ssnd03
01-02 07:18 PM
Hi Everybody,
I know that nobody has an answer for my question, but still i would like to get the views/inputs from the seniors here , who have experience with USCIS.
When do you think a person with PD of Nov 2007 ,EB3 from India, would be able to file for 485??
Most likely in about two (2) years
I know that nobody has an answer for my question, but still i would like to get the views/inputs from the seniors here , who have experience with USCIS.
When do you think a person with PD of Nov 2007 ,EB3 from India, would be able to file for 485??
Most likely in about two (2) years
wallpaper life and death tattoo quotes
raju6855
02-02 09:33 AM
Thx for your reply.
But this wasn't told to me (us) by my company's hr, I guess I got to check that advise for second opinion.
But this wasn't told to me (us) by my company's hr, I guess I got to check that advise for second opinion.
msyedy
02-08 01:10 PM
I am new member to this forum. My friend referred me here.
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
The letter talks about VISA application registration. To file for I-485 you need a visa number available for you. The letter states that you currently have one and you should apply...meaning file (1-485 form which is Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) within one year from the date of the letter.
Registration itself means a visa number will be unvailable and you cannot use your old PD. You have only one year from the date of letter to use the visa number with that PD.
You should get your new labor approval within this one year limit and can file for I-485. I suggest that you should file perm because you never know when the BPC will approve that labor. Perm max will be approved in 6 months time(Most case)
In the end you trust your attorney. Talk to a good lawyer...
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
The letter talks about VISA application registration. To file for I-485 you need a visa number available for you. The letter states that you currently have one and you should apply...meaning file (1-485 form which is Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) within one year from the date of the letter.
Registration itself means a visa number will be unvailable and you cannot use your old PD. You have only one year from the date of letter to use the visa number with that PD.
You should get your new labor approval within this one year limit and can file for I-485. I suggest that you should file perm because you never know when the BPC will approve that labor. Perm max will be approved in 6 months time(Most case)
In the end you trust your attorney. Talk to a good lawyer...
2011 life and death tattoo quotes. famous tattoo quotes about life. tattoo life
ayazali17
12-18 01:56 PM
Thanks for answering all my questions.
more...
p7810456
01-10 03:53 PM
I applied mine on 11th of May, 2007.. EB3 India..
Got RFE on 4th of December, replied the same week, they got it on 27th of December. Online status says "Processing has resumed..!!!"
In RFE.. they asked for last year's W2 and my current paystub.
Still waiting..
Got RFE on 4th of December, replied the same week, they got it on 27th of December. Online status says "Processing has resumed..!!!"
In RFE.. they asked for last year's W2 and my current paystub.
Still waiting..
freddy22
07-20 07:34 AM
The outcome in a case like this depends on the specific State's criminal code, and the individual's specific record. I cannot tell you for sure that USCIS will seek to remove your son, but I would strongly advise your son and his criminal lawyer to consult with an experienced immigration lawyer before going further.
Some states have special
courts, processes and/or dispositions for certain juveniles that are different than for those in adult court. Some such dispositions are not considered �convictions� for immigration purposes
(although they may still become a problem for discretionary forms of relief or where �admitting to a crime� is enough). For example, in New York:
- A �Youthful Offender� disposition for people under the age of 19 at time of conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes. In fact, a Y.O. for a more serious offense is
sometimes better than a straight conviction for a lesser offense.
- A �Juvenile Delinquency� disposition in Family Court for people under age 16 at time of
conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes.
- However, a �Juvenile Offender� disposition is considered a conviction for immigration
purposes and does not have the same benefits.
Note: The federal government and every state has its own system for treating juveniles in the criminal justice system � some will be safer for immigrant youth, and some will not. Every state also has its own rules for the maximum age at which a young person may qualify for this treatment � for example, one state may place a 15-year-old in adult court with no special dispositions, while another state may place a 17-year old in the juvenile justice system.
Consider going to trial instead of pleading guilty. This is not always the best option, but you may want to consider it if, for example, the evidence against you is weak and/or the benefits of the plea offer are not worth the immigration consequences to you.
Some states have special
courts, processes and/or dispositions for certain juveniles that are different than for those in adult court. Some such dispositions are not considered �convictions� for immigration purposes
(although they may still become a problem for discretionary forms of relief or where �admitting to a crime� is enough). For example, in New York:
- A �Youthful Offender� disposition for people under the age of 19 at time of conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes. In fact, a Y.O. for a more serious offense is
sometimes better than a straight conviction for a lesser offense.
