sravani
05-15 01:05 PM
Here's a rather strange and may be uncommon situation for someone I know who needs suggestions from gurus here...such huge PD movements do result in strange situations such as these :)
EB3 India Labor + I-140 certified with PD Feb 2003
EB2-140 pending at NSC hoping to port the EB3 PD date
So both cases are now current, which leads to a couple of options for AOS:
1. File based on approved EB3 (and risk a potential retrogression in future)
2. File based on pending EB2 140 before it is approved (and risk potential RFE, etc. and who knows if it would be too late to revert to the EB3)
The other option is to upgrade the EB2 140 to PP, but could you please list the relative merits of the above two options?
My case is also similar and I decided to go with EB2
My EB3 PD is Nov 2002. I got promotion this year and same company applied for my EB2 labor via Perm and got approved with in couple of months.
My attorney already filed my 485 application concurrently while applying for EB2 I-140 PD (PP) last month. I got an RFE(edu: 3 year Engineering degree). My EB2 I-140 is approved yesterday after receiving the RFE response. It's better to utilize the EB2 category if you can, in case if they decide to retrogress again, it's likely that you will get the GC soon with EB2 PD than EB3 PD.
EB3 India Labor + I-140 certified with PD Feb 2003
EB2-140 pending at NSC hoping to port the EB3 PD date
So both cases are now current, which leads to a couple of options for AOS:
1. File based on approved EB3 (and risk a potential retrogression in future)
2. File based on pending EB2 140 before it is approved (and risk potential RFE, etc. and who knows if it would be too late to revert to the EB3)
The other option is to upgrade the EB2 140 to PP, but could you please list the relative merits of the above two options?
My case is also similar and I decided to go with EB2
My EB3 PD is Nov 2002. I got promotion this year and same company applied for my EB2 labor via Perm and got approved with in couple of months.
My attorney already filed my 485 application concurrently while applying for EB2 I-140 PD (PP) last month. I got an RFE(edu: 3 year Engineering degree). My EB2 I-140 is approved yesterday after receiving the RFE response. It's better to utilize the EB2 category if you can, in case if they decide to retrogress again, it's likely that you will get the GC soon with EB2 PD than EB3 PD.
wallpaper Page+orders+clip+art+free
fingerscrossed
11-14 03:20 PM
Letstalklc,
Thanks! Good luck with yours too.
No, my application is not filed by Fragoman.
Apparently, there are some fellow in my law firms, who got audited before September 2007 (mine is November 2007), and they havent been approved. So apparently, it is more random than FIFO.
It really sucks.
it would be very helpful if you entered your info on the t-r-a-c-k-i-t-t website.
Congrats!
Thanks! Good luck with yours too.
No, my application is not filed by Fragoman.
Apparently, there are some fellow in my law firms, who got audited before September 2007 (mine is November 2007), and they havent been approved. So apparently, it is more random than FIFO.
It really sucks.
it would be very helpful if you entered your info on the t-r-a-c-k-i-t-t website.
Congrats!
Quest99
09-14 03:30 PM
Here is my story:
I work for Company A. Got an offer from Company B who is a consulting company. Got placed in a project which is like 1.5 hrs away from my home (I accepted this opportunity for my GC and everything was fine). Company B filed for my LCA for the H1-B transfer. They accepted to pay all the H1-B transfer fees.
Here is my problem:
1 week after my LCA was filed, I came to know that my wife was pregnant. As per the doctor she needs some close attention and care because of her health condition(atleast for 2 months). Also, I have to take her for tests minimum once per week at a hospital which is quite opposite in direction where company B placed me (2hrs ride).
I came to a conclusion not to take this opportunity because of my wife's health and also keeping in mind how the new job will treat me (in terms of flexibility. leaving early, WFH etc - for my wife's treatment). I felt this was a genuine reason from my side.
I informed Company B about this change of plan because I cannot commute such a long distance having these constraints in mind (not good for me as well as not good for the new project).
Company B is asking me pay $3000 for some damages and they say that it is as per the contract.
To my true knowledge I did not sign any kind of contract with them neither the recruiter told me anything. Now Company B is saying that minimum 3 months is required or I have to pay for H1-B transfer and all other fees.
