irrational
06-19 09:12 AM
Thanks Folks,
I will efile today and I'll let you guys know how it turns out.
-Bipin
I will efile today and I'll let you guys know how it turns out.
-Bipin
wallpaper Meagan Good King July-August
Anders �stberg
June 18th, 2005, 11:18 PM
On my monitor it looks too grey and washed out... I guess what this shows is there is a big difference in monitors, the printed product is perhaps what counts in the end. I've been thinking of replacing my monitors, they are getting old and I can't get them quite right according to the Eye One calibration software.
new_gc_guy
03-26 09:00 AM
well - not hooters... but a good selection of indian movies and shows to watch.
and... games !
and... games !
2011 2011 Meagan Good Wallpapers
bhasky25
10-11 12:45 PM
Hello guys,
I need a clarification on the process. Here is my scenario
1. PD : Feb 2004 EB3 India
2. 485 : Filed during july 2007
3. 140 : Approved on jan 2009 --> Revoked by my previous company on 12/23/2009
4. AC21 : Used AC21 to change jobs in Feb 2009. Transferred job using H1B tranfer and got it for 3 years(valid until Jan 2012). Changed jobs after 500 days of applying 485.
5. EAD and Ap is not valid(did not renew it as I chose to maintain H1b). I let it expire in 2008.
6. The new company would not file for EB2 as my current job description does not qualify for EB2. They are willing to refile EB3 petition. I was not interested in doing it.
My question is:
If I want to get my H1b renewed again @ Jan 2012, it is possible to get it renewed for 3 years by using my previous 140 approval even though it is revoked by my previous employer ?? If that is not possible, what are my options to maintain my H1B.
Appreciate your insight.
I need a clarification on the process. Here is my scenario
1. PD : Feb 2004 EB3 India
2. 485 : Filed during july 2007
3. 140 : Approved on jan 2009 --> Revoked by my previous company on 12/23/2009
4. AC21 : Used AC21 to change jobs in Feb 2009. Transferred job using H1B tranfer and got it for 3 years(valid until Jan 2012). Changed jobs after 500 days of applying 485.
5. EAD and Ap is not valid(did not renew it as I chose to maintain H1b). I let it expire in 2008.
6. The new company would not file for EB2 as my current job description does not qualify for EB2. They are willing to refile EB3 petition. I was not interested in doing it.
My question is:
If I want to get my H1b renewed again @ Jan 2012, it is possible to get it renewed for 3 years by using my previous 140 approval even though it is revoked by my previous employer ?? If that is not possible, what are my options to maintain my H1B.
Appreciate your insight.
more...
nivasch
05-26 07:46 AM
Thank you Team IV, QGA & Staffers of various Senators, for all your efforts.:)
roseball
02-07 12:57 AM
Hello there
I am student from Tri-valley university. On Jan 20th the college got shut down. I am working on CPT. I came to know about the shut down through my friends, with whom immigration officers met. Although no immigration officers contacted me by any means, my friends suggested me to look for another college and get enrolled as soon as within 30 days. While I tried to enroll in another college, I came to know that still the sevis is not yet released. Until the college releases our sevis, we are unable to enroll in any other college. We are elible to work only if we enroll into the college, get an I-20 and CPT. Now I am worried because until they release our sevis, the admissions in other colleges will meet deadline and what happens if they no more take admissions. Do you have any idea how long can it take for them to release our sevis ? Will it be safe for students like me hereafter to work fulltime on CPT ?
Thank you
Chaitanya
Looks like your only worry is to get admitted to another college so you can continue to work on CPT.....You show no concern what so ever regarding the credits you earned so far (if at all any), courses you are currently enrolled in and the fee you paid......It seems you are one of the students who knowingly enrolled at TVU so you can work from Day1......
I am student from Tri-valley university. On Jan 20th the college got shut down. I am working on CPT. I came to know about the shut down through my friends, with whom immigration officers met. Although no immigration officers contacted me by any means, my friends suggested me to look for another college and get enrolled as soon as within 30 days. While I tried to enroll in another college, I came to know that still the sevis is not yet released. Until the college releases our sevis, we are unable to enroll in any other college. We are elible to work only if we enroll into the college, get an I-20 and CPT. Now I am worried because until they release our sevis, the admissions in other colleges will meet deadline and what happens if they no more take admissions. Do you have any idea how long can it take for them to release our sevis ? Will it be safe for students like me hereafter to work fulltime on CPT ?
Thank you
Chaitanya
Looks like your only worry is to get admitted to another college so you can continue to work on CPT.....You show no concern what so ever regarding the credits you earned so far (if at all any), courses you are currently enrolled in and the fee you paid......It seems you are one of the students who knowingly enrolled at TVU so you can work from Day1......
more...
bestin
12-21 08:45 PM
NRI Investing in Stocks India:
Wanted to know if any of you have been able to successfully Invest in Stocks/Mutual funds in Indian Market on a Repatriable basis. If so please share your experience and which brokerage you have used.
I have tried to contact various Indian brokerages like ICICIDirect, HDFC, Kotak...All say that they do not take NRI's from USA for a Brokerage account. No idea what the reason is. Please share your experience.
well.u could have opened a new thread.In any case here is the answer.I had opened a trading account when i was in India in 2004.I still trade late night from here .
But in your case the better option is to have an account in your father's name provided he has a PAN.One of my friend does this.
I use kotaksecurities and i beleive its 0.06% for intraday and 0.6% for delivery.
Wanted to know if any of you have been able to successfully Invest in Stocks/Mutual funds in Indian Market on a Repatriable basis. If so please share your experience and which brokerage you have used.
I have tried to contact various Indian brokerages like ICICIDirect, HDFC, Kotak...All say that they do not take NRI's from USA for a Brokerage account. No idea what the reason is. Please share your experience.
well.u could have opened a new thread.In any case here is the answer.I had opened a trading account when i was in India in 2004.I still trade late night from here .
But in your case the better option is to have an account in your father's name provided he has a PAN.One of my friend does this.
I use kotaksecurities and i beleive its 0.06% for intraday and 0.6% for delivery.
2010 Download Meagan Good Wallpaper
rajenk
10-11 01:11 PM
Consult with your current company immigration attorney and find out why your current job will not qualify for EB2.
Just in case start your EB3 GC and port your PD to this new GC I-140. That will help you with the H1B renewal for 3 years. You have got 14 more months. you should be able to get I-140 filed by then, do a premium for I-140 to get it approved by the time you renew your H1B.
Renewing your H1B based on the revoked I-140 would be risky.
Just in case start your EB3 GC and port your PD to this new GC I-140. That will help you with the H1B renewal for 3 years. You have got 14 more months. you should be able to get I-140 filed by then, do a premium for I-140 to get it approved by the time you renew your H1B.
Renewing your H1B based on the revoked I-140 would be risky.
more...
visafreedom
07-03 11:15 AM
Well, here are the thoughts.
American Govt only listens when it sees an economic impact. Get thousands of such workers to not work a day, I am sure it would mean a huge economic impact. This is sending a signal that we dont tolerate this "pseudo-slavery" and that today we dont work a day but tomorrow we will be forced to leave this country (I know already several people who have done that and it is becoming more and more common for people to abstain from coming to this land of opportunity as the system is now less favorable)
If hundreds of thousands dont go to work, congress, corporates, press - the whole gamut would become sensitive to the issue. This is one way you can get them to lobby for our demands.
Taking out rally is also a very good way of doing it however if you did this in one place, the turnout will not be as impressive. Doing it in multiple cities needs an organization.
Bottomline, whatever you do, show solidarity, resolve, unity. That has never happened within this affected group of workers.
American Govt only listens when it sees an economic impact. Get thousands of such workers to not work a day, I am sure it would mean a huge economic impact. This is sending a signal that we dont tolerate this "pseudo-slavery" and that today we dont work a day but tomorrow we will be forced to leave this country (I know already several people who have done that and it is becoming more and more common for people to abstain from coming to this land of opportunity as the system is now less favorable)
If hundreds of thousands dont go to work, congress, corporates, press - the whole gamut would become sensitive to the issue. This is one way you can get them to lobby for our demands.
Taking out rally is also a very good way of doing it however if you did this in one place, the turnout will not be as impressive. Doing it in multiple cities needs an organization.
Bottomline, whatever you do, show solidarity, resolve, unity. That has never happened within this affected group of workers.
hair Meagan Good Wallpapers
gc_75
07-17 08:00 PM
How did you file the AOS with company A when you are not working for that company any more? You need to attach the employment letter from Company A along with I-485 application.
For applying with Company B, you need to have fresh a PERM Labor approved from Company B.
Hope this helps.
I have a unique situation and I would really appreciate if someone can answer.
My LC and 140 was approved (March 2006) for Company A when I was working there on H1. After retrogration I changed jobs (November 2006) and went to work for Company B. My lawyer said we can apply for AOS using the approved 140 from company A. I did send the application which reached there on July 2nd. Now, do I have to go and work for Company A (which actually is not an option any more)? Or I can keep working for Company B and if 180 days are passed since the filing/receipt date I will be safe to obtain the GC? Company B is ready to start a new process for GC but if I can use the previously approved 140 and get AOS/GC approved, I really would like to do that.
Please help...:confused:
For applying with Company B, you need to have fresh a PERM Labor approved from Company B.
Hope this helps.
I have a unique situation and I would really appreciate if someone can answer.
My LC and 140 was approved (March 2006) for Company A when I was working there on H1. After retrogration I changed jobs (November 2006) and went to work for Company B. My lawyer said we can apply for AOS using the approved 140 from company A. I did send the application which reached there on July 2nd. Now, do I have to go and work for Company A (which actually is not an option any more)? Or I can keep working for Company B and if 180 days are passed since the filing/receipt date I will be safe to obtain the GC? Company B is ready to start a new process for GC but if I can use the previously approved 140 and get AOS/GC approved, I really would like to do that.
Please help...:confused:
more...
lfgc
05-17 04:58 PM
Would anyone please share contact info of Good and proven lawyer whose legal fees is reasonable or cheaper. My lawyer asking $1800 as legal fees (not filing fees) for H-1B extension which I guess is too much.
Thank you very much in advance.
I'm using the service of Brikho & Kallabat...till now did not have any issue with my extension...currently on 8th year...as my employer pays my extension fee...not sure how much is the total cost...have asked them...will update as get info.
rgds,
lfgc
...recd info fm the attorney's office...
The H-1B processing fees are as follows: Attorney Fees $900, Filing Fees
$2,190 for companies with 26 or more employees and $1,440 for companies
with 25 or less employees, Office Expense $50.
so, for extension...it may still be $900.
Thank you very much in advance.
I'm using the service of Brikho & Kallabat...till now did not have any issue with my extension...currently on 8th year...as my employer pays my extension fee...not sure how much is the total cost...have asked them...will update as get info.
rgds,
lfgc
...recd info fm the attorney's office...
The H-1B processing fees are as follows: Attorney Fees $900, Filing Fees
$2,190 for companies with 26 or more employees and $1,440 for companies
with 25 or less employees, Office Expense $50.
so, for extension...it may still be $900.
hot Meagan Good Wallpapers
manand24
09-28 08:02 AM
EAD - Card production ordered for me and my wife on 09/27/2007.
See signature for details:
PD 04/2006 EB2 INDIA
I-140 NSC AP 10/2006
SELF:
I-485 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC (LIN-XXX) on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail at home
I-131 (Travel Document) NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC (LIN-XXX) on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail at home
I-765 (EAD) NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007; Card production ordered on 09/27/2007
BioMetrics Appointment - ND - 09/18/07, Appointment Date 10/05/07 9:00AM
WIFE
I-485 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC (LIN-XXX) on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail at home
I-131 (Travel Document) NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC (LIN-XXX) on 09/18/2007 via USPS Mail at Lawyer's office
I-765 (EAD) NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007; Card production ordered on 09/27/2007
BioMetrics Appointment - ND - 09/18/07, Appointment Date 10/05/07 8:00AM
See signature for details:
PD 04/2006 EB2 INDIA
I-140 NSC AP 10/2006
SELF:
I-485 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC (LIN-XXX) on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail at home
I-131 (Travel Document) NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC (LIN-XXX) on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail at home
I-765 (EAD) NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007; Card production ordered on 09/27/2007
BioMetrics Appointment - ND - 09/18/07, Appointment Date 10/05/07 9:00AM
WIFE
I-485 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC (LIN-XXX) on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail at home
I-131 (Travel Document) NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC (LIN-XXX) on 09/18/2007 via USPS Mail at Lawyer's office
I-765 (EAD) NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007; Card production ordered on 09/27/2007
BioMetrics Appointment - ND - 09/18/07, Appointment Date 10/05/07 8:00AM
more...
house Meagan Good Wallpapers
gcnirvana
01-17 12:33 PM
Hello,
To issue an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) for an H4 visa holder, the local IRS office is asking Indian passport and Indian birth certificate. It is difficult to get birth certificate in India because the birth was never registered. Is it OK to submit the affidavit given by parents (the kind usually used for immigration needs), instead of the birth certificate, to get the ITIN number. If anyone got their ITIN number by using such affidavit given by parents, please post your reply. Thanks in advance.
slc_ut
You've to apply for the ITIN when you file your tax returns. But you should not send the docs to the address shown in the 1040 or 1040EZ, etc. but to the address shown in form W-7 (ITIN). Once IRS assigns an ITIN # to the H4 applicant, they'll send the tax return filing docs along with the ITIN# to the appropriate dept for filing tax returns.
By the way, you don't need a Birth Certificate for an ITIN, just a notorized copy of the passport will do. Atleast that was the case till last year. Checkout the following site for more info on ITIN and tax returns:
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96287,00.html
hope this helps,
GCNirvana
To issue an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) for an H4 visa holder, the local IRS office is asking Indian passport and Indian birth certificate. It is difficult to get birth certificate in India because the birth was never registered. Is it OK to submit the affidavit given by parents (the kind usually used for immigration needs), instead of the birth certificate, to get the ITIN number. If anyone got their ITIN number by using such affidavit given by parents, please post your reply. Thanks in advance.
slc_ut
You've to apply for the ITIN when you file your tax returns. But you should not send the docs to the address shown in the 1040 or 1040EZ, etc. but to the address shown in form W-7 (ITIN). Once IRS assigns an ITIN # to the H4 applicant, they'll send the tax return filing docs along with the ITIN# to the appropriate dept for filing tax returns.
By the way, you don't need a Birth Certificate for an ITIN, just a notorized copy of the passport will do. Atleast that was the case till last year. Checkout the following site for more info on ITIN and tax returns:
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96287,00.html
hope this helps,
GCNirvana
tattoo meagan good wallpaper
shreekhand
07-26 10:06 PM
Dear Vikram,
Maybe you can list the sites you have configured to search in this custom search and we can suggest adding a few more if need be.
Nice work.
Maybe you can list the sites you have configured to search in this custom search and we can suggest adding a few more if need be.
Nice work.
more...
pictures Meagan Good Wallpapers
naturopathicpt
06-29 04:53 PM
Hi Atty. Ruben, your response has been really helpful and it does makes sense that it would be below the minimum salary required by the LCA. Is there any PDF or citation where I can print out for my records stating this law?
I have to clarify something, the contact was made by my recruiter BUT the Employment Agreement states that it is only between ME and my EMPLOYER. Should I breach the contact it states:
"If the employee resigns OR otherwise breaches any of the terms of this Agreement prior to its expiration, Employee shall be liable for ALL of the expenses incurred by the Employer to tmploy him or her, including, but not limited to, COST OF TRANSPORTATION, FEES FOR PROCESSING IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS, FEES FOR PROCESSING LICENSING DOCUMENTS, AND ANY FEES PAID BY EMPLOYEE TO A RECUITER. EMPLOYEE UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT THESE COSTS MAY BE RECOVERED BY DEDUCTING THESE AMOUNTS FROM ANY WAGES EARNED. If any party shall violate or breach any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, the party in default or breach, shall shall pay to the prevaling party ALL COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES, WHICH THE PREVAILING PARTY MAY INCUR OR PAY AS A RESULT OF SUCH DEFAULT OR BREACH."
So Atty. Ruben, I want to know your opinion on this. is this really illegal? Though I signed the contract without knowing about the LAW, do I have the power to dispute this?
I appreciate your generous response.
NaturopathicPT
I have to clarify something, the contact was made by my recruiter BUT the Employment Agreement states that it is only between ME and my EMPLOYER. Should I breach the contact it states:
"If the employee resigns OR otherwise breaches any of the terms of this Agreement prior to its expiration, Employee shall be liable for ALL of the expenses incurred by the Employer to tmploy him or her, including, but not limited to, COST OF TRANSPORTATION, FEES FOR PROCESSING IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS, FEES FOR PROCESSING LICENSING DOCUMENTS, AND ANY FEES PAID BY EMPLOYEE TO A RECUITER. EMPLOYEE UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT THESE COSTS MAY BE RECOVERED BY DEDUCTING THESE AMOUNTS FROM ANY WAGES EARNED. If any party shall violate or breach any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, the party in default or breach, shall shall pay to the prevaling party ALL COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES, WHICH THE PREVAILING PARTY MAY INCUR OR PAY AS A RESULT OF SUCH DEFAULT OR BREACH."
So Atty. Ruben, I want to know your opinion on this. is this really illegal? Though I signed the contract without knowing about the LAW, do I have the power to dispute this?
I appreciate your generous response.
NaturopathicPT
dresses Meagan Good
good idea
06-02 09:53 AM
Interview Date: Friday May 6, 2011
My Employment Model: E/V/C = employer/vendor/client. Working with the same employer for 5th year now and after initial H1b (3 years) this is my second H1 B renewal)
Visa Officer: A Lady
Visa Officer's comments to me: Everything looks good but we need to do some additional admin review.
Documents requested: The application packet my company gave me. These were returned to me at the conclusion of the interview which lasted for about 3-4 minutes.
Subsequent correspondence: after interview I got a couple of emails (one email per week) asking me to submit the documents (I129, client letter, and any supporting documents)
Current status: last correspondence via email was on May 13th, no response as of yet.
Am I experiencing this because of my employment model? Any comments from anyone?
Did anyone else have similar experience? Anyone from Southeast Asia?
-Yes, this is because of E/V/C model. I have never come across such case (221g) if someone works at employer location, except one, that guy's passport had some issue, and his case got sort out with in a week, in-fact, he did not get 221g. I have not come across case with E/C model too.
-I know at least 7 guys with E/V/C model waiting in India because they got 221g, and still waiting for decision.
My Employment Model: E/V/C = employer/vendor/client. Working with the same employer for 5th year now and after initial H1b (3 years) this is my second H1 B renewal)
Visa Officer: A Lady
Visa Officer's comments to me: Everything looks good but we need to do some additional admin review.
Documents requested: The application packet my company gave me. These were returned to me at the conclusion of the interview which lasted for about 3-4 minutes.
Subsequent correspondence: after interview I got a couple of emails (one email per week) asking me to submit the documents (I129, client letter, and any supporting documents)
Current status: last correspondence via email was on May 13th, no response as of yet.
Am I experiencing this because of my employment model? Any comments from anyone?
Did anyone else have similar experience? Anyone from Southeast Asia?
-Yes, this is because of E/V/C model. I have never come across such case (221g) if someone works at employer location, except one, that guy's passport had some issue, and his case got sort out with in a week, in-fact, he did not get 221g. I have not come across case with E/C model too.
-I know at least 7 guys with E/V/C model waiting in India because they got 221g, and still waiting for decision.
more...
makeup 2010 Meagan Good Wallpapers;
vrbest
05-07 04:09 PM
Soft LUD means the date changed but no message content change..
Hard LUD means both date and message changed..
THanks for the information. Now its little encouraging. could you clear one of my other questions.. whats the difference between LUD and soft LUD. I logged in the USCIS website
and i see the date changed at the LUD to 04/28/2009. What is that is that a soft lud or LUD
Thanks
Hard LUD means both date and message changed..
THanks for the information. Now its little encouraging. could you clear one of my other questions.. whats the difference between LUD and soft LUD. I logged in the USCIS website
and i see the date changed at the LUD to 04/28/2009. What is that is that a soft lud or LUD
Thanks
girlfriend meagan psp wallpapers middot; good
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
hairstyles Meagan-good-mobile-wallpaper
rbms
03-06 05:26 PM
Two responses
leslie535
02-28 11:00 AM
hey unitednations:
She had the B visa all along so there is no issue of her telling the truth or not on the visa app.
I have looked into the V visa before as well, and as we know, it is not applicable since I filed the I-130 July, 2006.
The present situation is that we just booked a ticket for her and the baby to head home on March 17th (the I-94 expires March 24th.) The hope is to receive good news on the grad school application and commence the work on the F-1. Thanks for your inputs so far guys..
Leslie
She had the B visa all along so there is no issue of her telling the truth or not on the visa app.
I have looked into the V visa before as well, and as we know, it is not applicable since I filed the I-130 July, 2006.
The present situation is that we just booked a ticket for her and the baby to head home on March 17th (the I-94 expires March 24th.) The hope is to receive good news on the grad school application and commence the work on the F-1. Thanks for your inputs so far guys..
Leslie
eldrick
08-16 02:12 PM
Thank you guys.
What is bothering me is that they told us the Wrong Information PLUS lawyer was just asking for filling fees(which is 745) during the time of signature but now Company is charging even for legal fees.
I believe they want to earn extra money from us. What should we do now about this wrong info?
You think we have no choice here but to pay?
I'm sorry and thanks for your help.
What is bothering me is that they told us the Wrong Information PLUS lawyer was just asking for filling fees(which is 745) during the time of signature but now Company is charging even for legal fees.
I believe they want to earn extra money from us. What should we do now about this wrong info?
You think we have no choice here but to pay?
I'm sorry and thanks for your help.
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар