ossidon
08-06 12:12 PM
Wandmaker, Congratulations!
I am hopeful too since like you my I140 had a LUD on 7/13. I am a Dec 04 EB2 filer and have an Infopass tomorrow to know the 485 status.
I am hopeful too since like you my I140 had a LUD on 7/13. I am a Dec 04 EB2 filer and have an Infopass tomorrow to know the 485 status.
wallpaper 31 weeks annabelles handprint
eldrick
08-16 01:41 PM
Hi,
My husband's company is paying for his 485 fees but not for me. I'm just wondering if they should charge me a separate legal fee for this case?
My understanding is legal fee already covers for both me and my husband and this has already been paid of by the Company. And now they are charging us a separate legal fee for me also as spouse.
Thanks for your advise.
My husband's company is paying for his 485 fees but not for me. I'm just wondering if they should charge me a separate legal fee for this case?
My understanding is legal fee already covers for both me and my husband and this has already been paid of by the Company. And now they are charging us a separate legal fee for me also as spouse.
Thanks for your advise.
learning01
04-12 12:33 PM
As I had already posted in the news article thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=8552&postcount=225), this is an exhaustive article with a bold and thought provoking headlines. The article can be accessed here - http://www.newsobserver.com/104/story/427793.html
Many skilled foreigners leaving U.S.
Exodus rooted in backlog for permanent status
Karin Rives, Staff Writer
When the Senate immigration bill fell apart last week, it did more than stymie efforts to deal with illegal immigration.
It derailed efforts to deal with an equally vexing business concern: a backlog in applications for so-called green cards, the coveted cards that are actually pink or white and that offer proof of lawful permanent residency.
Many people now wait six years or longer for the card. There are 526,000 applications pending, according to Immigration Voice, an advocacy group that tracks government data.
Lately, this has prompted an exodus of foreign workers who tired of waiting, to return home or go further afield. With the economies in Asia and elsewhere on the rise, they can easily find work in the native countries or in third nations that are more generous with their visas.
"You have China, Russia, India -- a lot of countries where you can go and make a lot of money. That's the biggest thing that has changed," said Murali Bashyam, a Raleigh immigration lawyer who helps companies sponsor immigrants. "Before, people were willing to wait it out. Now they can do just as well going back home, and they do."
Mike Plueddeman said he lost three employees (one a senior programmer with a doctorate) at Durham-based DynPro in the past two years because they tired of waiting for their green cards.
All three found good jobs in their home countries within a few weeks of leaving Durham, said Plueddeman, the software consultancy's human resource director.
"We are talking about very well-educated and highly skilled people who have been in the labor force a long time," he said. "You hate losing them."
This budding brain drain comes as the first American baby boomers retire and projections show a huge need for such professionals in the years ahead. U.S. universities graduate about 70,000 information technology students annually. Many people say that number won't meet the need for a projected 600,000 additional openings for information systems professionals between 2002 and 2012, and the openings made by retirements.
"We just don't have the pipeline right now," said Joe Freddoso, director of Cisco Systems' Research Triangle Park operations. "We are concerned there's going to be a shortage, and we're already seeing that in some areas."
Cisco has advertised an opening for a data-security specialist in Atlanta for several months, unable to find the right candidate. Freddoso believes the problem will spread unless the government allows more foreign workers to enter the country, and expedites their residency process.
However, not everybody believes in the labor shortage that corporations fret about.
Critics say that proposals to allow more skilled workers into the country would only depress wages and displace American-born workers who have yet to fully recover from the dot-com bust.
"We should only issue work-related visas if we really need them," said Caroline Espinosa, a spokeswoman with NumbersUSA, a Washington, D.C., group pushing for immigration reduction. "There are 2.5 million native born American workers in the math and computer field who are currently out of work. It begs the question whether we truly need foreign workers."
She added that the immigration backlog would be aggravated by raising the cap for temporary and permanent visas, which would make it harder for those who deserve to immigrate to do so.