The offer letter that I signed clearly stated that the employment is "At Will" in nature which when asked now, Company B is saying that is for GC and Citizens (which is not mentioned anywhere in the offer letter).
The thing is that they are threatening me and they were so rough and hard when I finally spoke to them. They said that they will be sending the vouchers for me to pay them back.
I thank God for not joining this company as I came to know about their true colors now, they are so money minded and the words they spoke were so harmful. I am pretty sure they would have created more problems for some other reasons if I had joined them.
Even though I did not sign any bond, I am really scared by the way they spoke to me. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.
I work for Company A. Got an offer from Company B who is a consulting company. Got placed in a project which is like 1.5 hrs away from my home (I accepted this opportunity for my GC and everything was fine). Company B filed for my LCA for the H1-B transfer. They accepted to pay all the H1-B transfer fees.
Here is my problem:
1 week after my LCA was filed, I came to know that my wife was pregnant. As per the doctor she needs some close attention and care because of her health condition(atleast for 2 months). Also, I have to take her for tests minimum once per week at a hospital which is quite opposite in direction where company B placed me (2hrs ride).
I came to a conclusion not to take this opportunity because of my wife's health and also keeping in mind how the new job will treat me (in terms of flexibility. leaving early, WFH etc - for my wife's treatment). I felt this was a genuine reason from my side.
I informed Company B about this change of plan because I cannot commute such a long distance having these constraints in mind (not good for me as well as not good for the new project).
Company B is asking me pay $3000 for some damages and they say that it is as per the contract.
To my true knowledge I did not sign any kind of contract with them neither the recruiter told me anything. Now Company B is saying that minimum 3 months is required or I have to pay for H1-B transfer and all other fees.
The offer letter that I signed clearly stated that the employment is "At Will" in nature which when asked now, Company B is saying that is for GC and Citizens (which is not mentioned anywhere in the offer letter).
The thing is that they are threatening me and they were so rough and hard when I finally spoke to them. They said that they will be sending the vouchers for me to pay them back.
I thank God for not joining this company as I came to know about their true colors now, they are so money minded and the words they spoke were so harmful. I am pretty sure they would have created more problems for some other reasons if I had joined them.
Even though I did not sign any bond, I am really scared by the way they spoke to me. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.
2011 clip art borders free
chanduv23
07-08 06:47 PM
Om Mathew is obviously a publicity freak, now he has his picture on his website. I think he wants people to look at his picture and admire him
more...
crazyghoda
06-08 07:29 PM
Not a bad idea. No need to bring up all the talk (from other threads) about interim GC or whatever. Just a 10 year validity on EADs and APs for retrogressed categories. If nothing, it'll atleast highlight the situation (and save me $340 + $305 = $645 every year)
too farfetched? should we pursue it? a 10 year wait at the least given the current quota restrictions..
too farfetched? should we pursue it? a 10 year wait at the least given the current quota restrictions..
jliechty
May 23rd, 2005, 08:54 PM
Gary, I'm just thinking of mine which is a circular polarizer. You rotate the polarizer to achieve the desired amount of polarization. So I can rotate it one way and either darken or lighten the sky. All but your last pic looked as if it was darker on the right side which lead me to the assumption it was a circular type. There's a linear type too which I have never used so I'm not sure how it works, but I imagine it doesn't rotate (anyone?).
Linear vs. Circular has mainly to do with whether it works with metering and autofocus sensors in modern cameras. Both polarizers rotate and function similarly (I'm not sure if there is any difference in the effect shown in the image, but I doubt it).
Anyway, an unevenly polarized sky happens not because the polarizer is not rotated properly / enough, but rather because the camera is not quite at a 90 degree angle to the sun; this uneven polarization becomes more noticeable with wide angle lenses (to a point, then as even wider lenses are used, the sky will get dark in the middle and lighter on the edges even right at 90 degrees from the sun).
Linear vs. Circular has mainly to do with whether it works with metering and autofocus sensors in modern cameras. Both polarizers rotate and function similarly (I'm not sure if there is any difference in the effect shown in the image, but I doubt it).
