eb3stuck
09-22 07:20 PM
Well, I don't see a problem with that. If you can file 485 without clearing 140, why can't you file 485 without clearing labor?
We should stay modest? There are a lot of us who have waited 4+ years for labor. I think that's enough modesty and patience.
I think this is still in USICS control to allow I485 to file even if priority date is not current.
We should stay modest? There are a lot of us who have waited 4+ years for labor. I think that's enough modesty and patience.
I think this is still in USICS control to allow I485 to file even if priority date is not current.
wallpaper Justin Bieber saves mom Pattie
validIV
06-16 11:09 AM
Thank you Ms. Martin for your replies, it has been very helpful. As a follow up to hiralal's post, I have a question regarding H-1 status, totally unrelated to the original poster.
If one has a valid H-1, already extended beyond 6 years and is valid till 2011, has a pending I-485: what happens when that I-485 is denied? Is the H-1 status lost immdeiately as is the EAD/AP situation?
If one has a valid H-1, already extended beyond 6 years and is valid till 2011, has a pending I-485: what happens when that I-485 is denied? Is the H-1 status lost immdeiately as is the EAD/AP situation?
indio0617
12-13 01:08 PM
That was my thought process too. If the immigration systems is corrected then I believe EB3 and EB2 will become current. Then it does not make a difference. Even late 90's the retrogression was there for both Eb2 and Eb3. IN 1999 they opened up for Y2K and then again retrogressed in 2001-2002 I believe. But again after that it was all current till the current retrogression.
Exactly ! That is my line of thought too. IF there is going to be a fix, it will be a remedy across the board for all EB2 and EB3. I can live with EB3 lagging behind a bit too. I am not going to get bogged down by which one is faster.
It is important for us to contribute our bit to get some legislative fix, but it is futile to endlessly speculate which category will move faster.
Exactly ! That is my line of thought too. IF there is going to be a fix, it will be a remedy across the board for all EB2 and EB3. I can live with EB3 lagging behind a bit too. I am not going to get bogged down by which one is faster.
It is important for us to contribute our bit to get some legislative fix, but it is futile to endlessly speculate which category will move faster.
2011 Justin Bieber And His Mom
sanjay02
07-28 02:47 AM
Hi
My PD is Nov 2005 , I had I-485 interview in Feb 2009, because dates werent current I was given a letter saying "Your case has been continued because of VISA unavailability"
My question is if I claim unemployment insurance would I have issues in GC adjucation? ( Since my case is already pre-adjucated)?
Thnks
My PD is Nov 2005 , I had I-485 interview in Feb 2009, because dates werent current I was given a letter saying "Your case has been continued because of VISA unavailability"
My question is if I claim unemployment insurance would I have issues in GC adjucation? ( Since my case is already pre-adjucated)?
Thnks
more...
sixburgh
08-13 10:46 AM
History:
- My h1 stamp on passport was expired, but my H1 renewal has always been done and was valid at all times.
- Wife had entered USA on H4 (2005)
- In July 2007, we both got a chance to apply for 485, EAD and AP
- Since then I switched to EAD, wife too started working on EAD
- But my company also kept renewing my H1
- During the last H1 renewal, in-house immigration lawyer suggested that I should renew my wife's H4 too and we sent both renewal requests in the same package.
- We both received our h1 and h4 notices.
- Now it was time for me, to go to India for visiting my parents. I recently had applied and received my AP. When I asked my lawyer what should I use to re-enter USA, he suggested that even though I am on EAD, since I already have an H1 approval document, I should go to US consulate in India, get a H1 stamp and re-enter on H1.
- This is what I did, I got a stamp and entered USA now on H1.
- Note that my wife continued to remain in USA and worked on EAD.
- Please also note that our EAD's are expiring soon and I am still waiting for them to arrive from NSC.
- Since I entered on H1 and now using H1 on i9, I wont use my EAD, I will just keep it handy for any possible future use
- But once wife gets EAD, she will continue to use it to work.
Question for fellow IV members :
By merely renewing my wife's H4, while she was still working on EAD, did she automatically get switched to H4?
(My understanding is that, unless one re-enters BACK into the USA on h1 or h4, no automatic switch is possible)
(I am also under this impression that unless I really file for a CHANGE OF STATUS form, specifically stating that my wife wants to change status to H4, she will continue to be under AOS/EAD)
Someone in my office is scaring me that by merely renewing her H4, I have switched her to H4 and that since the renewal arrived, her working has created something called "illegally working on H4".
Can someone shed some light on this: Am I right or wrong?
Does this affect her or mine, pending 485/AOS ?
- My h1 stamp on passport was expired, but my H1 renewal has always been done and was valid at all times.
- Wife had entered USA on H4 (2005)
- In July 2007, we both got a chance to apply for 485, EAD and AP
- Since then I switched to EAD, wife too started working on EAD
- But my company also kept renewing my H1
- During the last H1 renewal, in-house immigration lawyer suggested that I should renew my wife's H4 too and we sent both renewal requests in the same package.
- We both received our h1 and h4 notices.
- Now it was time for me, to go to India for visiting my parents. I recently had applied and received my AP. When I asked my lawyer what should I use to re-enter USA, he suggested that even though I am on EAD, since I already have an H1 approval document, I should go to US consulate in India, get a H1 stamp and re-enter on H1.
- This is what I did, I got a stamp and entered USA now on H1.
- Note that my wife continued to remain in USA and worked on EAD.
- Please also note that our EAD's are expiring soon and I am still waiting for them to arrive from NSC.
- Since I entered on H1 and now using H1 on i9, I wont use my EAD, I will just keep it handy for any possible future use
- But once wife gets EAD, she will continue to use it to work.
Question for fellow IV members :
By merely renewing my wife's H4, while she was still working on EAD, did she automatically get switched to H4?
(My understanding is that, unless one re-enters BACK into the USA on h1 or h4, no automatic switch is possible)
(I am also under this impression that unless I really file for a CHANGE OF STATUS form, specifically stating that my wife wants to change status to H4, she will continue to be under AOS/EAD)
Someone in my office is scaring me that by merely renewing her H4, I have switched her to H4 and that since the renewal arrived, her working has created something called "illegally working on H4".
Can someone shed some light on this: Am I right or wrong?
Does this affect her or mine, pending 485/AOS ?
GCKabhayega
01-09 03:04 PM
Every time why does feel like that I have been in this dilemma before. I think we will gain almost nada frm this bulletin either.
My guess
EB2 : 1000 BC
EB3 : January 1962
My guess
EB2 : 1000 BC
EB3 : January 1962
more...
lost_in_migration
05-15 12:08 PM
I absolutely agree. A good legislation is the only solution. Let us hope that more ppl have that far-sightedness and keep visiting and contributing to IV.
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
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
2010 Justin Bieber#39;s mom hair
dingudi
03-07 09:42 AM
Visa stamping interview --> Feb 8th
Was asked to submit technical questionnaire and other documents as per 221g which I did
Received email confirmation that they have "received" the documents and sending it to DOS for further processing and will email me in sometime
After waiting for one month and no sign of the elusive email, I flew in to LAX and used my Advanced Parole successfully. I had not cancelled my pending H1B application.
The POE officer was very polite unlike the officer at the Mumbai consulate. They didn't ask me even "one" question about my pending h1B application or the H1b in general, had to wait in the secondary inspection room while they looked up my information. Was out in 20-25 mins.
When I asked the POE officer what happens to the H1, he said it gets void. But as per earlier INS memos(Cronin Memo) and threads on forums, this is not the case right ? although I didn't start a discussion on this with him, because I didn't want to confuse him. My I-94 has AOS written on it which probably puts me in a Parolee status.
Now my question is:
---------------------------------------
I really would like to get back on the H1 status, so when the email arrives from Mumbai, does anyone know if its possible to withdraw the application .
Then arrange for the h1B visa stamping interview at say Tijuana, Mexico which is 2 hours drive from where I live. Wouldn't I be in the PIMS system now (since I would have received the email from the mum consulate) and make the stamping faster at the regular timelines. I have my multiple entry AP as backup, so I can be back if I need to.
I'd really appreciate if anyone can shed any light on this, I really hate to work on my EAD and would like to continue on the H1 as a backup for my entire family's sake.
What you did was technically , not an appropriate step. It is clearly mentioned on AP that it is not intended to circumvent the visa process and this is exactly what you did. Either you should travel on AP OR apply for visa and wait for the visa. One of my friends did this and POE was not happy with it. So one should use AP very carefully.
Was asked to submit technical questionnaire and other documents as per 221g which I did
Received email confirmation that they have "received" the documents and sending it to DOS for further processing and will email me in sometime
After waiting for one month and no sign of the elusive email, I flew in to LAX and used my Advanced Parole successfully. I had not cancelled my pending H1B application.
The POE officer was very polite unlike the officer at the Mumbai consulate. They didn't ask me even "one" question about my pending h1B application or the H1b in general, had to wait in the secondary inspection room while they looked up my information. Was out in 20-25 mins.
When I asked the POE officer what happens to the H1, he said it gets void. But as per earlier INS memos(Cronin Memo) and threads on forums, this is not the case right ? although I didn't start a discussion on this with him, because I didn't want to confuse him. My I-94 has AOS written on it which probably puts me in a Parolee status.
Now my question is:
---------------------------------------
I really would like to get back on the H1 status, so when the email arrives from Mumbai, does anyone know if its possible to withdraw the application .
Then arrange for the h1B visa stamping interview at say Tijuana, Mexico which is 2 hours drive from where I live. Wouldn't I be in the PIMS system now (since I would have received the email from the mum consulate) and make the stamping faster at the regular timelines. I have my multiple entry AP as backup, so I can be back if I need to.
I'd really appreciate if anyone can shed any light on this, I really hate to work on my EAD and would like to continue on the H1 as a backup for my entire family's sake.
What you did was technically , not an appropriate step. It is clearly mentioned on AP that it is not intended to circumvent the visa process and this is exactly what you did. Either you should travel on AP OR apply for visa and wait for the visa. One of my friends did this and POE was not happy with it. So one should use AP very carefully.
more...
gcwatchdog
11-20 12:32 PM
It,s better to have all the paystubs for easy employer switch(AC21).
You should prepare for sacrifice holding payment.....or feel like you are on vacation...
You should prepare for sacrifice holding payment.....or feel like you are on vacation...
hair Justin Bieber came to his
ys2jax
07-11 02:21 PM
open a infopass, go to a local service center, they will schedule and u get it done, Dont loose this great chance.
I waited, opened SR's with 0 luck. Then i tried above and it worked. Luckily they scheduled same day as inforpass for me.
what options did you choose while selecting infopass appt
-----------------------
the first screen gives 5 options
1. You need Service on a case that has already been filed
2. You are a new Permanent Resident and have not yet received your permanent Resident Card
3. You want to file an application in person
4. You need information or other services
5. You need a form.
---------------------------------
I selected #1 and it give 4 more options but I am not sure which one to select for FP
Order from Immigration Court - If you were directed to us for processing based on an order from the Immigration Judge. You must bring all documents required in the post order instructions given to you by the court.
Case Processing Appointment - If you received a notice to go to your local office for further case processing.
EAD inquiry appointment - If your I-765 employment authorization application has been pending for more than 90 days.
Case Services follow-up appointment - If it has been over 45 days since you contacted NCSC and have not received a response to your inquiry. You must bring the Service Request ID Number related to your inquiry to the appointment.
can you throw some light. Thanks
I waited, opened SR's with 0 luck. Then i tried above and it worked. Luckily they scheduled same day as inforpass for me.
what options did you choose while selecting infopass appt
-----------------------
the first screen gives 5 options
1. You need Service on a case that has already been filed
2. You are a new Permanent Resident and have not yet received your permanent Resident Card
3. You want to file an application in person
4. You need information or other services
5. You need a form.
---------------------------------
I selected #1 and it give 4 more options but I am not sure which one to select for FP
Order from Immigration Court - If you were directed to us for processing based on an order from the Immigration Judge. You must bring all documents required in the post order instructions given to you by the court.
Case Processing Appointment - If you received a notice to go to your local office for further case processing.
EAD inquiry appointment - If your I-765 employment authorization application has been pending for more than 90 days.
Case Services follow-up appointment - If it has been over 45 days since you contacted NCSC and have not received a response to your inquiry. You must bring the Service Request ID Number related to your inquiry to the appointment.
can you throw some light. Thanks
more...
manja
06-29 03:13 PM
Thanks. Hmm...I was not aware of this 30 days rule. I'll check with the insurance companies....otherwise I'm in trouble :)
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
hot ieber mom hair fire.
pani_6
11-23 03:53 PM
I need to transfer money every month to my mother in india as a monthly automated transaction. ..she has a account in Canara bank ..what is the easiest rather cheapest rather free way to send from the US..
any help is appreciated..
thanks
:)
any help is appreciated..
thanks
:)
more...
house Justin Bieber Surprises Mom
himu73
04-09 04:33 PM
Himu, I have been following IV for months now and have been doing my small part lately. I wanted to post this because like you I also want other readers to be aware of what other people think of Senior Members. I don�t share your sentiments where you say Senior Members have heckled people (I am also a Junior Member). In fact they have been more then helping.
Now, let�s talk about the point you have raised. Tell me, which part of janakp's post you found heckling or offensive? To me he is giving the obvious answer, which anyone following the forums should have known already. We can do this, we can do that and of course everything that we can come up with but for everything we need VITAMIN M (DOLLARS).
My friend you must be aware that we are short of it (as you seem to be an avid follower of IV). As far as I understand we barely have the money for lobbying. So, I ask you what would be your response to any idea, which needs money to be fulfilled?
Just want to make sure over here .You think janakp telling nath.exists to start contributing (if he is not already doing so) to achieve our common goals is heckling Check for yourself (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heckling)?
.............................................
$60 + $20 (recurring contribution)
I understand your point. Only thing i wanted to suggest is that we should give response related to the question. Contribution is an integral part of what we need to do. People who are here understand that whether they are contributing or not.
Now, let�s talk about the point you have raised. Tell me, which part of janakp's post you found heckling or offensive? To me he is giving the obvious answer, which anyone following the forums should have known already. We can do this, we can do that and of course everything that we can come up with but for everything we need VITAMIN M (DOLLARS).
My friend you must be aware that we are short of it (as you seem to be an avid follower of IV). As far as I understand we barely have the money for lobbying. So, I ask you what would be your response to any idea, which needs money to be fulfilled?
Just want to make sure over here .You think janakp telling nath.exists to start contributing (if he is not already doing so) to achieve our common goals is heckling Check for yourself (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heckling)?
.............................................
$60 + $20 (recurring contribution)
I understand your point. Only thing i wanted to suggest is that we should give response related to the question. Contribution is an integral part of what we need to do. People who are here understand that whether they are contributing or not.
tattoo ieber mom hair fire.
get2shailesh
04-05 03:51 PM
Perm.. I was exactly in the same boat as u were but I went ahead and changed the job from company A to company B and got 3 year extension till 10/09. Then I went to India and got the visa stamped till 10/09. My new employer i.e. company B has now started processing my GC again.. Now, let us see if I can port my PD of 12/05 with company B.
My question is if I decide to move again to company C [Not gonna do] or my new employer i.e. company B fires me [U never know] i.e. in case if I do not have labor or 140 done with my new employer i.e. company B and say I ran out of H1B at the end of 10/09, then can I get further 3 year extension with company B or new company C on approved 140 from previous employer i.e. Company A?
Thanks!!
My question is if I decide to move again to company C [Not gonna do] or my new employer i.e. company B fires me [U never know] i.e. in case if I do not have labor or 140 done with my new employer i.e. company B and say I ran out of H1B at the end of 10/09, then can I get further 3 year extension with company B or new company C on approved 140 from previous employer i.e. Company A?
Thanks!!
more...
pictures His mom#39;s hair caught fire
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
dresses The brave Biebs douses his mom
cris
08-30 10:00 AM
for gg_ny
this is extension of H1B based of aproved I140 .
if i understood correctly the application for H1 extension will became null and void if i travel outside of US .
this is very interesting. I was not aware about this .
Anyway, thank you for your valuable input
this is extension of H1B based of aproved I140 .
if i understood correctly the application for H1 extension will became null and void if i travel outside of US .
this is very interesting. I was not aware about this .
Anyway, thank you for your valuable input
more...
makeup his Mom#39;s hair on fire.
needhelp!
03-09 01:59 PM
Some of you have been receiving the USCIS response about your FOIA request.
Please use the following template to compose your response (you may email it to the address provided)
______________________________________
Email: uscis.foia@dhs.gov
Fax: (816) 350-5785
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
National Records Center, FOIA/PA Office
P. O. Box 648010
Lee�s Summit, MO 64064-8010
Dear FOIA officer,
Thank you for responding to my FOIA request NRCXXXXXXX dated mm/dd/yyyy. I would like to know more information about the following.
(1) Can NRC extract data based on the country of birth or Nationality given that Country of Chargeability is not captured until the end of the adjudication process?
(2) I would like to know how long will NRC take to provide a response once I pay the fee. I am not looking for an exact number of days. How ever, an estimate of how long it will take to provide the information sought would be very helpful.
You asked me to define the priority date.
Priority date is the date on which a permanent labor certification was filed for a beneficiary and based on which an underlying I-140 petition is applied. For cases without an underlying labor certification, Priority Date is the date on which the I-140 petition was applied for. Priority date is NOT the date USCIS has received the AOS/I-485 application. For example, An applicant with a priority date of 12/10/2001 might have filed the AOS/485 on 07/19/2007 and another applicant with a prioirty date of 04/23/2004 might have filed the AOS/485 on 07/30/2005. INA act prescribes that the priority date be used in granting permanent residency to AOS applicants. I am looking for information on pending AOS/485 applications sorted by the priority date of the applications for every quarter of the USCIS/DHS fiscal year starting from year 2001 for the requested 14 categories for primary applicants, spouses and children.
(3) As requested in the original letter, I need the number of pending AOS petitions sorted by their Priority date and NOT USCIS receipt date or receipt notice date, Category, Country of Birth/Nationality (if available)
Thanks,
XXXXX
Please use the following template to compose your response (you may email it to the address provided)
______________________________________
Email: uscis.foia@dhs.gov
Fax: (816) 350-5785
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
National Records Center, FOIA/PA Office
P. O. Box 648010
Lee�s Summit, MO 64064-8010
Dear FOIA officer,
Thank you for responding to my FOIA request NRCXXXXXXX dated mm/dd/yyyy. I would like to know more information about the following.
(1) Can NRC extract data based on the country of birth or Nationality given that Country of Chargeability is not captured until the end of the adjudication process?
(2) I would like to know how long will NRC take to provide a response once I pay the fee. I am not looking for an exact number of days. How ever, an estimate of how long it will take to provide the information sought would be very helpful.
You asked me to define the priority date.
Priority date is the date on which a permanent labor certification was filed for a beneficiary and based on which an underlying I-140 petition is applied. For cases without an underlying labor certification, Priority Date is the date on which the I-140 petition was applied for. Priority date is NOT the date USCIS has received the AOS/I-485 application. For example, An applicant with a priority date of 12/10/2001 might have filed the AOS/485 on 07/19/2007 and another applicant with a prioirty date of 04/23/2004 might have filed the AOS/485 on 07/30/2005. INA act prescribes that the priority date be used in granting permanent residency to AOS applicants. I am looking for information on pending AOS/485 applications sorted by the priority date of the applications for every quarter of the USCIS/DHS fiscal year starting from year 2001 for the requested 14 categories for primary applicants, spouses and children.
(3) As requested in the original letter, I need the number of pending AOS petitions sorted by their Priority date and NOT USCIS receipt date or receipt notice date, Category, Country of Birth/Nationality (if available)
Thanks,
XXXXX
girlfriend His Mom#39;s Hair On Fire
return_to_india
01-19 05:34 PM
Is $500 what your wife pays from her pocket (and employer pays the rest) or is this the actual cost of buying insurance?
In the former case, expect the actual cost under COBRA to be significantly higher.
I think you mixed part of reply with "chaks7" info.
I pay $500 . Don't know how much the employer pays.
In the former case, expect the actual cost under COBRA to be significantly higher.
I think you mixed part of reply with "chaks7" info.
I pay $500 . Don't know how much the employer pays.
hairstyles The brave Biebs douses his mom
chava_100
08-04 12:10 PM
Did you recieve old SS# on new card ? or entirely new SS# ?
lutherpraveen
09-19 06:42 PM
This is called Pork-Barrel politics. It refers to government spending that is intended to benefit a particular politicians view point in return for their political support on a non-related item.
It is unfortunate that we are put in a situation to support an unethical (not illegal though) practise, but bottom line, this ammendment (if passed) will help us.
My personal view is not to piggy-back our provisions with a bill that is either non-related (like the defense appropriation) or a moral opposite (illegal immigration).
It would be so nice that if we have the clout to influence the law makers to have "our own" bill with just our provisions.
I am sure we will achieve that goal with the progress IV is making in that area.
How come a bill which talks about " ....authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense......" can link an amendment which talks about different thing i.e. "..Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas..."
It is unfortunate that we are put in a situation to support an unethical (not illegal though) practise, but bottom line, this ammendment (if passed) will help us.
My personal view is not to piggy-back our provisions with a bill that is either non-related (like the defense appropriation) or a moral opposite (illegal immigration).
It would be so nice that if we have the clout to influence the law makers to have "our own" bill with just our provisions.
I am sure we will achieve that goal with the progress IV is making in that area.
How come a bill which talks about " ....authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense......" can link an amendment which talks about different thing i.e. "..Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas..."
sats123
11-04 12:29 AM
Last year even I did not get my AP though it was approved. It was lost in mail. I had called USCIS several times and tried to request a duplicate copy. They said they cannot do it. I had sent letters to senator, senator's office sent letter to USCIS and nothing worked. what a PIA, $305 for no reason.
Last month I self applied for my wife and got the approval in couple of weeks. ( On another note, her last approval was until Jan 2010. New approval is until Oct 2010. So we paid $305 for nine months which does not make sense. They should have approved until Jan 2011.)
One suggestion for all self filers is to include a self paid USPS envelope with tracking number and request in your letter to USCIS to send the final decision (not receipt notice) in that envelope. It will cost few extra dollars but its worth. Atleast the chances of getting lost in mail will be less.
Last month I self applied for my wife and got the approval in couple of weeks. ( On another note, her last approval was until Jan 2010. New approval is until Oct 2010. So we paid $305 for nine months which does not make sense. They should have approved until Jan 2011.)
One suggestion for all self filers is to include a self paid USPS envelope with tracking number and request in your letter to USCIS to send the final decision (not receipt notice) in that envelope. It will cost few extra dollars but its worth. Atleast the chances of getting lost in mail will be less.
Did you know that that you can generate money by locking selected pages of your blog or website?
ReplyDeleteSimply open an account on Mgcash and add their content locking tool.