Waiting since 2003
Sarath Chandrand, 44, a software consultant from India, moved with his wife and two young daughters from Raleigh to Toronto in December because he couldn't live with more uncertainty. He applied for his green card in early 2003 and expects it will take at least two more years to get it.
His former employer continues to sponsor his application for permanent residency, hoping that he will eventually return. But Chandrand doesn't know what the future will hold.
"I miss Raleigh, the weather, the people," he said in a phone interview. "But it's a very difficult decision to make, once you've settled in a country, to move out. You go through a lot of mental strain. Making another move will be difficult."
Canada won him over because its residency process takes only a year and a half and doesn't require sponsorship from an employer.
The competition from Canada also worries Plueddeman, who said several of his employees are also applying for residency in both countries. "They'll go with whoever comes first," he said.
And it's not just India and Canada that beckon. New Zealand and Australia are among nations that actively market themselves to professionals in the United States, with perks such as an easy process to get work visas.
New Zealand, with a population of 4 million, has received more than 1,900 applications from skilled migrants and their families in the past two years, said Don Badman, the Los Angeles marketing director for that country's immigration agency. Of those, about 17 percent were non-Americans working in the United States.
Badman's team has hired a public relations agency to get the word out. They have also run ads in West Coast newspapers and attended trade shows, mainly to attract professionals in health care and information technology.
Dana Hutchison, an operating room nurse from Cedar Mountain south of Asheville, could have joined a hospital in the United States that offers fat sign-on bonuses. Instead, she's in the small town of Tauranga, east of Auckland, working alongside New Zealand nurses and doctors.
"It would be hard for me to work in the U.S. again," she said. Where she is now, "the working conditions are so fabulous. Everybody is friendly and much less stressed. It's like the U.S. was in the 1960s."
Limit of 140,000
Getting a green card was never a quick process. The official limit for employment-based green cards is 140,000 annually.
And there is a bottleneck of technology professionals from India and China. They hold many, if not most, of all temporary work visas, and many try to convert their work visa to permanent residency, and eventually full citizenship. But under current rules, no single nationality can be allotted more than 7 percent of the green cards.
In his February economic report, President Bush outlined proposals to overhaul the system for employment-based green cards:
* Open more slots by exempting spouses and children from the annual limit of 140,000 green cards. Such dependents now make up about half of all green card recipients, because workers sponsored by employers can include their family in the application.
* Replace the current cap with a "flexible market-based cap" that responds to the need that employers have for foreign workers.
* Raise the 7 percent limit for nations such as India that have many highly skilled workers.
After steady lobbying from technology companies, Congress is also paying more attention to the issue. The Senate immigration bill had proposed raising the annual cap for green cards to 290,000.
Kumar Gupta, a 33-year-old software engineer, has been watching the legislative proposals as he weighs his options. After six years in the United States, he is considering returning to India after learning that the green card he applied for in November 2004 could take another four or five years.
Being on a temporary work visa means that he cannot leave his job. Nor does he want to buy a home for his family without knowing he will stay in the country.
"Even if the job market is not as good as here, you can get a very good salary in India," he said. "If I have offers there, I will think of moving."
Let's utilize this write up and start quoting the link in our personal comments / emails to other news anchors, commentators, blogs etc.
I thought this deserves it's own thread. Please comment and act.
Many skilled foreigners leaving U.S.
Exodus rooted in backlog for permanent status
Karin Rives, Staff Writer
When the Senate immigration bill fell apart last week, it did more than stymie efforts to deal with illegal immigration.
It derailed efforts to deal with an equally vexing business concern: a backlog in applications for so-called green cards, the coveted cards that are actually pink or white and that offer proof of lawful permanent residency.
Many people now wait six years or longer for the card. There are 526,000 applications pending, according to Immigration Voice, an advocacy group that tracks government data.
Lately, this has prompted an exodus of foreign workers who tired of waiting, to return home or go further afield. With the economies in Asia and elsewhere on the rise, they can easily find work in the native countries or in third nations that are more generous with their visas.
"You have China, Russia, India -- a lot of countries where you can go and make a lot of money. That's the biggest thing that has changed," said Murali Bashyam, a Raleigh immigration lawyer who helps companies sponsor immigrants. "Before, people were willing to wait it out. Now they can do just as well going back home, and they do."