Anyway, an unevenly polarized sky happens not because the polarizer is not rotated properly / enough, but rather because the camera is not quite at a 90 degree angle to the sun; this uneven polarization becomes more noticeable with wide angle lenses (to a point, then as even wider lenses are used, the sky will get dark in the middle and lighter on the edges even right at 90 degrees from the sun).
more...
eb3_nepa
04-27 06:12 PM
Not sure if this has been posted before. If not here goes. This is on immigration-law.com.
Does IV know anything about this?
04/25/2009: On-Going USCIS Efforts to Reduce Backlog in Employment-Based Immigration Applications<br><br>
Lately, I-140 and EB-485 applicants have been receiving envelopes from the Service Centers with their long-awaited approval notices, particularly those cases which were filed during and after the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco period. Along with the development, information has been released by the stake-holder agencies of the Department of State and the USCIS indicating that there has been efforts on the part of the USCIS to eliminate employment-based immigation backlogs. In releasing the May 2009 Visa Bulletin, the State Department confirmed that the USCIS had been taking out EB visa numbers en masse exhausting all the EB-3 visa numbers available for the rest of FY 2009. This report is consistent with the information released by the USCIS on its projected processing time to four months for the employment-based I-140 petitions and EB-485 applications by the end of FY 2009, which is September 30, 2009. The goal appears to have contributed to the exhaustion of annually allocated employment-based visa numbers so that no EB visa numbers be unused or wasted by the end of FY 2009. The commitment to this goal of the USCIS is reaffirmed by yesterday's release of Mr. Michael Ayte's report on the employment-based visa processing times in the Leadership Journal of the DHS. Considering a huge backlog and processing delays in the employment-based immigration petitions and 485 applications for almost two years as affected primarily by the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco, the recent event that evolved in the USCIS processing time change is certainly a welcome news for waiters who have suffered from the past backlogs.
<br><br>
What have tirbuted to this change? The long-term strategy for reduction of processing times for immigration benefits applications appears to be launch of "Transformation Program" that intended to achieve reduction of processing times by turning current paper-based application and processing system into complete electronization system and process focusing on the concept of digital "account" databases within approximately a period of five years. However, this program has experienced a snag. However, lately the DHS disclosed its multi-billion dollar contract with the IBM for two programs. One is to convert all the existing files and date into digitazition and the other is to develop and implement electronic application and processing system. Reportedly, for this purpose, the IBM reenforced its operation in India and the work is underway. However, report indicates that the first phase appears to focus on the digitazation of existing database rather than implementation of electronic application and processing system. Overall, the goal of the contract appears to be completed in the next five years. It thus appears that the current efforts of elimination of backlogs within this fiscal year do not rely on the progress of this program. The big momentum was created by the Congress appropriating fund for USCIS human resources. Thanks to the Congress action to give fund for hiring additional 2,000 resources, the USCIS recxruited and trained new hires who joined the USCIS field offices including Service Centers and local district and field offices, initially focusing on the job of elimination of huge naturalization applications. USCIS had been reporting that the hurdle for reduction of employment-based immigration cases was the mountain of naturalization applications that poured in around the time of FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco. Now, the naturalization application backlog is under control, inreased resources are becoming available for the employment-based immigration files. Another important factor that has contributed to the agency's recent move was the implementation name-check reduction agreement between the FBI and the DHS and the USCIS policy to complete adjudicaion of EB-485 applications when the FBI name check failed to complete within 180 days. The third factor that cannot be discounted nor minimized is the new DHS leadership's move and commitment for the elimination of the employment-based immigration case backlogs. As people may recall, the Secretary Napolitano of the DHS issued a directive to report the state of backlogs in the immigration benefit applications and the USCIS leaders plan for reduction or elimination of such backlogs. With all of the above developments combined, the employment-based immgrant community is continuously expected to witness the reduction of processing times, at least for a short term. However, long-term reduction or elimination of EB case processing backlog is likely to depend on success of the IBM contract digitization program of the USCIS. This needs continuing internal and external political support, and we hope that the Congress extends its strong support, particularly considering importance of the successful reengineering program to accomodate the potentially forthcoming avalanche and flood gate opening for case loads for the USCIS when the country passes the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation.
Does IV know anything about this?
04/25/2009: On-Going USCIS Efforts to Reduce Backlog in Employment-Based Immigration Applications<br><br>
Lately, I-140 and EB-485 applicants have been receiving envelopes from the Service Centers with their long-awaited approval notices, particularly those cases which were filed during and after the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco period. Along with the development, information has been released by the stake-holder agencies of the Department of State and the USCIS indicating that there has been efforts on the part of the USCIS to eliminate employment-based immigation backlogs. In releasing the May 2009 Visa Bulletin, the State Department confirmed that the USCIS had been taking out EB visa numbers en masse exhausting all the EB-3 visa numbers available for the rest of FY 2009. This report is consistent with the information released by the USCIS on its projected processing time to four months for the employment-based I-140 petitions and EB-485 applications by the end of FY 2009, which is September 30, 2009. The goal appears to have contributed to the exhaustion of annually allocated employment-based visa numbers so that no EB visa numbers be unused or wasted by the end of FY 2009. The commitment to this goal of the USCIS is reaffirmed by yesterday's release of Mr. Michael Ayte's report on the employment-based visa processing times in the Leadership Journal of the DHS. Considering a huge backlog and processing delays in the employment-based immigration petitions and 485 applications for almost two years as affected primarily by the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco, the recent event that evolved in the USCIS processing time change is certainly a welcome news for waiters who have suffered from the past backlogs.
<br><br>
What have tirbuted to this change? The long-term strategy for reduction of processing times for immigration benefits applications appears to be launch of "Transformation Program" that intended to achieve reduction of processing times by turning current paper-based application and processing system into complete electronization system and process focusing on the concept of digital "account" databases within approximately a period of five years. However, this program has experienced a snag. However, lately the DHS disclosed its multi-billion dollar contract with the IBM for two programs. One is to convert all the existing files and date into digitazition and the other is to develop and implement electronic application and processing system. Reportedly, for this purpose, the IBM reenforced its operation in India and the work is underway. However, report indicates that the first phase appears to focus on the digitazation of existing database rather than implementation of electronic application and processing system. Overall, the goal of the contract appears to be completed in the next five years. It thus appears that the current efforts of elimination of backlogs within this fiscal year do not rely on the progress of this program. The big momentum was created by the Congress appropriating fund for USCIS human resources. Thanks to the Congress action to give fund for hiring additional 2,000 resources, the USCIS recxruited and trained new hires who joined the USCIS field offices including Service Centers and local district and field offices, initially focusing on the job of elimination of huge naturalization applications. USCIS had been reporting that the hurdle for reduction of employment-based immigration cases was the mountain of naturalization applications that poured in around the time of FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco. Now, the naturalization application backlog is under control, inreased resources are becoming available for the employment-based immigration files. Another important factor that has contributed to the agency's recent move was the implementation name-check reduction agreement between the FBI and the DHS and the USCIS policy to complete adjudicaion of EB-485 applications when the FBI name check failed to complete within 180 days. The third factor that cannot be discounted nor minimized is the new DHS leadership's move and commitment for the elimination of the employment-based immigration case backlogs. As people may recall, the Secretary Napolitano of the DHS issued a directive to report the state of backlogs in the immigration benefit applications and the USCIS leaders plan for reduction or elimination of such backlogs. With all of the above developments combined, the employment-based immgrant community is continuously expected to witness the reduction of processing times, at least for a short term. However, long-term reduction or elimination of EB case processing backlog is likely to depend on success of the IBM contract digitization program of the USCIS. This needs continuing internal and external political support, and we hope that the Congress extends its strong support, particularly considering importance of the successful reengineering program to accomodate the potentially forthcoming avalanche and flood gate opening for case loads for the USCIS when the country passes the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation.
2010 Spring clip art, flag clip art
a_tyagi26
11-20 02:47 PM
Generally secretaries follow laws. They do not frame any regulations or have any role in it. It will be in hand of Obama's immigration appointees to push immigration.
Secretary will be responsible for DHS which involves security, FEMA etc too. I am not sure if she will be able to change a whole lot.
Secretary will be responsible for DHS which involves security, FEMA etc too. I am not sure if she will be able to change a whole lot.
more...
rubinop
04-15 12:39 PM
No matter what, your employer must maintain the salary that was given to the government when your H-1 was filed. You can't go below that salary. With regards to the LC salary, the company is only required to meet that salary after your I-485 has been approved; so if you aren't meeting the LC salary now, that's fine. Make sure that your salary on your H-1 is still met, though.