- A �Juvenile Delinquency� disposition in Family Court for people under age 16 at time of
conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes.
- However, a �Juvenile Offender� disposition is considered a conviction for immigration
purposes and does not have the same benefits.
Note: The federal government and every state has its own system for treating juveniles in the criminal justice system � some will be safer for immigrant youth, and some will not. Every state also has its own rules for the maximum age at which a young person may qualify for this treatment � for example, one state may place a 15-year-old in adult court with no special dispositions, while another state may place a 17-year old in the juvenile justice system.
Consider going to trial instead of pleading guilty. This is not always the best option, but you may want to consider it if, for example, the evidence against you is weak and/or the benefits of the plea offer are not worth the immigration consequences to you.
more...
pkv
04-13 05:35 PM
For a medical REF how many days do we have to reply?
Thanks,
RabiS
Doesn't your RFE letter says it clearly? They mention a "reply by date" also on the letter.
Thanks,
RabiS
Doesn't your RFE letter says it clearly? They mention a "reply by date" also on the letter.
2010 life and death tattoo quotes.
cinqsit
02-02 08:43 PM
If i am understanding you right.....your labor is applied for EB2 qualification but I-140 is applied and approved in EB3. And you want to reapply a new I-140 for EB2 by using the same labor. I believe, you should be able to apply.
Labor certification is not expired as another poster mentioned. It will expire in 180 days only if no I-140 is applied using that labor.
Consult a good attorney and it will be worthwhile instead of waiting for backlogged EB3.
Yes you should be able to apply a I-140 for new reclassification (basically a new I-140)
Make sure there are no conflicting alternative/secondary requirements like "BS and less than 5 years of experience" in your approved labor.
They will check for ability to pay and other checks the they do at 1140 stage again.
Good luck
cinqsit
Labor certification is not expired as another poster mentioned. It will expire in 180 days only if no I-140 is applied using that labor.
Consult a good attorney and it will be worthwhile instead of waiting for backlogged EB3.
Yes you should be able to apply a I-140 for new reclassification (basically a new I-140)
Make sure there are no conflicting alternative/secondary requirements like "BS and less than 5 years of experience" in your approved labor.
They will check for ability to pay and other checks the they do at 1140 stage again.
Good luck
cinqsit
more...
Anders �stberg
July 15th, 2004, 04:50 PM
Thanks QJ! They are cute.
I also wish I could find a way of making the photography money flow the other way. :)
I also wish I could find a way of making the photography money flow the other way. :)
hair quotes on life and death. life
imm_pro
06-11 12:55 AM
This will be useful if you filed your labor after the end of 5th year and the 140
is still pending at the end of the 6th year.
is still pending at the end of the 6th year.
more...
go2roomshare
04-12 08:35 PM
Yes you can. I do not see any reason why you can't complain to DOL. first thing they did not pay you for 6 months. Second they persuaded or forced you to fake resume so that you get placed and they can make more money. It is definitely valid to complain.
hot Life And Death Tattoo Quotes.
gk_2000
10-20 10:13 PM
he is leading his dem candidate by 30 points in one poll
Hey bhagwan, is budde ko dharthi se tu utha le..
(Oh almighty, summon this old man away from us)
Hey bhagwan, is budde ko dharthi se tu utha le..
(Oh almighty, summon this old man away from us)
more...
house life and death tattoo quotes.
jscris
July 15th, 2004, 12:58 PM
I love my Better Beamer. :) I think my last posted shot of the brightly sunlit finch wouldn't have been usable without the fill flash. Can you handhold that 300 2.8?
Janet
Janet
tattoo life and death tattoo quotes
GCEB2
09-20 11:06 PM
Thanks for the info. how about areas like simivalley, santa clarita, do you get houses for 300 to 350 and
And also around bay area- san roman, liver moore are they good neighbourhood. Also which has more jobs in datawarehousing is it LA or bayarea.
And also around bay area- san roman, liver moore are they good neighbourhood. Also which has more jobs in datawarehousing is it LA or bayarea.
more...
pictures life and death tattoo quotes
dealsnet
08-04 12:15 PM
I have received the card with old number without any restriction in employment. Plain card with name and number. At the SSA office they told me the same. So feel free to get rid of last H1B bundle. (surrender old card for a new freedom card)
Did you recieve old SS# on new card ? or entirely new SS# ?
Did you recieve old SS# on new card ? or entirely new SS# ?
dresses quotes about death tattoos.
immigrationvoice1
10-05 12:05 PM
What does your online status say? Mine changed today and says the following:
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On October 3, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT.