Mike Plueddeman said he lost three employees (one a senior programmer with a doctorate) at Durham-based DynPro in the past two years because they tired of waiting for their green cards.
All three found good jobs in their home countries within a few weeks of leaving Durham, said Plueddeman, the software consultancy's human resource director.
"We are talking about very well-educated and highly skilled people who have been in the labor force a long time," he said. "You hate losing them."
This budding brain drain comes as the first American baby boomers retire and projections show a huge need for such professionals in the years ahead. U.S. universities graduate about 70,000 information technology students annually. Many people say that number won't meet the need for a projected 600,000 additional openings for information systems professionals between 2002 and 2012, and the openings made by retirements.
"We just don't have the pipeline right now," said Joe Freddoso, director of Cisco Systems' Research Triangle Park operations. "We are concerned there's going to be a shortage, and we're already seeing that in some areas."
Cisco has advertised an opening for a data-security specialist in Atlanta for several months, unable to find the right candidate. Freddoso believes the problem will spread unless the government allows more foreign workers to enter the country, and expedites their residency process.
However, not everybody believes in the labor shortage that corporations fret about.
Critics say that proposals to allow more skilled workers into the country would only depress wages and displace American-born workers who have yet to fully recover from the dot-com bust.
"We should only issue work-related visas if we really need them," said Caroline Espinosa, a spokeswoman with NumbersUSA, a Washington, D.C., group pushing for immigration reduction. "There are 2.5 million native born American workers in the math and computer field who are currently out of work. It begs the question whether we truly need foreign workers."
She added that the immigration backlog would be aggravated by raising the cap for temporary and permanent visas, which would make it harder for those who deserve to immigrate to do so.
Waiting since 2003
Sarath Chandrand, 44, a software consultant from India, moved with his wife and two young daughters from Raleigh to Toronto in December because he couldn't live with more uncertainty. He applied for his green card in early 2003 and expects it will take at least two more years to get it.
His former employer continues to sponsor his application for permanent residency, hoping that he will eventually return. But Chandrand doesn't know what the future will hold.
"I miss Raleigh, the weather, the people," he said in a phone interview. "But it's a very difficult decision to make, once you've settled in a country, to move out. You go through a lot of mental strain. Making another move will be difficult."
Canada won him over because its residency process takes only a year and a half and doesn't require sponsorship from an employer.
The competition from Canada also worries Plueddeman, who said several of his employees are also applying for residency in both countries. "They'll go with whoever comes first," he said.
And it's not just India and Canada that beckon. New Zealand and Australia are among nations that actively market themselves to professionals in the United States, with perks such as an easy process to get work visas.
New Zealand, with a population of 4 million, has received more than 1,900 applications from skilled migrants and their families in the past two years, said Don Badman, the Los Angeles marketing director for that country's immigration agency. Of those, about 17 percent were non-Americans working in the United States.
Badman's team has hired a public relations agency to get the word out. They have also run ads in West Coast newspapers and attended trade shows, mainly to attract professionals in health care and information technology.
Dana Hutchison, an operating room nurse from Cedar Mountain south of Asheville, could have joined a hospital in the United States that offers fat sign-on bonuses. Instead, she's in the small town of Tauranga, east of Auckland, working alongside New Zealand nurses and doctors.
"It would be hard for me to work in the U.S. again," she said. Where she is now, "the working conditions are so fabulous. Everybody is friendly and much less stressed. It's like the U.S. was in the 1960s."
Limit of 140,000
Getting a green card was never a quick process. The official limit for employment-based green cards is 140,000 annually.
And there is a bottleneck of technology professionals from India and China. They hold many, if not most, of all temporary work visas, and many try to convert their work visa to permanent residency, and eventually full citizenship. But under current rules, no single nationality can be allotted more than 7 percent of the green cards.
In his February economic report, President Bush outlined proposals to overhaul the system for employment-based green cards:
* Open more slots by exempting spouses and children from the annual limit of 140,000 green cards. Such dependents now make up about half of all green card recipients, because workers sponsored by employers can include their family in the application.
* Replace the current cap with a "flexible market-based cap" that responds to the need that employers have for foreign workers.
* Raise the 7 percent limit for nations such as India that have many highly skilled workers.
After steady lobbying from technology companies, Congress is also paying more attention to the issue. The Senate immigration bill had proposed raising the annual cap for green cards to 290,000.
Kumar Gupta, a 33-year-old software engineer, has been watching the legislative proposals as he weighs his options. After six years in the United States, he is considering returning to India after learning that the green card he applied for in November 2004 could take another four or five years.
Being on a temporary work visa means that he cannot leave his job. Nor does he want to buy a home for his family without knowing he will stay in the country.
"Even if the job market is not as good as here, you can get a very good salary in India," he said. "If I have offers there, I will think of moving."
Let's utilize this write up and start quoting the link in our personal comments / emails to other news anchors, commentators, blogs etc.
I thought this deserves it's own thread. Please comment and act.
2011 31 WEEKS PREGNANT W/ BABY
msp1976
05-26 11:44 AM
Thank you to you all...
Core team,
QGA Associates,
Staff of senators,
Senators,
You guys have worked hard and your efforts are appreciated....
Core team,
QGA Associates,
Staff of senators,
Senators,
You guys have worked hard and your efforts are appreciated....
more...
GreenCard4US
07-16 07:14 PM
I don't know where there is thread regarding this but this quite a serious matter, we should up the ante. They are sending millions of faxes to all Senators with this false information and guess who the Senators will believe. Can we sen counter faxes but will get lost in their faxes, maybe need to call them. Lets not forget this issue while waiting for the bulletin.
Jaime
02-02 05:35 PM
No way this amnesty would pass. This will end up in the ash heap of unpassed bills.
Yes but there is a section that says that you have to prove that you are admissible as an immigrant (I would like to think that means that you are not an illegal alien!) read here:
`(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph
But who knows!
Anyway, it's positive that at least there is some "buzz" in the air
I hope that Janet Napolitano and team will want to show quick fixes in order to differentiate themselves from the terrible Bush administration. Fixing legal immigration is relatively low-hanging fruit and way less controversial than Illegal imm. Thoughts? I am full of hope
Yes but there is a section that says that you have to prove that you are admissible as an immigrant (I would like to think that means that you are not an illegal alien!) read here:
`(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph
But who knows!
Anyway, it's positive that at least there is some "buzz" in the air
I hope that Janet Napolitano and team will want to show quick fixes in order to differentiate themselves from the terrible Bush administration. Fixing legal immigration is relatively low-hanging fruit and way less controversial than Illegal imm. Thoughts? I am full of hope
more...
hoolahoous
09-15 06:23 PM
How about making it standard format. That will make it easy for admins/reporters to sum it up. For e.g. millions of dollars per year paid as taxes by people stuck in GC queue will make a good impact. And so would the average amount of years a person has to wait to get GC. So format could be
1) Name
2) Picture(s)
3) Average Tax paid per year
4) Years in US
5) Years waited for GC
6) Number of US citizen kids (with age)
7) --Optional-- Approximate amount paid to USCIS (H1b fee x number of times ported/extended + Labor cost + I140 Cost + I485 cost + Repeated EAD/AP cost) -- I myself have over 7 H1b stamps, two labors, one I-140 , 2 I-485 and 4 EAD/AP.
8) Personal Story (nothing more captures the attention of reporters than a dramatic story) dealing with USCIS (then INS)
Feel free to improve on it.
1) Name
2) Picture(s)
3) Average Tax paid per year
4) Years in US
5) Years waited for GC
6) Number of US citizen kids (with age)
7) --Optional-- Approximate amount paid to USCIS (H1b fee x number of times ported/extended + Labor cost + I140 Cost + I485 cost + Repeated EAD/AP cost) -- I myself have over 7 H1b stamps, two labors, one I-140 , 2 I-485 and 4 EAD/AP.
8) Personal Story (nothing more captures the attention of reporters than a dramatic story) dealing with USCIS (then INS)
Feel free to improve on it.
2010 31 Weeks Pregnant - 3D
rameshvaid
05-27 10:25 AM
As long as a person is meek and weak, that's what we get - Nothing. With AOS pending, every person in most states are bound to get 1 year renewal..Period. Be forceful but polite in expressing it. Take it to the next level - Supervisor.Ask what they mean or definition of "old I-485". Tell them you are Paying all Taxes (Federal, state, Social, Medicare.... ).
By the time you come hear, mostly probably, the agent might have approved a 1 year Renewal.
Seems FAIR is slowly creeping into DMV also.
Do u think, we did't do that.. We did everything possibly we could but of no help and been to three diffrent DMV's.. same old crap.. This seems to be a bigger problem than getting GC.. now we will be restrictited of driving too??
By the time you come hear, mostly probably, the agent might have approved a 1 year Renewal.
Seems FAIR is slowly creeping into DMV also.
Do u think, we did't do that.. We did everything possibly we could but of no help and been to three diffrent DMV's.. same old crap.. This seems to be a bigger problem than getting GC.. now we will be restrictited of driving too??
more...
VDaminator
06-11 12:58 PM
I beleive this is my last volley anyway here it is hope ya like.
http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v150/VDaminator/serve-7.jpg
http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v150/VDaminator/serve-7.jpg
hair I mean, I feel pregnant,
spicy_guy
08-10 02:30 PM
By other poster...
"Some people already know about this bill introduced on July 1 by John Shadegg (AZ)
H.R. 5658 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase competitiveness in the United States, and for other purposes.
Link: H.R.5658: SKIL Act of 2010 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5658/show)
go to the link and click and write to you local representative to consponsor and suppor this bill and pass this bill.
If congress passes this bill it would increase the available EB visa numbers and will make life easy for lots of indian and chinese citizens.
Good Luck
And thanks"
"Some people already know about this bill introduced on July 1 by John Shadegg (AZ)
H.R. 5658 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase competitiveness in the United States, and for other purposes.
Link: H.R.5658: SKIL Act of 2010 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5658/show)
go to the link and click and write to you local representative to consponsor and suppor this bill and pass this bill.
If congress passes this bill it would increase the available EB visa numbers and will make life easy for lots of indian and chinese citizens.
Good Luck
And thanks"
more...
whitecollarslave
03-06 02:41 PM
I'll urge people from especially from California and Texas send out the letters and call up their lawmakers...Despite the Anti-immigrant climate prevailing in the country, congresswoman Zoe Logfren was able to get her bill passed on wednesday....If we can proove to them that we are not asking new green card numbers and not ask for recapturing green card numbers, they'll certainly hear us, but we need to speak up...
Which bill? Passed where? More info please.
Which bill? Passed where? More info please.
hot 31 weeks pregnant
willIWill
07-16 01:01 PM
Thanks for the suggestions Rockstart.
Lease papers & Insurance sounds like a good idea along with joint tax return. They ask for a lot of things as supporting documents, but provide an itty.. bitty.. envelope to mail the same along with the RFE letter.
One thing that concerns me is that these documents support the marital status but I do not know why they say as stated in the instructions for I-485. This throws me off track, because for I-485 spouse we have to send another whole list of documents, such as finance docs, affidavit of support etc. I can send them as well, but I don't want the USCIS officer reviewing the RFE response to miscontrue it as I'm almost applying for a derivative I-485 for my spouse when my PD is not current.
Lease papers & Insurance sounds like a good idea along with joint tax return. They ask for a lot of things as supporting documents, but provide an itty.. bitty.. envelope to mail the same along with the RFE letter.
One thing that concerns me is that these documents support the marital status but I do not know why they say as stated in the instructions for I-485. This throws me off track, because for I-485 spouse we have to send another whole list of documents, such as finance docs, affidavit of support etc. I can send them as well, but I don't want the USCIS officer reviewing the RFE response to miscontrue it as I'm almost applying for a derivative I-485 for my spouse when my PD is not current.
more...
house pregnant 31 Weeks Pregnant
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
tattoo I#39;m 31 weeks pregnant,
sunny1000
06-28 06:10 PM
Hello Folks,
As a last ditch atempt, I am trying to e-file form 907 for upgrading my pending 140 app to premium processing (through employer). However when proceeding with the application, in the related forms section, the only available option in the drop down menu is I-129. How would I proceed for I-140?
If anybody know, kindly show the way.
Thanks,
Sriswam
I don't think you can efile I907 for I-140. You have to file via paper. But hurry...they are suspending PP starting July 2nd for atleast a month in anticipation of huge volume of applications that will start pouring in.
www.immigration-law.com
As a last ditch atempt, I am trying to e-file form 907 for upgrading my pending 140 app to premium processing (through employer). However when proceeding with the application, in the related forms section, the only available option in the drop down menu is I-129. How would I proceed for I-140?
If anybody know, kindly show the way.
Thanks,
Sriswam
I don't think you can efile I907 for I-140. You have to file via paper. But hurry...they are suspending PP starting July 2nd for atleast a month in anticipation of huge volume of applications that will start pouring in.
www.immigration-law.com
more...
pictures she was 31 weeks pregnant.
designserve
02-06 05:19 PM
Ask him to go to hell!!!
Pls go on and join wherever you like and tell him this is a free country like India.Go to a lawyer and sue him if he talks any further...Not to worry,my friend.
Pls go on and join wherever you like and tell him this is a free country like India.Go to a lawyer and sue him if he talks any further...Not to worry,my friend.
dresses shower- 31 weeks pregnant
whiteStallion
03-12 03:00 PM
Congrats on being greened !
We continue to wait :(
We continue to wait :(
more...
makeup 31-Weeks-Pregnant
PlainSpeak
04-07 12:25 PM
When one should feel to donate, they can donate. Doesn't mean that you donated, means everyone should donate.
It is about donation, not Haptaa-vasooli.....
So, before taunting anyone you should understand the meaning of "Donation".
If some one directs a post to you and asks you directly about whether you donated or not then you can then send out posts of the above kind
In the mean time if you believe in the cause donate else dont but there is no use arguing about pros/cons and definition of donation per se or difference between donation and contribution.
It is about donation, not Haptaa-vasooli.....
So, before taunting anyone you should understand the meaning of "Donation".
If some one directs a post to you and asks you directly about whether you donated or not then you can then send out posts of the above kind
In the mean time if you believe in the cause donate else dont but there is no use arguing about pros/cons and definition of donation per se or difference between donation and contribution.
girlfriend Thirty-one Weeks Pregnant
dreamgc_real
12-06 02:06 PM
Dream Act is a moral issue and being fair to the kids who have made this country their own.
Recapture - Legal immigrants who lost visa numbers due to bureaucratic mistakes, should not be punished. Most of the people seeking recapture have followed every law written in the books and this too is a moral issue - to be fair to the people who did everything right.
Granted, both the dream act students and eb immigrants are in the mess, and it needs to be fixed. The only difference is that the Dream kids have been more vocal and active in getting people to back their issue than we have done.
Recapture - Legal immigrants who lost visa numbers due to bureaucratic mistakes, should not be punished. Most of the people seeking recapture have followed every law written in the books and this too is a moral issue - to be fair to the people who did everything right.
Granted, both the dream act students and eb immigrants are in the mess, and it needs to be fixed. The only difference is that the Dream kids have been more vocal and active in getting people to back their issue than we have done.
hairstyles 31 Weeks Pregnant - 12/27/09
arihant
03-14 04:36 PM
You are right. I checked it with Germen consulate in DC few days back.
Please clarify what I am right about?
Please clarify what I am right about?
hary536
05-18 07:41 PM
Hi,
My Company has decided to have a force shutdown one day per week starting from this month. So now we will be working 4 days instead of 5 days. We also cannot use PTO during these days. So effectively will be working 32 hrs instead of 40 hrs and getting paid for 32 hrs only.
Does this affect my legal H1 status? Will i still remain in valid legal H1 status, even if i work and get paid for 32 hrs?
Am i still considered full-time? Or is there any amendment needed to be filed? How can i determine, if there is any amendment needed to be filed? If needed, does the company have to file both H1B and LCA amendment or just LCA.
When one files amendment, is it like again the entire process of H1 approval and can the amendment be rejected?
Also if they file LCA amendment, then do they have to show and pay the salary according to current year? or the year when they initially filed my LCA first time?
If i try for H1B transfer after few months,can that be denied due to paychecks of 32hrs salary only used for H1 transfer?
Pls help, if you have any idea about this kind of situation. Lot of companies are having shutdowns and salary cuts this year? How is it handled in your companies guys?
Currently, I am working on H1B since Oct'08.
My company has decided to have forced shutdown 1 day per week. So All employees will be working and paid for only 32 hrs instead of 40.We cannot use the paid leave also.
In My LCA, prevailing wage: 52K, and my salary in LCA and I-129: 64.5K
My questions:
1) Is working 32 hrs still considered full-time and do I still remain in legal H1 status? (I heard that in US more than 30 hrs is considered full-time?)
2) Since my effective annual salary will be less than 64K due to working for only 32 hrs,will i be out of status? Can the company cut my salary below the rate of pay mentioned on my LCA but higher than(or equal to) the Prevailing Wage mentioned on my LCA?
3) If i try for H1B transfer after few months using paychecks of 32hrs salary only,can that be denied?
4) Are there any other options(without filing any H1B/LCA amendment) to maintain my H1 status while still working for 32 hrs only?
5) IF company files LCA/H1B amendment, then do they have to again use the wage survey for 2009 or they can use the same one used for my initial 1st LCA filing? Do they evaluate the entire H1B application again for amendment? Can the H1B amendment be denied?
Anyone pls advise? I am really tensed.
My Company has decided to have a force shutdown one day per week starting from this month. So now we will be working 4 days instead of 5 days. We also cannot use PTO during these days. So effectively will be working 32 hrs instead of 40 hrs and getting paid for 32 hrs only.
Does this affect my legal H1 status? Will i still remain in valid legal H1 status, even if i work and get paid for 32 hrs?
Am i still considered full-time? Or is there any amendment needed to be filed? How can i determine, if there is any amendment needed to be filed? If needed, does the company have to file both H1B and LCA amendment or just LCA.
When one files amendment, is it like again the entire process of H1 approval and can the amendment be rejected?
Also if they file LCA amendment, then do they have to show and pay the salary according to current year? or the year when they initially filed my LCA first time?
If i try for H1B transfer after few months,can that be denied due to paychecks of 32hrs salary only used for H1 transfer?
Pls help, if you have any idea about this kind of situation. Lot of companies are having shutdowns and salary cuts this year? How is it handled in your companies guys?
Currently, I am working on H1B since Oct'08.
My company has decided to have forced shutdown 1 day per week. So All employees will be working and paid for only 32 hrs instead of 40.We cannot use the paid leave also.
In My LCA, prevailing wage: 52K, and my salary in LCA and I-129: 64.5K
My questions:
1) Is working 32 hrs still considered full-time and do I still remain in legal H1 status? (I heard that in US more than 30 hrs is considered full-time?)
2) Since my effective annual salary will be less than 64K due to working for only 32 hrs,will i be out of status? Can the company cut my salary below the rate of pay mentioned on my LCA but higher than(or equal to) the Prevailing Wage mentioned on my LCA?
3) If i try for H1B transfer after few months using paychecks of 32hrs salary only,can that be denied?
4) Are there any other options(without filing any H1B/LCA amendment) to maintain my H1 status while still working for 32 hrs only?
5) IF company files LCA/H1B amendment, then do they have to again use the wage survey for 2009 or they can use the same one used for my initial 1st LCA filing? Do they evaluate the entire H1B application again for amendment? Can the H1B amendment be denied?
Anyone pls advise? I am really tensed.
gc28262
01-16 03:29 PM
Lofgreen's office entertains calls from her constituents only. This is my experience when I tried to call her office last year.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét