kumar07
09-12 12:05 PM
Hi Friends,
Here is my Situation;
me and my wife,both residents of singapore, have h1b approved this year through the same consultancy firm and the company has already received the approval notice. We are planning to appear for visa interview sometime end of this month with Singapore Embassy and the company is going to send all the documents by next week.
Since we both are going for visa interview, I have few concerns regarding our cases:
1 We both are planning to go for visa interview on the same day. So, who should go first so that it would not interfere others interview? Or does it really make any difference?
2 Will visa officer ask any of us that since you are married why you haven't bring your spouse together? Can we say that the other also has h1b interview on the same day?
3 I am not sure whether my wife would face any questions regarding that she is married and does she have any spouse issues or what if mine H1b is not going to approved? would she still be interested to pursue her h1b or like that?
4 My h1b was denied last year because of company project document issue with same singapore embassy. So I am not sure does it going to make any impact this time or not? Any help appreciated.
I would appreciate if anyone could help me to find any of the answers.
Thanks.
Here is my Situation;
me and my wife,both residents of singapore, have h1b approved this year through the same consultancy firm and the company has already received the approval notice. We are planning to appear for visa interview sometime end of this month with Singapore Embassy and the company is going to send all the documents by next week.
Since we both are going for visa interview, I have few concerns regarding our cases:
1 We both are planning to go for visa interview on the same day. So, who should go first so that it would not interfere others interview? Or does it really make any difference?
2 Will visa officer ask any of us that since you are married why you haven't bring your spouse together? Can we say that the other also has h1b interview on the same day?
3 I am not sure whether my wife would face any questions regarding that she is married and does she have any spouse issues or what if mine H1b is not going to approved? would she still be interested to pursue her h1b or like that?
4 My h1b was denied last year because of company project document issue with same singapore embassy. So I am not sure does it going to make any impact this time or not? Any help appreciated.
I would appreciate if anyone could help me to find any of the answers.
Thanks.
wallpaper funny quotes that rhyme. funny quotes about life for
eagerr2i
08-30 12:39 PM
Dear IV Members,
The IV members have been traveling to DC and other locations while they meet the policy makers, special interest groups and the lawmakers in Washington DC. We have a few core members who have spent thousands of dollars from their personal savings for travel purposes.
Since the core members have a preference to not draw money from the funds collected to date to be spent on travel, I am proposing that IV members donate their Frequent Flyer Airline Miles to IV. Typically, it requires about 25K miles to get a ticket in continental US and all the miles for a ticket should come from one account.
These airline miles would be used for the core members if and when needed. You need not transfer the miles at this time and only need to pledge. I will prepare a list of personnel who pledged and will contact you when your miles are needed. Miles on major carriers- American, United, Delta, Continental, Southwest etc..are welcome.
To kick start the pledge drive, I am donating 25,000 Airline Miles on American Airlines to IV.
Come on members..! and pledge in this novel pledge drive for Immigration Voice.
The IV members have been traveling to DC and other locations while they meet the policy makers, special interest groups and the lawmakers in Washington DC. We have a few core members who have spent thousands of dollars from their personal savings for travel purposes.
Since the core members have a preference to not draw money from the funds collected to date to be spent on travel, I am proposing that IV members donate their Frequent Flyer Airline Miles to IV. Typically, it requires about 25K miles to get a ticket in continental US and all the miles for a ticket should come from one account.
These airline miles would be used for the core members if and when needed. You need not transfer the miles at this time and only need to pledge. I will prepare a list of personnel who pledged and will contact you when your miles are needed. Miles on major carriers- American, United, Delta, Continental, Southwest etc..are welcome.
To kick start the pledge drive, I am donating 25,000 Airline Miles on American Airlines to IV.
Come on members..! and pledge in this novel pledge drive for Immigration Voice.
NIW
08-31 12:24 PM
Just Ignore him. He thinks foreign workers are cheap labor. My wife recently got Outstanding Resident physician award in a huge urban hospital where she competed with 100% bright and talented American MDs.
Lou! I don't think we have any classes to improve IQ. Its genetic.
Lou! I don't think we have any classes to improve IQ. Its genetic.
2011 funny quotes that rhyme. funny quotes about weed. funny
pappu
04-27 09:38 AM
This looks like a hoax to me. Could you quote a credible news story or a link on a enforcement site where there is any advisory?
more...
kenpat
03-09 07:57 PM
Guys I hear you all. If you want to do something about it go to the thread 'US Housing Crisis and Employment based Green Card issues'
My original post there was
I think we should do something contrary to what everyone else is suggesting. I have been reading a lot of posts on here iv and other sites where there is talk of us shelling x amount of dollars or buying a house as a solution to help the economy which is a good thing. However on the same posts I also see contrarian views saying the economy is in bad shape and they will never want to add more immigrants its a political thing. Some of them suggested that since we have all our savings in this country with the banks and the institutions they are not going to get an added benefit other than buying up of the houses and inventory which no one wants I guess. My contrarian view is this:
We sign a proposal and send it to the congress to act on eb cases or whatever we want them to and if they dont then the immigration community should start sending back dollars to their home country. We need massive campaign and support. Think about this estimates are about 800k are waiting in labor, eb or 485 stage if we send $1000 every week from the banks institutions in the US to our own country banks it will deplete the banks reserves by 800 mln every week. How long do you think they will want this to continue in the face of a falling economy and banks with limited funds.
Another thought that comes to mind is everyone takes a day off every month on one day.
Gandhiji taught us something non cooperation and maybe thats the way forward.
Thoughts opinions are welcome�
Here are my latest comments there:
I dont know if you guys watch cnbc but there was a debate today on whether foreign workers should be allowed and one of the Guests Vivek Wadhwa a Professor at the Duke Univ in North carolina said if we let them go back can you imagine the money from Citi and Bank of america going with them and there will be a run on those banks, exactly what I have been saying they cannot afford a run on the banks. All we NEED is collective action otherwise we are all DOOMED at different times even if your 485 is pending they are finding ways to block your GC process if that is not yet evident. Join the gang or Good luck!!!
My original post there was
I think we should do something contrary to what everyone else is suggesting. I have been reading a lot of posts on here iv and other sites where there is talk of us shelling x amount of dollars or buying a house as a solution to help the economy which is a good thing. However on the same posts I also see contrarian views saying the economy is in bad shape and they will never want to add more immigrants its a political thing. Some of them suggested that since we have all our savings in this country with the banks and the institutions they are not going to get an added benefit other than buying up of the houses and inventory which no one wants I guess. My contrarian view is this:
We sign a proposal and send it to the congress to act on eb cases or whatever we want them to and if they dont then the immigration community should start sending back dollars to their home country. We need massive campaign and support. Think about this estimates are about 800k are waiting in labor, eb or 485 stage if we send $1000 every week from the banks institutions in the US to our own country banks it will deplete the banks reserves by 800 mln every week. How long do you think they will want this to continue in the face of a falling economy and banks with limited funds.
Another thought that comes to mind is everyone takes a day off every month on one day.
Gandhiji taught us something non cooperation and maybe thats the way forward.
Thoughts opinions are welcome�
Here are my latest comments there:
I dont know if you guys watch cnbc but there was a debate today on whether foreign workers should be allowed and one of the Guests Vivek Wadhwa a Professor at the Duke Univ in North carolina said if we let them go back can you imagine the money from Citi and Bank of america going with them and there will be a run on those banks, exactly what I have been saying they cannot afford a run on the banks. All we NEED is collective action otherwise we are all DOOMED at different times even if your 485 is pending they are finding ways to block your GC process if that is not yet evident. Join the gang or Good luck!!!
dan19
09-11 04:13 PM
Call your lawyer and get your ETA number. The 45 day letter has your ETA number.