No idea what it means though. If you are a July 2nd filer, the above surely should not mean I am about to receive mine anytime now...Confused:confused:
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On October 3, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT.
No idea what it means though. If you are a July 2nd filer, the above surely should not mean I am about to receive mine anytime now...Confused:confused:
more...
makeup life and death tattoo quotes. Ang like a life death Japanese
HOPE_GC_SOON
03-28 10:15 AM
guys, Murthy says EB2 will move forward in May 2008 bulletine. Reason is getting leftover visa from EB1 India's category.
http://murthy.com/bulletin.html
hoping big forward move.:D
Hi Dipika;
This is good News.. Quite encouraging to spend the weekend off with some motivation/ happiness.
Do We have any statsitstics, as to how many Visa Nos. could have been Spilled off from unused EB1 and how many India / Chia may share out of it. That would give clear picture to this Speculation.
Gurus: Any Link/ Previous threads, Explaining No. of EB2 cases.. Interesting stuff to analyze during the weeknd.
Thanks again for all the team work
http://murthy.com/bulletin.html
hoping big forward move.:D
Hi Dipika;
This is good News.. Quite encouraging to spend the weekend off with some motivation/ happiness.
Do We have any statsitstics, as to how many Visa Nos. could have been Spilled off from unused EB1 and how many India / Chia may share out of it. That would give clear picture to this Speculation.
Gurus: Any Link/ Previous threads, Explaining No. of EB2 cases.. Interesting stuff to analyze during the weeknd.
Thanks again for all the team work
girlfriend tattoo quotes about life and
number30
03-27 10:16 AM
As i can work only 240 days from my I94 expiry date, i can't work after July 2010
so am planning to go to India to attend the embassy as soon as possible.
Thanks in Advance,
Satya.
240 days only in case of Pending. Do not stay over 180 days.
so am planning to go to India to attend the embassy as soon as possible.
Thanks in Advance,
Satya.
240 days only in case of Pending. Do not stay over 180 days.
hairstyles life and death tattoo quotes. good quotes for tattoo. good
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
chi_shark
08-20 03:07 PM
you are dreaming about points 1 and 2 as marked in your post below. democracy is about govt by the people for the people. got nada to do with taxation. Maybe you live near washington dc and are confused with what they write there on the asses of their cars. 2. people who earn a living from your tax dollars are answerable only to constituents... and you my friend are not a constituent until you become a citizen with voting rights.
have fun flaming me back. ;-)
I agree with rajuram. We are all tax payers. 1. The whole concept of democracy is taxation with representation. 2. People who get paid from my tax dollars are answerable to me as much as they are to anyone else. Even when cis is not forcing me to file gc, its still equally answerable to me for my tax dollars to tell me why they are not doing their jobs properly. And for that cis owes us all apology. What's wrong with that?
have fun flaming me back. ;-)
I agree with rajuram. We are all tax payers. 1. The whole concept of democracy is taxation with representation. 2. People who get paid from my tax dollars are answerable to me as much as they are to anyone else. Even when cis is not forcing me to file gc, its still equally answerable to me for my tax dollars to tell me why they are not doing their jobs properly. And for that cis owes us all apology. What's wrong with that?
rockstart
08-03 09:41 AM
You have two options. One is forget the current GC and take new job re-start your GC.
The second option is keep a copy of your I 140 approval. Join a new company. Re-Start the GC application. When the new labor is approved and lawyer is ready to ship the I 140 package to USCIS ask him to include the copy of Old I 140 approval notice in it with a cover letter to USCIS requesting porting the old priority date to your new application. ( I am not sure of job description in the 2 labors needs to be same/ similar for portablity. My guess is that it does not need to be strictly same but least in same field. Example IT to IT and not say IT to Finance or Healthcare etc)
The best bet is to take an appointment with a lawyer and go over it. Also talk to new companys immigration attorney if he will support this porting when the time comes.
The second option is keep a copy of your I 140 approval. Join a new company. Re-Start the GC application. When the new labor is approved and lawyer is ready to ship the I 140 package to USCIS ask him to include the copy of Old I 140 approval notice in it with a cover letter to USCIS requesting porting the old priority date to your new application. ( I am not sure of job description in the 2 labors needs to be same/ similar for portablity. My guess is that it does not need to be strictly same but least in same field. Example IT to IT and not say IT to Finance or Healthcare etc)
The best bet is to take an appointment with a lawyer and go over it. Also talk to new companys immigration attorney if he will support this porting when the time comes.
0 comments:
Post a Comment