Dear st4rguitar, thank you very much for your answer. I appreciate it.
So, bottom line, I am going to loose my application for the Labor Certification. He WILL decrease my salary, which, at this point, even though it matches the one I have in my H1-B, will determine the withdrawal of my application, and because my H1-B will expire in September 08, I will have 60 days (I think this is the timeframe) after the expiration to leave the USA. Am I correct st4rguitar? Thanks again and good luck to everybody! We REALLY need it!
Dear st4rguitar, thank you very much for your answer. I appreciate it.
So, bottom line, I am going to loose my application for the Labor Certification. He WILL decrease my salary, which, at this point, even though it matches the one I have in my H1-B, will determine the withdrawal of my application, and because my H1-B will expire in September 08, I will have 60 days (I think this is the timeframe) after the expiration to leave the USA. Am I correct st4rguitar? Thanks again and good luck to everybody! We REALLY need it!
hair FREE SNOW service CLIP ART
bluez25
10-29 07:00 PM
adds,
I understand your frustation since you might be one in the queue waiting for so long for GC, that dosnt mean that you are brave and other person not able to make a decision is chicken. Please respect each other and thats what we all do...
Please try to answer his questions since he is struggling to take a decision, if not please ignore and move on buddy...
SSH1... I think as other experts say in lot of other threads , there is no absolute law that you need to stay with the employer after getting GC.
You should be fine since everyone in this world can understand that this is a downstream period and lot of layoffs are happening..with that being the situation you should not worry now... stick where u get job and can survive.... Good Luck...
I understand your frustation since you might be one in the queue waiting for so long for GC, that dosnt mean that you are brave and other person not able to make a decision is chicken. Please respect each other and thats what we all do...
Please try to answer his questions since he is struggling to take a decision, if not please ignore and move on buddy...
SSH1... I think as other experts say in lot of other threads , there is no absolute law that you need to stay with the employer after getting GC.
You should be fine since everyone in this world can understand that this is a downstream period and lot of layoffs are happening..with that being the situation you should not worry now... stick where u get job and can survive.... Good Luck...
more...
eb3_nepa
08-25 12:01 PM
Best thing to do in this case is, simply use your AP. No H1b stamping is needed. You can still remain on an H1B even if you use the AP for travelling.
As per my lawyer, the H1B has 2 aspects to it. One is the fact that it maintains status, the second is the actual stamped visa which allows entry/re-entry into the USA. You dont HAVE to have the stamped visa, if you have alternate means of re-entry.
As per my lawyer, the H1B has 2 aspects to it. One is the fact that it maintains status, the second is the actual stamped visa which allows entry/re-entry into the USA. You dont HAVE to have the stamped visa, if you have alternate means of re-entry.
hot See below to download clip art
ss2005
08-05 09:00 AM
In the October 24, 2007 USCIS HQ Stakeholders Meeting, the USCIS gives the following answer:
Question: Should I be worried if I receive a different A-number after filing an application for adjustment of status on Form I-485?
Response: No, a temporary receipt process was implemented for Employment Based I-485 applications filed between July 2, 2007, and August 17, 2007. The temporary receipt process allowed USCIS to receipt the high volume of I-485 applications filed during the summer in a faster and more efficient manner. New A numbers were assigned during the receipt process. At a future date the newly assigned A numbers will be reconciled with previous A-numbers that may exist for each applicant and the newly assigned A-number will be deleted. The temporary A number will also appear on the EAD card. This temporary receipt process also facilitated the receipting of I-765 applications for employment authorization and I-131 applications for advance parole.
Question: Should I be worried if I receive a different A-number after filing an application for adjustment of status on Form I-485?
Response: No, a temporary receipt process was implemented for Employment Based I-485 applications filed between July 2, 2007, and August 17, 2007. The temporary receipt process allowed USCIS to receipt the high volume of I-485 applications filed during the summer in a faster and more efficient manner. New A numbers were assigned during the receipt process. At a future date the newly assigned A numbers will be reconciled with previous A-numbers that may exist for each applicant and the newly assigned A-number will be deleted. The temporary A number will also appear on the EAD card. This temporary receipt process also facilitated the receipting of I-765 applications for employment authorization and I-131 applications for advance parole.
more...
house Clip art free download,
rc10580
06-13 03:06 PM
South of Brazil sounds good to me but my husband is not open to it and he is the one who is Brazilian :rolleyes:
He is much more in favor of Europe and since I have EU passport we can basically live anywhere and he would be able to work the next day :D I feel like I have put so much effort into this by now that I'm not walking away this close. We will hang on and make decisions once we have GC and options to chose. You are so close! Don't give up now after waiting so long! Is your situation at work that bad? Is your wife working?
He is much more in favor of Europe and since I have EU passport we can basically live anywhere and he would be able to work the next day :D I feel like I have put so much effort into this by now that I'm not walking away this close. We will hang on and make decisions once we have GC and options to chose. You are so close! Don't give up now after waiting so long! Is your situation at work that bad? Is your wife working?
tattoo letterhead with jungle order
ps57002
01-30 04:49 PM
oops wrong post
more...
pictures christmas clip art borders for
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.
dresses free clip art borders, frames,
GCNirvana007
04-08 04:00 PM
Trying to reach you guys for a while now.
1. How many active users are there as of today.
2. What are the media we have connection with.
Thanks.
I have asked this question for 3rd straight day and yet no answer. Is it some kinda secret deal?. Thought its a public forum.
1. How many active users are there as of today.
2. What are the media we have connection with.
Thanks.
I have asked this question for 3rd straight day and yet no answer. Is it some kinda secret deal?. Thought its a public forum.
more...
makeup Heart+order+clip+art+free
abhijitp
01-26 09:32 PM
^^
girlfriend Church clipart artvertical
brick2006
04-21 11:44 AM
I am currently on my 9th year h1..my 140 is approved..and i am not a june 2007 filer..H1 valid till may 2010
My spouse is on H1..can i switch over H4..
> My company had not "officially" laid me off.. i am on an extended LOP.. and since there is no time limit of LOP on H1.. i am sure i cannot be on LOP for ever..;-)..its been 2 weeks..and i dont want to become illegal now..
so here is my dilemma::confused:
a.) If i switch to H4 and after few months i get a project..can i go back to H1..->
b.) Can i file for H4 on my own..is it complicated?
c.) if i change to H4..and my PD becomes current (PD Dec 2005)
.) Can i file for AOS..as my 140 is approved..
.) Suppose i go back to desh ..can i file for consular processing..if my PD become current
thank you!
My spouse is on H1..can i switch over H4..
> My company had not "officially" laid me off.. i am on an extended LOP.. and since there is no time limit of LOP on H1.. i am sure i cannot be on LOP for ever..;-)..its been 2 weeks..and i dont want to become illegal now..
so here is my dilemma::confused:
a.) If i switch to H4 and after few months i get a project..can i go back to H1..->
b.) Can i file for H4 on my own..is it complicated?
c.) if i change to H4..and my PD becomes current (PD Dec 2005)
.) Can i file for AOS..as my 140 is approved..
.) Suppose i go back to desh ..can i file for consular processing..if my PD become current
thank you!
hairstyles Initial clipart thei hope
waitnwatch
07-15 04:27 PM
As far as I know you donot need to file another I485.
Hi Gurus,
1) Is it possible to have 2 different I-485 with 2 different employers at the same time?
I already have an EB3 I-485 pending through my current employer. I have EB2, I-140 approval with future employer,
2) Is it possible to file second EB2 I-485 through my future employer?
3) If file second 485, what will be affect on pending I-485?
Thanks
Hi Gurus,
1) Is it possible to have 2 different I-485 with 2 different employers at the same time?
I already have an EB3 I-485 pending through my current employer. I have EB2, I-140 approval with future employer,
2) Is it possible to file second EB2 I-485 through my future employer?
3) If file second 485, what will be affect on pending I-485?
Thanks
lazycis
05-07 01:22 PM
from AC21 memo issued on December 27, 2005
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
frostrated
10-26 10:58 AM
i think they are going to do it every quarter. i am thinking that the results in the aug 2009 file were third quarter FY 2009 data. so i am thinking that the data as of sept 2009 will be out in Nov. any other predictions?
No comments:
Post a Comment