vinoddas
07-30 10:59 AM
If you follow #1 while you will have your GC immediately your wife will need to maintain her E3 visa until your PD is current again.
Hi,
Could you please elaborate on this point? Under what conditions can she use *my* priority date?
Hi,
Could you please elaborate on this point? Under what conditions can she use *my* priority date?
wallpaper laetitia casta hot tattoos. Laetitia Casta Gallery
GCAmigo
07-23 04:41 PM
My PERM was filed last November & Audit was replied in Feb'08.. still no no news..
Desi_Hydrabadi
02-20 04:34 PM
Donot panic about everyting.
HTH
Thanks texcan for your encouraging reply. What you say makes sense. Thanks.
HTH
Thanks texcan for your encouraging reply. What you say makes sense. Thanks.
2011 laetitia casta hot tattoos. Posted in Laetitia Casta | No
tnite
10-15 02:02 PM
Sorry Gurus, Couldn't figure out how to start a new thread. So posting here,
My spouse is on H4, Now she wants to use EAD and work.She wants to work part time, She has found a job as well, but the employer is sayng she can do parttime only for few months, after that she has to do full time or find a job somewhere else. Now if she cannot find another parttime job after few months, and has to stop working , will it affect her status?
Thankx in advance.
Once she goes from H4 to AOS(using EAD), it doesnt matter .she can work partime, FT or not work at all.
My spouse is on H4, Now she wants to use EAD and work.She wants to work part time, She has found a job as well, but the employer is sayng she can do parttime only for few months, after that she has to do full time or find a job somewhere else. Now if she cannot find another parttime job after few months, and has to stop working , will it affect her status?
Thankx in advance.
Once she goes from H4 to AOS(using EAD), it doesnt matter .she can work partime, FT or not work at all.
more...
babu123
08-20 03:41 PM
Call 1-800-375-5283
options 1 2 2 6 2 2 1
At level 1, tell you didnt received receipt nbr and check not encashed.
You will be transfered to level 2. The officer at level 2 has access to check the name status.
Myself and my wife got the information. But some of my friends are not receiving the information. Good luck
options 1 2 2 6 2 2 1
At level 1, tell you didnt received receipt nbr and check not encashed.
You will be transfered to level 2. The officer at level 2 has access to check the name status.
Myself and my wife got the information. But some of my friends are not receiving the information. Good luck
Jaime
02-02 12:47 AM
Guys:
Have you read the most recent update by Shusterman? He links to H.R. 264 "Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)" Read Title V, Section 501:
TITLE V--LEGALIZATION FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
SEC. 501. EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION.
(a) In General- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:
`ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS ON THE BASIS OF EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION
`Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
`(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
`(2) has at all times been a person of good moral character;
`(3) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the United States;
`(4) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so on account of physical or developmental disability or mental impairment;
`(5) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
`(6) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has performed at least 40 hours of community service.
`(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences- An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
`(c) Admissible as Immigrant-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
`(2) EXCEPTIONS- The provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a) shall not apply in the determination of an alien's admissibility under this section.
`(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status.
`(e) Inapplicability of Numerical Limitations- When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced. The numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this section.
`(f) Termination of Proceedings- The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate removal proceedings without prejudice pending the outcome of an alien's application for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under this section.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 245A the following:
`Sec. 245B. Adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to legalization.'.
ntroduced in the House by Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Link
http://shusterman.com/cgi-bin/ex-link.pl?thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.264.IH:
http://shusterman.com/cgi-bin/ex-link.pl?thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.264.IH:
Gurus, any comments? Wouldn't this be great??
Also, a bill introduced by Harry Reid seems to have legal employment immigration fixes, that is: "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009" (S.9) introduced in the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) along with a dozen co- sponsors.
Any thoughts???
Have you read the most recent update by Shusterman? He links to H.R. 264 "Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)" Read Title V, Section 501:
TITLE V--LEGALIZATION FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
SEC. 501. EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION.
(a) In General- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:
`ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS ON THE BASIS OF EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION
`Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
`(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
`(2) has at all times been a person of good moral character;
`(3) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the United States;
`(4) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so on account of physical or developmental disability or mental impairment;
`(5) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
`(6) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has performed at least 40 hours of community service.
`(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences- An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
`(c) Admissible as Immigrant-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
`(2) EXCEPTIONS- The provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a) shall not apply in the determination of an alien's admissibility under this section.
`(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status.
`(e) Inapplicability of Numerical Limitations- When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced. The numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this section.
`(f) Termination of Proceedings- The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate removal proceedings without prejudice pending the outcome of an alien's application for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under this section.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 245A the following:
`Sec. 245B. Adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to legalization.'.
ntroduced in the House by Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Link
http://shusterman.com/cgi-bin/ex-link.pl?thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.264.IH:
http://shusterman.com/cgi-bin/ex-link.pl?thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.264.IH:
Gurus, any comments? Wouldn't this be great??
Also, a bill introduced by Harry Reid seems to have legal employment immigration fixes, that is: "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009" (S.9) introduced in the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) along with a dozen co- sponsors.
Any thoughts???
more...
amitjoey
07-06 01:03 AM
Create a seperate forum message for 'sending flowers'. And then we should all digg that message so that even media covers this practise.
--sri
If somebody wants to create a seperate message, release it, I can dig it.
I am specifically interested in getting media mileage out of this. I feel, you can get media mileage, if the media is alerted before hand, otherwise 50-60-100 or 200 boukets of flowers by itself wont be enough to get attention.
Iv has not endorsed it, probably because we have been trying to get serious media attention, and we have not gotten as much as we would like. If you are going with this flower idea - Make sure you get some reporters already involved, otherwise wont be worth it. (My take).
--sri
If somebody wants to create a seperate message, release it, I can dig it.
I am specifically interested in getting media mileage out of this. I feel, you can get media mileage, if the media is alerted before hand, otherwise 50-60-100 or 200 boukets of flowers by itself wont be enough to get attention.
Iv has not endorsed it, probably because we have been trying to get serious media attention, and we have not gotten as much as we would like. If you are going with this flower idea - Make sure you get some reporters already involved, otherwise wont be worth it. (My take).
2010 Model Hot Semi Naked Pics
walking_dude
10-18 03:12 PM
Here are the steps in setting up "Bill Pay" from your Bank account (online)
1) Check with your bank if "Bill Pay" is a free service, or not for your account. Some banks have conditions that must be met for e.g. Direct Deposit, Certain minimum balance, certain type of account or not. If you don't meet the criteria your bank may charge a service fees for using "Bill Pay"!
2) You might need to get "Bill Pay" activated on your online account. This might be possible for some by clicking on a "Service Agreement" screen. For others you might need to visit the Bank to get it activated.
3) Most banks that support "Repeating payments" allow you to "Add Payee" for future transactions. Provide IV address here and add "Immigration Voice" as a payee
Immigration Voice
PO Box 114
Dayton, NJ - 08810
Some Banks ask for Telephone Numbers too (mine did).
Ph : 850-391-4966
4) Click on link that says "Setup Repeating Payments" in the "Bill Pay" section (some might provide this option while setting up payments and not provide a separate section)
Select "Immigration Voice" as the payee. Enter the amount you would like to send to IV every month. Select the frequency as "Monthly" ( there may be other options such as daily, bimonthly, annually, quarterly etc. choose the one suitable for you.)
In the "message to payee" (or something similar) provide your E-mail id. This will be used by IV to inform you of check enchashment (thank you note). Will help you track the payment end-to-end.
6) Bank account (Bill pay section) will give you a list of all checks sent to IV (from the Bank). If any check hasn't been acknowledged, call IV and make sure it's been received!
HTH
1) Check with your bank if "Bill Pay" is a free service, or not for your account. Some banks have conditions that must be met for e.g. Direct Deposit, Certain minimum balance, certain type of account or not. If you don't meet the criteria your bank may charge a service fees for using "Bill Pay"!
2) You might need to get "Bill Pay" activated on your online account. This might be possible for some by clicking on a "Service Agreement" screen. For others you might need to visit the Bank to get it activated.
3) Most banks that support "Repeating payments" allow you to "Add Payee" for future transactions. Provide IV address here and add "Immigration Voice" as a payee
Immigration Voice
PO Box 114
Dayton, NJ - 08810
Some Banks ask for Telephone Numbers too (mine did).
Ph : 850-391-4966
4) Click on link that says "Setup Repeating Payments" in the "Bill Pay" section (some might provide this option while setting up payments and not provide a separate section)
Select "Immigration Voice" as the payee. Enter the amount you would like to send to IV every month. Select the frequency as "Monthly" ( there may be other options such as daily, bimonthly, annually, quarterly etc. choose the one suitable for you.)
In the "message to payee" (or something similar) provide your E-mail id. This will be used by IV to inform you of check enchashment (thank you note). Will help you track the payment end-to-end.
6) Bank account (Bill pay section) will give you a list of all checks sent to IV (from the Bank). If any check hasn't been acknowledged, call IV and make sure it's been received!
HTH
more...
jnraajan
04-08 04:48 PM
Is someone working to fix the issues with the IV Tracker? It is such an important tool, but still has bugs to be resolved.
When you try to restrict by country or Country of charge, it doesnt bring back any results.
Also, if you try to sory by priority date, the sorting doesnt seem to work.
=======================
Please keep sending all bugs and requested features in a PM.
A few people are leading this effort and collecting the bugs and new features
Chanduv23, needhelp!, walking_dude and santb1975 are people you can PM and they will help make this tracker better
Active members are requested to urge others to update their profile details for the tracker. If you find someone's profile has fake details, please give them a red dot.
Admins go through users with most red dots occasionally
- Admin
=====================
When you try to restrict by country or Country of charge, it doesnt bring back any results.
Also, if you try to sory by priority date, the sorting doesnt seem to work.
=======================
Please keep sending all bugs and requested features in a PM.
A few people are leading this effort and collecting the bugs and new features
Chanduv23, needhelp!, walking_dude and santb1975 are people you can PM and they will help make this tracker better
Active members are requested to urge others to update their profile details for the tracker. If you find someone's profile has fake details, please give them a red dot.
Admins go through users with most red dots occasionally
- Admin
=====================
hair laetitia casta hot tattoos.
liorsal
01-14 02:53 PM
Only H1 reform is likely by feb 15th.
what about 485 relief????????
what about 485 relief????????
more...
dilbert_cal
04-06 02:03 AM
Thanks for a very good analysis. I was hoping someone will do it and my heartfelt gratitude to you for stepping up.
hot laetitia casta hot tattoos.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
house laetitia casta hot tattoos. Laetitia Casta Wallpapers Hot
greenguru
03-31 03:26 PM
Yes. I applied for EB2 again in Jan 2009 and ported from EB3 to EB2.
So that is why it took me so long
So that is why it took me so long
tattoo laetitia casta hot tattoos. Laetitia Casta
royus77
06-25 10:12 AM
My Company is asking me to sign a new 2 year contract with them to get employment verification letter required for I-485. Is this legal?
if there is any breakage clause,Make sure that you understand the amount of damages. If the company is desi ,you can always negotiate at a later time
if there is any breakage clause,Make sure that you understand the amount of damages. If the company is desi ,you can always negotiate at a later time
more...
pictures laetitia casta hot tattoos. Laetitia Casta Hot Photos,
optimystic
04-06 01:43 AM
I believe the general line of thought is any time between 6 to 12 months.
But I wonder how the AC21 affects this. It seems as though if you invoke AC21 and change employers before getting GC (following all rules like "similar job" etc) , you are not obligated to eventually join back the original GC sponsoring employer after one gets GC.
But if you stick with the same orginal GC sponsoring employer till you get GC, then you are obliged to show good faith intent and have to continue for 6-12 months (although technically USCIS/DOL don't give any specific limits). There is no AC21 kind of provision once you get GC !
But I wonder how the AC21 affects this. It seems as though if you invoke AC21 and change employers before getting GC (following all rules like "similar job" etc) , you are not obligated to eventually join back the original GC sponsoring employer after one gets GC.
But if you stick with the same orginal GC sponsoring employer till you get GC, then you are obliged to show good faith intent and have to continue for 6-12 months (although technically USCIS/DOL don't give any specific limits). There is no AC21 kind of provision once you get GC !
dresses laetitia casta hot tattoos. Laetitia Casta
fromnaija
07-20 11:24 AM
File for her as CP. Whenever she is ready to move here have her get an H4 visa and then change CP to AOS when she gets here.
Caveat: I am not an attorney so ask your lawyer if this is a feasible option.
Caveat: I am not an attorney so ask your lawyer if this is a feasible option.
more...
makeup laetitia casta hot shoess.
Bezzer
09-06 08:51 PM
im not really new to photoshop...i've been using it for a couple of years...just never done a pixel stretch before.. :)
girlfriend laetitia casta hot tattoos. Laetitia Casta Beautiful
raysaikat
11-29 05:01 PM
The line in bold above is NOT TRUE. You can work in the USA with the approved H1B even if it is not stamped and even if you arrived using H4. All you need is a SSN along with the approved H1B to start working.
What you say is true if the approval notice (I-797) has I-94 attached. If not, then she needs to go out of the country to change status.
In other words, the status is determined by I-94.
Usual warning: Use any of above at your own risk!
What you say is true if the approval notice (I-797) has I-94 attached. If not, then she needs to go out of the country to change status.
In other words, the status is determined by I-94.
Usual warning: Use any of above at your own risk!
hairstyles laetitia casta hot tattoos. Laetitia Casta
fastergcwanted
07-18 09:48 AM
Mr.Oh's opinion is flawed on many counts but most of all assuming what he says is correct, this delay will be/would have been the same either way. i.e the 750000 applicants will apply all at once or at regular intervals. The bright side is that spouses will get their EADs.
Mr.Oh also assumes that USCIS processing procedure and speed will not change.
It sounds like fluff reporting that popular media does. All fluff, no value.:D
Well..there would not have been 750,000 applications to start with if the dates were moved in line with visa numbers..slowly but surely. This would have meant USCIS resources in line with the incoming applications.
I hardly doubt after this forced backturn by USCIS..they would be even considering making it any faster......
I just feel there is no fair discussion on this topic because
1) Lawyer derive their money out of new filers (mostly 2006 and 2007)
2) Institutions like IV and others get their funding from new filers (as they are in majority)
Remember same thing happened when no one was fighting for the plight of people stuck in BPC...but they all cried about retrogression......
Are these lawyers even considering that there are serveral application still pending at BPCs....and they will be behind all this unfairly filed PERM applications ahead of them...
Grossly unfair...one would say
Mr.Oh also assumes that USCIS processing procedure and speed will not change.
It sounds like fluff reporting that popular media does. All fluff, no value.:D
Well..there would not have been 750,000 applications to start with if the dates were moved in line with visa numbers..slowly but surely. This would have meant USCIS resources in line with the incoming applications.
I hardly doubt after this forced backturn by USCIS..they would be even considering making it any faster......
I just feel there is no fair discussion on this topic because
1) Lawyer derive their money out of new filers (mostly 2006 and 2007)
2) Institutions like IV and others get their funding from new filers (as they are in majority)
Remember same thing happened when no one was fighting for the plight of people stuck in BPC...but they all cried about retrogression......
Are these lawyers even considering that there are serveral application still pending at BPCs....and they will be behind all this unfairly filed PERM applications ahead of them...
Grossly unfair...one would say
gc_peshwa
04-14 12:21 PM
Lets signup for our Freedom...its FREE!
sbabunle
05-15 11:03 AM
PD current does not gaurentee any thing...
May be people who are short sighted may stop visiting.
But people who are seeing the whole picture would
definitley visit here and contribute to IV.
good luck
babu
Nice to see a handsome number of PD Current ppl still visiting the site ;)
May be people who are short sighted may stop visiting.
But people who are seeing the whole picture would
definitley visit here and contribute to IV.
good luck
babu
Nice to see a handsome number of PD Current ppl still visiting the site ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment