logiclife
01-01 11:03 PM
I have been looking at a lot of posts on this Rajiv Khanna�s immigrationportal and there seems to be a lot of confusion about who is legit and really interested in our cause and who is faking it to collect money and run with it.
I agree that its hard to trust someone you�ve never met and get involved in discussing strategy, participate etc let alone cut a check of $50.
LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING HERE:
I have no vested interested in diverting people from any website to any website and re-divert people from one organization to another. If you know someone who works for you and you trust � fine. Go with it.
I personally am really really mad at the retrogression going on in EB GC. I applied for my Labor in Sept 2004. Got it approved in June 2005. I have been sitting on my hands since. I-140 is in process. With the speed things are going now, I will have GC no sooner than 6 years.
AND I AM JUST MAD THAT AFTER ALL THESE YEARS�I CAN�T EVEN APPLY FOR I-485.
Then I came across this website on the morning of 31st DEC and then looked at immigrationvoice.org. Talked to a couple of people on the phone from immigrationvoice.org. I am going to post tomorrow�s agenda of conference call RIGHT HERE.
If you want to participate in this call, either to suggest ideas or to check out if we are legit or not, just register on immigrationvoice.org (ITS FREE) and send an email with your phone numbers (its free) so that we can verify that you are legit and not a heckler who is going to disrupt the conference call.
If you still are not convinced and trust someone else, go with it.
Another thing�immigrationvoice.org is only 4 days old. Bear with us if we are not perfect. But we will surely be fully functional with all the bells and whistles before you know it.
AGENDA for tomorrow�s conference call:
A) GENERATE PUBLICITY ABOUT IMMIGRATIONVOICE.ORG.
Spread the word that this website is going to consolidate all efforts to have provisions to eliminate retrogression. Convince people that immigrationvoice.org is legit and operated by people WHO DON�T HAVE GC/CITIZENSHIP and are waiting in line for GC.
B) GATHER FACTS FROM BOOKS, AUTHENTIC SOURCES.
There are at least 3 books out there that deal with exodus of talent from this country either due to cultural reasons or due to hostile immigration policy. These books claim that there is competition for talent out there (�Talent� being people like H1Bs, researchers, engineers etc) between US and other countries and USA IS LOSING. Check out �Flight Capital� by David Heenan and �The flight of the creative class� by Richard Florida.
We want those facts to convince congress that eliminating retrogression is not only in an immigrant�s interest, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF AN AVERAGE AMERICAN EMPLOYER. We are not looking for a frigging charity or a handout. We are not saying �O dear congress, give us a green card and we shall be eternally thankful to thy congress�. That is a wrong strategy and an unnecessary one.We are legal immigrants. We are not looking for amnesty. Just a fair deal for people who stand in line for GC and play by the rules, pay their taxes, protect their status and obey the rule of the law.
We are looking to consolidate an already existing symbiotic relationship. A win-win situation.
C) INFLUENCE CONGRESS.
By this time, anyone who is not living under a rock knows that there is a comprehensive immigration bill coming up before congress. The bill will be introduced, debated and most likely passed. The question is whether or not the retrogression relief measures are included or thrown out.
We need to plan a strategy to
1) Convince congress with FACTS and NUMBERS how the current H1B program has given an edge to US employers and contributed to the society in general and how it is in America�s interest to put this symbiotic relationship on a solid ground by speeding up Employment based green card.
2) To work with congress, devise a strategy to meet them in person, as many as possible. Create an A-list of senators and congressmen who have the most say in committees and sub-committee hearings. We would work to communicate and convince these men first and then have a message machine to send a blanket message to ALL.
If you are still not convinced and go with someone else or go with do-nothing-and-hope-for-best strategy, then go ahead.
OTHERWISE register and participate. And you wont lose a dime by doing that.
I agree that its hard to trust someone you�ve never met and get involved in discussing strategy, participate etc let alone cut a check of $50.
LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING HERE:
I have no vested interested in diverting people from any website to any website and re-divert people from one organization to another. If you know someone who works for you and you trust � fine. Go with it.
I personally am really really mad at the retrogression going on in EB GC. I applied for my Labor in Sept 2004. Got it approved in June 2005. I have been sitting on my hands since. I-140 is in process. With the speed things are going now, I will have GC no sooner than 6 years.
AND I AM JUST MAD THAT AFTER ALL THESE YEARS�I CAN�T EVEN APPLY FOR I-485.
Then I came across this website on the morning of 31st DEC and then looked at immigrationvoice.org. Talked to a couple of people on the phone from immigrationvoice.org. I am going to post tomorrow�s agenda of conference call RIGHT HERE.
If you want to participate in this call, either to suggest ideas or to check out if we are legit or not, just register on immigrationvoice.org (ITS FREE) and send an email with your phone numbers (its free) so that we can verify that you are legit and not a heckler who is going to disrupt the conference call.
If you still are not convinced and trust someone else, go with it.
Another thing�immigrationvoice.org is only 4 days old. Bear with us if we are not perfect. But we will surely be fully functional with all the bells and whistles before you know it.
AGENDA for tomorrow�s conference call:
A) GENERATE PUBLICITY ABOUT IMMIGRATIONVOICE.ORG.
Spread the word that this website is going to consolidate all efforts to have provisions to eliminate retrogression. Convince people that immigrationvoice.org is legit and operated by people WHO DON�T HAVE GC/CITIZENSHIP and are waiting in line for GC.
B) GATHER FACTS FROM BOOKS, AUTHENTIC SOURCES.
There are at least 3 books out there that deal with exodus of talent from this country either due to cultural reasons or due to hostile immigration policy. These books claim that there is competition for talent out there (�Talent� being people like H1Bs, researchers, engineers etc) between US and other countries and USA IS LOSING. Check out �Flight Capital� by David Heenan and �The flight of the creative class� by Richard Florida.
We want those facts to convince congress that eliminating retrogression is not only in an immigrant�s interest, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF AN AVERAGE AMERICAN EMPLOYER. We are not looking for a frigging charity or a handout. We are not saying �O dear congress, give us a green card and we shall be eternally thankful to thy congress�. That is a wrong strategy and an unnecessary one.We are legal immigrants. We are not looking for amnesty. Just a fair deal for people who stand in line for GC and play by the rules, pay their taxes, protect their status and obey the rule of the law.
We are looking to consolidate an already existing symbiotic relationship. A win-win situation.
C) INFLUENCE CONGRESS.
By this time, anyone who is not living under a rock knows that there is a comprehensive immigration bill coming up before congress. The bill will be introduced, debated and most likely passed. The question is whether or not the retrogression relief measures are included or thrown out.
We need to plan a strategy to
1) Convince congress with FACTS and NUMBERS how the current H1B program has given an edge to US employers and contributed to the society in general and how it is in America�s interest to put this symbiotic relationship on a solid ground by speeding up Employment based green card.
2) To work with congress, devise a strategy to meet them in person, as many as possible. Create an A-list of senators and congressmen who have the most say in committees and sub-committee hearings. We would work to communicate and convince these men first and then have a message machine to send a blanket message to ALL.
If you are still not convinced and go with someone else or go with do-nothing-and-hope-for-best strategy, then go ahead.
OTHERWISE register and participate. And you wont lose a dime by doing that.
wallpaper Way of love quotes poems
perm2gc
08-23 05:00 PM
in EB3, EB2 and EB1
did you make any calculations based on numbers.?????
did you make any calculations based on numbers.?????
scamp
04-21 01:13 PM
I know how you feel but Im sure your time will come, our application is in Texas Service Center also and we are current since March and I was expecting that it will be approved in November but thank God my husband received an approval email just today. Forget about their processing dates it was never followed in our case, our I-140 was supposed to be approved december last yr but we got approval notice last October, our receipt notice for I-145 is June 20, 2007 but we got approved today.
Here's other details:
Eb3 Philippines
PD July 2004
1-140/I-485 RD June 20'07
I-140 approved- Oct 25'07
I-485 aprroved- Apr 21'08
Here's other details:
Eb3 Philippines
PD July 2004
1-140/I-485 RD June 20'07
I-140 approved- Oct 25'07
I-485 aprroved- Apr 21'08
2011 love poems #1
krithi
03-22 12:39 PM
All,
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
I am in the same boat and travelled twice, no questions asked about employment.
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
I am in the same boat and travelled twice, no questions asked about employment.
more...
hazishak
08-01 11:12 AM
Thanks for your quick reply :)
krithi
02-04 08:11 AM
I am in similar situation but the only difference is I applied for 485 after graduating and currently working on EAD, can I visit India and come back on AP with no isses? and BTW what did ur attorney say exactly? appreciate ur help.
krithi
krithi
more...
srarao
07-21 11:03 PM
Hello,
When I first took my medical tests for I-485 with a doctor, the doctor put an additional document stating that: "I have a positive PPD that was read as 9mm of induration. A NORMAL chest x-ray was read. The patient is refered to their PCP or County Health Department for evaluation and possible treatment with INH for 9 months".
Now I received the RFE from CIS asking for the following:
"The form I-693 submitted is hereby returned because you TB test results were not documented appropriately. Additional documentation submitted from Civil Surgeon indicates that you were possibly being refered to the County Health Department for evaluation and have received teh follow up treatment.
The I-693 form must be properly endorsed by Civil Surgeon to reflect the following:
-> The date you first refered to the local health dept for evaluation
-> Name and address of the health dept
-> results of the X-ray and other TB test
-> Based on which you are medically cleared for adjustment status
"
If anyone had similar experiences, please let me know how to proceed on this issue.
PS: I got very late appointment with County Health department, so If I go to a private TB specialist and If I take the results to the original doctor and can he able to update my I-693 based on the TB specialist results?
If I go on 9 month medication will CIS wait 9 months to further process my petition or hold my EAD status?
If I go to a new doctor and If he gives me a new set of medical results, will CIS overlook previous doctor's comments?
I dont have much time as I just had 20 days left to send back my results to CIS.
Thanks for yor help.
Ravi
When I first took my medical tests for I-485 with a doctor, the doctor put an additional document stating that: "I have a positive PPD that was read as 9mm of induration. A NORMAL chest x-ray was read. The patient is refered to their PCP or County Health Department for evaluation and possible treatment with INH for 9 months".
Now I received the RFE from CIS asking for the following:
"The form I-693 submitted is hereby returned because you TB test results were not documented appropriately. Additional documentation submitted from Civil Surgeon indicates that you were possibly being refered to the County Health Department for evaluation and have received teh follow up treatment.
The I-693 form must be properly endorsed by Civil Surgeon to reflect the following:
-> The date you first refered to the local health dept for evaluation
-> Name and address of the health dept
-> results of the X-ray and other TB test
-> Based on which you are medically cleared for adjustment status
"
If anyone had similar experiences, please let me know how to proceed on this issue.
PS: I got very late appointment with County Health department, so If I go to a private TB specialist and If I take the results to the original doctor and can he able to update my I-693 based on the TB specialist results?
If I go on 9 month medication will CIS wait 9 months to further process my petition or hold my EAD status?
If I go to a new doctor and If he gives me a new set of medical results, will CIS overlook previous doctor's comments?
I dont have much time as I just had 20 days left to send back my results to CIS.
Thanks for yor help.
Ravi
2010 Beautiful Love Quotes
insbaby
11-12 08:12 PM
If it is a "FOR-PROFIT" organization, they may use you as a "free-service" in place of a "paid-service".
If you want to use this experience to get a job, then they will surely question what was your status while working for this company in US, and eventually they will find what kind of organization it is.
If you don't want to use this experience for a future job, it is surely not recommended but it is your choice to take risk, you may be safe until some one complaints.
At the end if it is a "NON-PROFIT" organization, you have a chance to defend.
If you want to go by the LAW, you have to satisfy all subclauses, it is annoying, painful, but thats how they made the LAW :)
If you want to use this experience to get a job, then they will surely question what was your status while working for this company in US, and eventually they will find what kind of organization it is.
If you don't want to use this experience for a future job, it is surely not recommended but it is your choice to take risk, you may be safe until some one complaints.
At the end if it is a "NON-PROFIT" organization, you have a chance to defend.
If you want to go by the LAW, you have to satisfy all subclauses, it is annoying, painful, but thats how they made the LAW :)
more...
potatoeater
05-10 02:00 PM
Dude, you revived a 6 month old thread just to ask this innocuous question? And the title of this thread is pretty alarming.
Expect 5 thousand red dots now. Everybody will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
To admins..
we should have some facility to automatically close the threads that have been inactive for a while.
Guys,
I have a long layover at New Delhi airport. I am reaching their at 8PM and my next flight in the morning at 7:30AM. Is there any accommodation facility within airport? Or Do i need to go to city? This is the first time, i am going through delhi airport. Any helpful comments are welcome. Thanks and appreciate your help.
-Kumaresh
Expect 5 thousand red dots now. Everybody will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
To admins..
we should have some facility to automatically close the threads that have been inactive for a while.
Guys,
I have a long layover at New Delhi airport. I am reaching their at 8PM and my next flight in the morning at 7:30AM. Is there any accommodation facility within airport? Or Do i need to go to city? This is the first time, i am going through delhi airport. Any helpful comments are welcome. Thanks and appreciate your help.
-Kumaresh
hair i miss you love poems. i miss
chinna2003
03-12 01:14 AM
but i asked this question to find the legality of this issue before reporting someone to the USCIS that i know is doing this.I just used I instead of someone in my thread to start the discussion.
Who do i complain to in this case?
Buddy,
Are you the same person as the one who posted this? Has someone hijacked your id or your brain?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=129163#post129163
Who do i complain to in this case?
Buddy,
Are you the same person as the one who posted this? Has someone hijacked your id or your brain?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=129163#post129163
more...
ebizash
07-26 09:34 AM
CitiBank recently launched their Online Remit service. I used it for the first time last week and the exchange rate offered was best of all other services. Their fee is a flat $1 for any amount transferred. I did the same amount transfer at the same time with Citi as well as Remit2India and I got 16 Paise per $ more with Citi.
Keep in mind, every new business tries to offer best services in the beginning to attract customers and I suspect it will be same with Citi too. So their rates may be great now but could be whole different story in few months. They also disclose in the fine print that the exchange rate offered includes conversion commission.
If I were to order my preference on a permanent basis I would rank SBI, Citi, Remit2India, ICICI and then Western.
Citi's website - https://citiremit.payquik.com/
Keep in mind, every new business tries to offer best services in the beginning to attract customers and I suspect it will be same with Citi too. So their rates may be great now but could be whole different story in few months. They also disclose in the fine print that the exchange rate offered includes conversion commission.
If I were to order my preference on a permanent basis I would rank SBI, Citi, Remit2India, ICICI and then Western.
Citi's website - https://citiremit.payquik.com/
hot Wayne kids, eautiful they
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
house pictures Hindi Love Poems love
probe
05-27 02:59 PM
Applied (E-filed) on 4/19/2010 LUD on 4/26/2010 received receipt notice in a week.So far no finger print notice . I did received finger print twice in the past when I applied for EAD even though they took finger prints for I-485.
I heard that finger prints obtained at port of entry will be good for other immigration related applications.
I heard that finger prints obtained at port of entry will be good for other immigration related applications.
tattoo Poetin this poem what quotes,
glus
12-08 12:24 PM
Friends,
I apoligizeif I was posting this message in the wrong section.
I'm on H1B and filed my 140/485 concurrently in Aug 2007. Can I do ONLINE MBA with out affecting GC process?
One can study on H1B visa and there is no effect on an underlying GC process as long as one obeys all the H1B requirements.
I apoligizeif I was posting this message in the wrong section.
I'm on H1B and filed my 140/485 concurrently in Aug 2007. Can I do ONLINE MBA with out affecting GC process?
One can study on H1B visa and there is no effect on an underlying GC process as long as one obeys all the H1B requirements.
more...
pictures Lovepoems Quotes
raysaikat
04-21 01:17 PM
... it is essential that one be in H1-B status.
This is patently wrong. There are many people who are on EAD at the time of I-485 adjudication.
The only legal requirement is that the person has a valid offer from the I-140 sponsoring company (or some other one, if AC21 is used) for a same or similar job (similar to what was mentioned in the LC). In practice, the petitioner should have the job at the time of adjudication.
This is patently wrong. There are many people who are on EAD at the time of I-485 adjudication.
The only legal requirement is that the person has a valid offer from the I-140 sponsoring company (or some other one, if AC21 is used) for a same or similar job (similar to what was mentioned in the LC). In practice, the petitioner should have the job at the time of adjudication.
dresses Valentine Quotes, Love Quotes,
mayhemt
08-30 12:02 PM
Not illegal if you are also present in the recording.
- son of a lawyer... not a lawyer myself.
hopefulgc is right.....laws vary by each state, but basic rule comes down to atleast one party on both ends consenting for recording. In this case, you have consented yourself for recording & recorded it. Also only if want to make it public this rule applies, If you are recording for your own reference it doesn't apply (disclaimer: consult a professional lawyer...)
Even I faced a similar situation with my manager (of course a desi). He would promise some things (like promotions) & the end of the year he would completely deny any promising like that. So I used my cellphone (most of the cellphones come with a voice recorder feature these days). Whenever he would take me for one-to-one review meetings, i would simply activate the voice record shortcut & keep my cellphone in my upper left pocket; later I when I played I laugh out loud for hours & hours for all the smooth bullshit he talks. Of course I never went public with them, kind of keeping them as secret weapon.
- son of a lawyer... not a lawyer myself.
hopefulgc is right.....laws vary by each state, but basic rule comes down to atleast one party on both ends consenting for recording. In this case, you have consented yourself for recording & recorded it. Also only if want to make it public this rule applies, If you are recording for your own reference it doesn't apply (disclaimer: consult a professional lawyer...)
Even I faced a similar situation with my manager (of course a desi). He would promise some things (like promotions) & the end of the year he would completely deny any promising like that. So I used my cellphone (most of the cellphones come with a voice recorder feature these days). Whenever he would take me for one-to-one review meetings, i would simply activate the voice record shortcut & keep my cellphone in my upper left pocket; later I when I played I laugh out loud for hours & hours for all the smooth bullshit he talks. Of course I never went public with them, kind of keeping them as secret weapon.
more...
makeup Created by these are Poemsfree
vinayskadam
11-29 08:18 PM
Thanks for the Reply and I had called up the USCIS and they had asked me to send a letter for correcting the information. I have sent the letter now along with the supporting documents. Hope evverything goes fine.
girlfriend these eautiful love poems
thomachan72
07-20 03:14 PM
the link does not work. pls check
hairstyles can say muchmay Love poems
qplearn
11-20 08:05 PM
The email id for 60 minutes is:
60m@cbsnews.com
After sending email, put a post here so we know how many emails have gone.
60m@cbsnews.com
After sending email, put a post here so we know how many emails have gone.
bigboy007
06-17 04:13 AM
There might be way but may be you need play carefully : this is possible before you actually get your GC , Once you apply for GC and CAn PR , PR takes 1.7 years where as GC whole process needs atleast 4-5 years i dont know wherez ur state at ( that time line is from scratch)
Now you can play staying in windsor area before you actually take up GC and then apply for citizenship while leaving this is possible but timing and luck needs to play . But you cant have both for sure.
Now you can play staying in windsor area before you actually take up GC and then apply for citizenship while leaving this is possible but timing and luck needs to play . But you cant have both for sure.
posmd
06-08 07:45 PM
Guys,
I have approved EB3 LC and approved I 140 with PD JAN 2002. My wife has approved EB2 LC (Perm) and Approved I 140 with PD JAN 2006
As we represent one family can't my wife use my PD and apply I 485 under EB2.
for example If husband is born in a retrogressed country and wife in a non retrogressed country in that case, husband gets a free ride !
Why not in this case ? Just curious !
Faced with this same predicament. The truth is the US immigration rules were not made to cater for this era of fast paced change and lifestyles.
When the current EB rules were fashioned, mostly in the early 1960s most families had one working household and were generally migrating in the very highest skills level. Opportunities in the high skilled fields were also not as prevalent as they are today. US was not the knowledge economy it is today.
In the same sense people if they would migrate did so just once in their lifetime, nowadays people often shift 3 places sometimes even more. Hence your citizenship does not count, only your birth place. Imagine the insanity in a scenario that you are from antigua and you are born in India while your father was serving as the consul general there. If fate and destiny have you wishing to immigrate to the US now in the EB2 category then you would have to have a PD of Jan 2003 as opposed to current.
Many such combinations are possible, but in my humble view all this country quota stuff for EB based immigration is ridiculous and worse yet when it takes no acccount of population size. Clearly they ought to be more discerning in who they allow in via EB immigration by tightening the regulations as they stand currently, but this insane quota is off base in todays world.
A quota system for family or any other type of immigration is more reasonable, but once it is deemed you are immigrating based on your skills why should something else matter in this land of opportunity where every man is considered equal and is said to rise or fall on his ability and nothing else. Perhaps others know the answer to this but it befuddles me and makes me realise how antequated the rules really are.
I have approved EB3 LC and approved I 140 with PD JAN 2002. My wife has approved EB2 LC (Perm) and Approved I 140 with PD JAN 2006
As we represent one family can't my wife use my PD and apply I 485 under EB2.
for example If husband is born in a retrogressed country and wife in a non retrogressed country in that case, husband gets a free ride !
Why not in this case ? Just curious !
Faced with this same predicament. The truth is the US immigration rules were not made to cater for this era of fast paced change and lifestyles.
When the current EB rules were fashioned, mostly in the early 1960s most families had one working household and were generally migrating in the very highest skills level. Opportunities in the high skilled fields were also not as prevalent as they are today. US was not the knowledge economy it is today.
In the same sense people if they would migrate did so just once in their lifetime, nowadays people often shift 3 places sometimes even more. Hence your citizenship does not count, only your birth place. Imagine the insanity in a scenario that you are from antigua and you are born in India while your father was serving as the consul general there. If fate and destiny have you wishing to immigrate to the US now in the EB2 category then you would have to have a PD of Jan 2003 as opposed to current.
Many such combinations are possible, but in my humble view all this country quota stuff for EB based immigration is ridiculous and worse yet when it takes no acccount of population size. Clearly they ought to be more discerning in who they allow in via EB immigration by tightening the regulations as they stand currently, but this insane quota is off base in todays world.
A quota system for family or any other type of immigration is more reasonable, but once it is deemed you are immigrating based on your skills why should something else matter in this land of opportunity where every man is considered equal and is said to rise or fall on his ability and nothing else. Perhaps others know the answer to this but it befuddles me and makes me realise how antequated the rules really are.
No comments:
Post a Comment