-written by the [Senate/House], and gets a lot of unrelated stuff tacked onto it, and some of the unrelated stuff from the [House/Senate] gets excised.
Bill (which may now be completely cotradictory to the [House/Senate] version, yet is said to be "the same bill") is passed by [Senate/House], and handed off to the Conference Committe(s).
The Conference Committee rewrites the bill to resolve the conflicts between the House and Senate versions. In the process, it may cease to bear any real resemblance to either.
Executive signs.
A law is born.

Note that at no point in the second process is there any programmatic assurance that all three interested parties (the House, Senate and Executive) have voted on the same bill. I, for one, would love to see this story get tons and tons of traction, if only to point out the differences between these two processes: The one we think we have, and the one we actually have. Though, honestly, I don't expect most people to care...

By: bardic

bardic — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:35:33 -0800

rkent pretty much has it right. This has been a low-level story in the DC area for a while now, kind of as a joke. But the problem with simply correcting the error and re-signing the bill is that it's really awful on a number of levels--much like the PATRIOT Act, not many congresspersons actually read the thing, much less want their names associated with some of its provisions. Waxman wants to remind people come November who's been minding the candy store, and what kind of a job they're doing. (And I love the fact that Waxman puts Article I of the Constitution in a footnote. That's about as close to a fuck you as lawyers get in writing. Oh, and the fact that anyone who's ever paid attention to Schoolhouse Rock knows more about how government works than Bush.) What's that line about absolute power? Yeah, another illustration right here.

By: rollbiz

rollbiz — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:35:59 -0800

Is any precedent being set here, or not? Yes. Henceforth malcompetence is a completely acceptable word when used to describe presidential activities.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:36:53 -0800

Indeed, it's a perfectly cromulent word.

By: mr.curmudgeon

mr.curmudgeon — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:37:02 -0800

Sometimes I think these gaffes are engineered by the Republicans to generate scandal fatigue. Then it's working. I...so...sleepy.

By: bardic

bardic — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:39:12 -0800

lodurr, I agree that the reality is messier than what we're taught, but out of the sausage factory of those committees and all the wrangling, you do (should) end up with the House and Senate versions being the same in writing (in spirit with the original intentions? Not at all, as you eloquently point out).

By: teece

teece — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:45:21 -0800

People, wake the fuck up. This was not a mistake on Bush's part. The White House knew damn well that the typo meant this bill had to go up for a re-vote, either a correction bill, or a brand new bill, to fix things. There are two version of this bill passed -- George Bush DOES NOT get to pick which one he signs into law, and that's what he did. Why? Simple -- they barely got this fucker passed with arm-twisting and knee-capping as it was -- they don't know if they can get a correction through. Solution? Say "fuck the law" and do what is expediently, illegality be damned. That's whose running this country right now. This is a relatively minor thing, sure (comparatively speaking -- violation of the law by elected officials is never absolutely minor, but of the Bush's and Republicans unethical and illegal behaviors, this one is smaller), but it's emblematic of the way the modern Republicans take a shit on the Constitution, rule of law, and simple ethics and morality every day they report to work. And as usual, the media sits idly by with their thumb up their ass, and the Democrats don't seize the opportunity. It's a great time to be an American.

By: sporb

sporb — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:02:28 -0800

There are some quotations from the George Orwell novel "1984" that may be instructive. They can be found here.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:03:19 -0800

There's no illegality. The relevant bill for purposes of the presentment clause is the enrolled bill, which was certified as required by House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate President Pro Tempore Ted Stevens. See, e.g., Field v. Clark. Whether a clerical error was made by the clerk of which the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore are aware needs to be corrected before presentment is probably a political question.

By: kika

kika — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:06:45 -0800

Better version [embedded QT] Torrent search

By: kika

kika — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:07:40 -0800

Fuck! Wrong thread.

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:07:41 -0800

Do not misunderestimate the malcompetence of the administration.

By: RylandDotNet

RylandDotNet — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:09:50 -0800

There's an even larger consideration, mentioned in the article almost in passing: if this law isn't successfully struck down, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate effectively become a whole 'nother separate house of Congress in their own right, able to change legislation on a whim before sending it on to the President to sign. Not all at once, but it puts us on an extremely slippery slope. When the leaders of both houses of Congress are basically lieutenants of the executive (as Dennis Hastert and Ted Stevens are) and the Supreme Court and Justice Dept. are complicit (ahem), the Legislative branch effectively ceases to be, and we are at the mercy of the malcompetence of the Executive. (I love that word. Malcompetence. Brilliant.)

By: dhartung

dhartung — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:11:39 -0800

lodurr, a crucial correction: * The Conference Committee rewrites the bill to resolve the conflicts between the House and Senate versions. In the process, it may cease to bear any real resemblance to either. * The modified bill goes to the floor of both houses for a vote. * Executive signs. * A law is born. I believe that procedurally no amendments are allowed at the final vote stage, but it is unquestionable that the bill does not go directly from the Conference Committee to the President. What happened here was not even a glitch in the Conference Committee process, but a modification after the final vote. Now, honestly, I would like to see this as just a typo in the version that was submitted for a vote, except for the fact that it's emblematic of the way that this Administration and Congress operate. The simple formality of a piece of correcting legislation is even beneath them, although it's been done for far less substantive matters. In fact, however, the procedure outlined by lodurr is even more pernicious today. Here's how it really works. For Democrats: * Bill is introduced into a [House/Senate] committee. {end} For Republicans: * Bill is introduced into committee. * Bill is recommended for a vote. * Bill is held by the Republican leadership. * Bill gets heavily re-written by leadership to suit interests of [White House/Religious right/Corporate interests/Government of Dubai]. * Bill is put to [House/Senate] for vote. * Republicans in [House/Senate] are threatened with loss of earmarks and/or RNC support. Democrats are mercilessly portrayed as un-American terrorist-lovers for even considering mentioning that [swimming-pool inspectors should be federally licensed/dairy-farm subsidies should be equitably distributed/green is a combination of blue and yellow rather than red and orange as the legislation states] * Republicans in [House/Senate] vote in lockstep. A portion of Democrats vote with the Republicans. * Bill passes and gets handed off to [Senate/House]. The Senate is, for historical and electoral reasons, less secretive and leadership-centered about its processes than the House is under Hastert. But it was very telling that when Jay Rockefeller objected as a member of the Intelligence Committee to the new rules about the bipartisan oversight committee for the NSA "terrorist surveillance program", a colleague told him "you don't know how hard we worked on this". [I'm looking for the cite]. Basically the Democrats sit on the sidelines until it's time to vote. So, rkent, your claim that Instead of passing a quick piece of patch legislation unanimously in both houses, as typically happens in this situation, Democrats sense opportunity for political gain, get all in a huff, insist on re-voting on the whole damn bill. is about as disingenuous as things come. The Democrats do not have the power in either house to "pass a quick piece of legislation". The Republicans do, but tellingly, consider it unworthy of their attention to comply with the Constitution. This error will -- or should, in a just universe -- come back to haunt them. Somebody's gonna get their Medicare Part Whatever cut off, and sue, and this will be litigated in the Federal Courts. Me, I'm laying in a good supply of popcorn.

By: jlub

jlub — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:23:04 -0800

Due to a single typo in many many pages of legislation Which costs the government $2 billion. A rather important typo. There's no illegality. Monju, I'm not familiar with this "Field v Clark" of which you speak, but how do you get around the fact that the bill that the President signed was never voted on by the House?? Also, in re: Malcompetence, I think this issue is more of an accusation of Malcompetence on the part of the Congressional leadership than of the President.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:26:28 -0800

I have the feeling Malcompetence isn't going away.

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:34:36 -0800

I think he combines incompetence and malice into a new construct that I like to call malcompetence. posted by Astro Zombie at 1:56 PM CST on March 15 [!] I would like to have a private discussion with you re: having my babies.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:40:32 -0800

My work here on earth is done. [Beams back into space]

By: mike3k

mike3k — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:43:47 -0800

There are some quotations from the George Orwell novel "1984" that may be instructive. 1984 came 22 years late.

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:44:03 -0800

The GOP's hatred of corrupt and wastful governance is projection, not perception.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:56:33 -0800

The bill is only a God-damned piece of paper. It really doesn't matter which version Bush signs, as his unitary signing statement can override any part of the law anyway. Congress is an anachronism in the post-9/11 world. We need to let Bush sign whatever he wants or else the terrorists will kill us all.

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:15:34 -0800

orthogonality, the signing statement does not carry the force of law, is not part of the law, and doesn't override anything. It's only useful as "legislative history" which is nearly useless, anyway.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:15:40 -0800

Oh, and the fact that anyone who's ever paid attention to Schoolhouse Rock knows more about how government works than Bush. Exactly. And we know far more about the Bill of Rights too, which he's been using as toilet paper for the past 5 years.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:56:54 -0800

See, signing statements, like those justifying NSA spying, only elucidate inherent powers which have been there all along, even if noone has ever used them before or even discussed their existence. Signing statements don't make law. They just tell everyone what the law has always been. See the difference?

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:03:28 -0800

Bush obviously signs anything that's put in front of him. Why can't they just slip a resignation letter in there? Done and done. 'Clerical Error' is the 'Blame Game' of the week on this one Why just this week? Let's blame the Iraq War on typos. Iran/Iraq, what's the difference? They're only off by one letter, and they're right next door to each other! Anybody could've made the same mistake. I'm pretty sure orthogonality knows what signing statements are and was being sarcastic.

By: duende

duende — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:17:29 -0800

Pretty much everything relevant to anything legal that goes through the Oval Office is just a goddamned piece of paper.

By: teece

teece — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:00:30 -0800

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

The signing of a bill is a bit more than ceremony. This bill has not passed the House and Senate, as such it is not law. Bush signed something, but that has nothing to do with law, as what he signed did not pass both houses. He is not alone in this fuck-up. The rotting corruption that is the GOP goes much deeper than just Bush. It bears repeating: until Republicans fix this, this bill IS NOT LAW. Republicans damn well know this fact -- but they are going to try and let it slip by. Rule of law, and all that, only counts for Democrats, you see.

By: teece

teece — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:02:14 -0800

Oh, that's the US Constitution, Article I, Section 7, btw.

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:38:22 -0800

In one provision of the bill, the Senate voted that oxygen equipment used in the home was to be paid for by Medicare for only up to 36 months. (Previously, the law had sensibly paid these expenses as long as needed by the patient.) This brought a lump to my throat. Has it really come to this? Is our country so (morally) bankrupt that we would refuse to pay for someone's oxygen after three years? Hey you! You had your three years. It is sink or swim on your own now, buddy.

By: daver

daver — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:48:29 -0800

Astrozombie: Genius.

By: qvantamon

qvantamon — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:08:23 -0800

Astro Zombie: Someday you'll see that term at CNN, and you'll poke your sons and tell them "Hey, I invented that!". And, of course, they'll take you as serious as Al Gore inventing the internet. This thread should be archived as a document. I'll do my part and start using that term in conversations (actually the portuguese version). The fact that it applies just as well to the local president just makes it easier.

By: any major dude

any major dude — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:42:47 -0800

1984 came 22 years late. If you think all this shit didn't start with Reagan you've had your head in the sand for 22 years. This country changed forever the moment Reagan fired those air traffic controllers and got away with it.

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:31:40 -0800

But let's look on the bright side... at least that nasty deficit has been sorted out! I had heard it was getting quite large of late.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:41:04 -0800

major dude, I was just about to spotlight Reagan's part in all this. The 22 years too late is not for lack of trying by the Corporatists.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:17:16 -0800

I think the "22 years too late" refers to the titular date of 1984, not Reagan. This country changed forever the moment Reagan fired those air traffic controllers and got away with it. Renaming National Airport after him was a nice touch.

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:08:47 -0800

/me bows to Any Major Dude. Thank you for that observation. That situation was what turned me pro-labor. (the reason I wasn't, previously so, is rooted in my life in UAW land) America is the greatest nation on Earth. That being Truth (tm), nothing else really matters. Continue watching whatever is on the tube, nothing to see here. (just don't stay up too late, or you'll be too tired when you get to your 2nd job, which you need to pay your bills.)

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:34:07 -0800

Gooffyy, I am reminded of a man-in-the-street interview in an 80s paper. The question was "Are you better off [than before Reagan was elected]?" One guy said, "Oh yeah! I'm making lots of money at my three jobs, and the wife has one, too!" In the 50s and 60s, a semi-skilled worker could support his family and buy a house, without sending his wife to work. That all went away under Reagan, and real (per-hour) earnings have been declining since then. They (the greedoids) have been screwing us for years. I have given up on the people waking up to it.

By: trol

trol — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:42:22 -0800

Long winded post about a completely undiscussed section of this bill that was chucked by congress, read at your own risk. This piece of legislation is a sore spot for a number of highly talented people from India and China and their desire to immigrate to United States legally and give America the benefit of their education and experiences earned right here. These people have been in living in America, tied to a single employer, single jobs waiting for their immigration status to change so that they can spread their wings, open new businesses and create a flood of economic growth, but they have been denied their American dream not because they are crossed a border illegally or are not wanted by their customers and employers or *ugh* taking away american jobs. No, the reason is simply incompetence of BCIS (previosuly INS) and Department of labor. The process of becoming a US citizen the legal way as a highly sought after professional is as follows: 1. Your employer after giving up on trying to find american worker with a masters degree in mechanical engineering or computer science with emphasis/experience in search quality asks department of labor if they happen to have any americans who are willing to take up this role. In majority of the cases, they don't (can you imagine a person with real experience in a sought after field registering with DOL while being unemployed?) - This formality takes FIVE friggin years in department of labor. They are working on improving this process, however horror stories of automatic rejections by computer programs are widespread. Anyway, you got a certificate from DOL saying you are good to go. 2. You use this certificate and a letter of intent from the employer to apply for coming to America as a professional. This step usually takes 3 months, BUT - for Indians and Chinese professionals, they have to wait (as of today) upto 5 or 6 years before BCIS would even write to them inviting for an interview. The reason this (and DOL lag) keeps increasing is because resources are constantly diverted from service section to enforcement (which is just a code for siphoning funds into DHS). The problem is these are not tax payer dollars - these are (fairly steep) fees collected from applicants and employers for the sole purpose of adjucating their applications. Adding to this delay are constant discussions of amnesties (temporary or otherwise) for unskilled (and usually undocument) mexican workers - the last one being in 2000 signed into law by Clinton - which used up all available visa numbers for highly educated, completely legal and very desirable professionals. Before you accuse me of being either Indian or Chinese I am not, but I share their pain and sympathize with them. The senate version of this bill had a section where highly educated Indian and Chinese professionals could be allocated UNUSED visa numbers (quota) from last 2 or so years but congress and several anti-immigration lobbies came down very heavily against what would have been a very small break for legal and desirable immigrants. Breaks my heart really, when I hear about guest worker programs with a path to citizenship for undocumented and unskilled workers while this is left to bear. Sorry for the long winded post, but I think this is an issue that must be heard and communicated to congress. Personally I am not against legalization of undocumented workers in a humane manner, but it should not be at the cost of delaying the legal and skilled professionals in addition to US citizens.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:05:09 -0800

trol, I am also neither Chinese nor Indian, and the situation you've outlined has long been an irritant to me. U.S immigration policies have a long history of discriminating against Asians, and this has usually had the effect of discouraging people from coming who would be real assets to the country. At the same time, we tend to encourage groups of unskilled and sometimes undesirable immigrants from other areas, for political reasons. It's just foolish.

By: rxrfrx

rxrfrx — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:02:23 -0800

Spending measure not a law, suit says