Tell him that you would like that number to track your case using the new BEC online case status search.
Normally he should give you that number, since it is nothing harmful for him and your company.
Hi All,
I received word from my company that my 45 day letter had come in .. this is March 2005. Its more than a year and now they just seem to keep quite. If I persist they say the lawyer has not come up with anything yet.
I tried calling the lawyer but they say that nothing has come up either.
Now with all the talk about September 2007 the finish date for the BEC where do we stand. My lawyer is quiet, my employer is quite and my 6 years are getting close to complete in January 2007.
How are you guyz coping ? I am tired of waiting .. haven't gone past the first stage.
Hoping for the best.
Tell him that you would like that number to track your case using the new BEC online case status search.
Normally he should give you that number, since it is nothing harmful for him and your company.
Hi All,
I received word from my company that my 45 day letter had come in .. this is March 2005. Its more than a year and now they just seem to keep quite. If I persist they say the lawyer has not come up with anything yet.
I tried calling the lawyer but they say that nothing has come up either.
Now with all the talk about September 2007 the finish date for the BEC where do we stand. My lawyer is quiet, my employer is quite and my 6 years are getting close to complete in January 2007.
How are you guyz coping ? I am tired of waiting .. haven't gone past the first stage.
Hoping for the best.
more...
bluekayal
08-20 02:24 PM
I've tried several times recently to check my status at TSC. Each time I get the same reply, " We do not do status checks any more. Please contact National Customer Service, and do a referral and open a Service Request."
I'd love to know how others are tackling this new obstacle!
I'd love to know how others are tackling this new obstacle!
2010 funny quotes that rhyme. funny
sanprabhu
01-30 09:24 AM
Don't go by Online status message in USCIS website. It is a bull and often flat out incorrect.
more...
meragcdedobhai
10-27 12:39 PM
to Motivated...
It seems like sheep when we are in touble to we are running helter skelter.
It seems like sheep when we are in touble to we are running helter skelter.
hair funny quotes for tumblr. funny
optimist578
03-18 12:34 PM
Info from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-572
----Quoted from website -----------------
H.R. 572: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Commission Act of 2007
Status: Introduced
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise bills before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.
Sponsor: Rep. Edolphus Towns [D-NY] (no cosponsors)
Last Action: Jan 18, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics:
Edolphus Towns has sponsored 90 bills since Jan 6, 1999, of which 88 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Towns has co-sponsored 2239 bills during the same time period (Exceedingly Many, relative to peers).
================================================== ====
How encouraging is that?
Have people seen the movie Legally Blonde 2? How the lead person lobbies for the Bruisser Bill ? Wish we could do sth like that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Still fighting on... $50 p.m. + Lobbying with local Representatives...
----Quoted from website -----------------
H.R. 572: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Commission Act of 2007
Status: Introduced
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise bills before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.
Sponsor: Rep. Edolphus Towns [D-NY] (no cosponsors)
Last Action: Jan 18, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics:
Edolphus Towns has sponsored 90 bills since Jan 6, 1999, of which 88 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Towns has co-sponsored 2239 bills during the same time period (Exceedingly Many, relative to peers).
================================================== ====
How encouraging is that?
Have people seen the movie Legally Blonde 2? How the lead person lobbies for the Bruisser Bill ? Wish we could do sth like that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Still fighting on... $50 p.m. + Lobbying with local Representatives...
more...
aug2007
02-24 07:53 AM
Thank you theshiningsun and chanduv23.
Chanduv23 - You are right. I'm working for a consulting company and the contract is ending.
I want to clarify little more.
1. Will I receive NOID, if my employer revokes I140? Can I avoid it by filing AC21 before my existing employer cancels the I140?
2. Can I travel out of the country without the job? Will it cause any issue at the Port of Entry, if I use AP to enter US (but currently doesn't have the job in hand)?
Chanduv23 - You are right. I'm working for a consulting company and the contract is ending.
I want to clarify little more.
1. Will I receive NOID, if my employer revokes I140? Can I avoid it by filing AC21 before my existing employer cancels the I140?
2. Can I travel out of the country without the job? Will it cause any issue at the Port of Entry, if I use AP to enter US (but currently doesn't have the job in hand)?
hot funny quotes that rhyme.
sidm
03-29 08:59 PM
Chanduv,
I am sorry, but as far as I have known IV, IV has never exclusively or inclusively worked on student OPT/H1, but it is a coincidence that increase in student OPT might be a fallout of some of IV's actions. I dont see any point of asking students to join IV solely on this basis (OPT or H1 increase). Though, having graduated as a student in US, I totally agree to the point of asking students to join stating that GC is the final step in achieving their American Dream, where IV can make considerable impact.
I think the administrators should particulary keep a close watch on such posts related to OPT/H1 issues. These posts might be incorrectly interpreted and lead to deviatons from IV's cores agenda issues as well as division of resources. Unless, IV administrators are seriously thinking of changing their ideology and are willing to walk this path.
Nevertheless, I will keep on supporting IV with all my possible efforts. Cheers and Go IV!
HP
Duplicity of a few greedy souls surfaces again..... we are not cockroaches to be trampled over just because you are at a further stage in the GC line.......:mad:
In this case, GO IV!!!! Huge positive step by IV to unite and help ALL LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND IMMIGRANTS IN WAITING (students):)
I am sorry, but as far as I have known IV, IV has never exclusively or inclusively worked on student OPT/H1, but it is a coincidence that increase in student OPT might be a fallout of some of IV's actions. I dont see any point of asking students to join IV solely on this basis (OPT or H1 increase). Though, having graduated as a student in US, I totally agree to the point of asking students to join stating that GC is the final step in achieving their American Dream, where IV can make considerable impact.
I think the administrators should particulary keep a close watch on such posts related to OPT/H1 issues. These posts might be incorrectly interpreted and lead to deviatons from IV's cores agenda issues as well as division of resources. Unless, IV administrators are seriously thinking of changing their ideology and are willing to walk this path.
Nevertheless, I will keep on supporting IV with all my possible efforts. Cheers and Go IV!
HP
Duplicity of a few greedy souls surfaces again..... we are not cockroaches to be trampled over just because you are at a further stage in the GC line.......:mad:
In this case, GO IV!!!! Huge positive step by IV to unite and help ALL LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND IMMIGRANTS IN WAITING (students):)
more...
house tattoo funny quotes,life
atlgc
11-08 10:56 AM
hello
work for decent size company (1500 employees).i am the only non citizen/non gc holder
applied eb3 and stuck since 2003.gained masters in 2006
planning to apply to EB2 with different title .
my employer is requesting to apply eb2 for masters with 7 years of experience as requirement
in general if i look at DOL websites ,most positions requirements says masters plus 2 years like that
does that mean its guaranteed audit like that meaning do they question or is it possible
any experiences who ported are appreciated
thanks
work for decent size company (1500 employees).i am the only non citizen/non gc holder
applied eb3 and stuck since 2003.gained masters in 2006
planning to apply to EB2 with different title .
my employer is requesting to apply eb2 for masters with 7 years of experience as requirement
in general if i look at DOL websites ,most positions requirements says masters plus 2 years like that
does that mean its guaranteed audit like that meaning do they question or is it possible
any experiences who ported are appreciated
thanks
tattoo funny quotes that rhyme.
GCOP
06-23 02:46 PM
I know that, we had not been successful in earlier years for this bill. But, as CIR chances are very uncertain, we should concentrate at least only on this Visa Recapture Bill this year. Passing of this bill will reduce backlog significantly. Let us focus on this bill .
more...
pictures funny quotes that rhyme. love
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 funny quotes that rhyme
sujan_vatrapu
10-27 11:17 AM
You probably know what you are getting, but there are others who believe all the lies that FOX spreads - don't always look through the prism of your problems...
At least on the other news outlets, they bring 2 sides of opinions, unlike FOX - which only shows one side of the issues 25% of the time, and the host spews his/her talking points for the rest of the 75% of the show!
Having said that, I would much prefer for the news outlets (ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, NPR ..) to not only give 2 sides of the story, but actually do some investigative journalism and come to conclusions. Ask the tough questions and if all they get is talking points cut them off.........
Again you missed the point, main news media outlets have liberal views on issues, they don't bring conservative view but they say so, i watch CNN, CBS, listen to NPR, I am not saying FOX is the best but they are as good as the rest, agn my point is all the channels have left or right view (NONE have a centrist view), we should not discount FOX because they have conservative views,
in a recent survey more than half surveyed picked FOX as the most trusted new channel, if we think they are fools there is definitely something with us!
At least on the other news outlets, they bring 2 sides of opinions, unlike FOX - which only shows one side of the issues 25% of the time, and the host spews his/her talking points for the rest of the 75% of the show!
Having said that, I would much prefer for the news outlets (ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, NPR ..) to not only give 2 sides of the story, but actually do some investigative journalism and come to conclusions. Ask the tough questions and if all they get is talking points cut them off.........
Again you missed the point, main news media outlets have liberal views on issues, they don't bring conservative view but they say so, i watch CNN, CBS, listen to NPR, I am not saying FOX is the best but they are as good as the rest, agn my point is all the channels have left or right view (NONE have a centrist view), we should not discount FOX because they have conservative views,
in a recent survey more than half surveyed picked FOX as the most trusted new channel, if we think they are fools there is definitely something with us!
more...
makeup funny quotes with pics. funny quotes that rhyme funny quotes with pics.
InTheMoment
08-20 06:02 PM
Not exactly yabadaba ... if the call goes to TSC/NSC they are not contractors but full employees of USCIS and are known as Immigration Information Officers IIO, who have nothing to do with actual adjudications of I-485 done by CAO's - Center Adjudication Officers (as you rightly pointed out)
once and for all.. the adjudicators dont answer calls. its just cust service people...who are contractors. so if u dont call them.. all they will be doing is sitting around doing nothing.
once and for all.. the adjudicators dont answer calls. its just cust service people...who are contractors. so if u dont call them.. all they will be doing is sitting around doing nothing.
girlfriend funny quotes that rhyme;
kewlchap
04-06 01:15 AM
Hello all,
Anyone knows if there is a certain length of time that I need to be employed with my GC sponsor after 485 approval?
I have heard 3-4 months, but I am wondering if there is legal time limit or if this is a "good faith" limit.
Appreciate responses.
Anyone knows if there is a certain length of time that I need to be employed with my GC sponsor after 485 approval?
I have heard 3-4 months, but I am wondering if there is legal time limit or if this is a "good faith" limit.
Appreciate responses.
hairstyles love quotes rhyming. funny
vxb2004
11-25 01:24 PM
Thank you very much for all your inputs. I hope everything goes well.
solraj
03-26 01:14 PM
There is no such guarantee of moving forward all the time.It all depends on how many visa #'s are currently available and how many have been utilised.If USCIS starts using #'s allocating to each app currently "CURRENT" it leads to no available no's and it will retrogress.So it all depends how many GC's are currently pending before Dec 2003 utilizing the #'s and how many of these are allocated no's.So we never know.I am not trying to be pessimistic but reasoning it.
chanduv23
10-09 11:57 AM
I initially volunteered to steer the Arizona chapter but my job schedule has changed so much and now involves a lot of in-country and overseas traveling. Would someone please lead this chapter? I will attend any of the chapter activities whenever I am in the country.
U are a very dedicated IV member. Do stay active as much as possible.
Someone, please help fromnaija build this chapter.
U are a very dedicated IV member. Do stay active as much as possible.
Someone, please help fromnaija build this chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment