arunkotte
09-07 12:45 PM
I am in great need of some suggestions. I hold a MS degree in computer science and graduate in 2004 dec. Since then I have been with the same employer.
Now that he is filing for my LC. Is it difficult to get through with MS+0yrs of expereince ?
Also, at this point of time i have found other employers who is willing to do my GC in which case I will have MS+2 yrs of expereince.
Is it worth changing employer for gaining 2 yrs of expereince for my LC.
Does this really make my case more stronger ? or I am just OVER REACTING ? and doing unneccessary thing
DOES THE EXPEREINCE with MS makes it better for EB2 ?
Please let me know if there are some experts out there
It doesn't matter. I had my EB2 approved with MS+0. Just make sure the job description explicitly mentions MS with no further experience.
Now that he is filing for my LC. Is it difficult to get through with MS+0yrs of expereince ?
Also, at this point of time i have found other employers who is willing to do my GC in which case I will have MS+2 yrs of expereince.
Is it worth changing employer for gaining 2 yrs of expereince for my LC.
Does this really make my case more stronger ? or I am just OVER REACTING ? and doing unneccessary thing
DOES THE EXPEREINCE with MS makes it better for EB2 ?
Please let me know if there are some experts out there
It doesn't matter. I had my EB2 approved with MS+0. Just make sure the job description explicitly mentions MS with no further experience.
fullerene
08-13 11:14 AM
From my notice the processing date is meaningless at TSC because the dates are mostly the processing windows. For example, I140 was Jan 13 in July notice, which was 6 months behind. If you take a look on AP and EAD, they were just 3 months behind.
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
Aah_GC
06-20 02:19 PM
The problem is AC21 is speculative rather than definitive. You can give it your own interpretation as USCIS has not come forward with a good distinction between same and similar.
When you are at the fork of the road, the path of least resistance to GC is a sensible one, that is when you don't have the fear of not getting your GC. It is ultimately up to each one of us.
When you are at the fork of the road, the path of least resistance to GC is a sensible one, that is when you don't have the fear of not getting your GC. It is ultimately up to each one of us.
chapper
11-09 08:14 PM
Can we do the same here - or something similar to that extent as demonstrated in UK - is it advisable.
Legal immigrants no matter where they are from should be treated equally without divisions within this group or special classifications for certain sections of the group.
Legal immigrants no matter where they are from should be treated equally without divisions within this group or special classifications for certain sections of the group.
more...
bigboy007
12-10 02:56 PM
Please consider contributing IV...IV need your help to resolve our immigration problems.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
Oh definately no worries i am going to contribute + i have requested 20 of my friends to join IV and participate the funding drive. I am comitted to IV
any more ideas on my question please reg. 140 porting i am not sure .. and if we dont have to intimate USCIS. Help me out
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
Oh definately no worries i am going to contribute + i have requested 20 of my friends to join IV and participate the funding drive. I am comitted to IV
any more ideas on my question please reg. 140 porting i am not sure .. and if we dont have to intimate USCIS. Help me out
ashkam
08-17 08:41 AM
Hi Guys,
I am on H1B and my wife is working using her EAD. Like most people on here we applied in the July 2007 rush.
Now her licence in PA was expiring and we went to renew it and provided ALL necessary documents such as Passport, I-94, current and future EADs. However at the very end after about half an hour of providing documents, the DMV guy said that the system needed "more info" and that he would have to fax everything to Harrisburg who would then contact the INS for the missing info and we would get some "letter" from the DMV.
Has anyone faced a similar issue in PA before? If so how soon after did they receive this letter? Is there anything I can do to expedite the process such as contacting my local Sentator/Congressman's office? We have a small baby and my wife needs to drive to go to work.
Thanks.
Which area of PA are you in? If you're in Southeastern PA near Philly, try the Malvern DMV. They accept I-485 receipts.
I am on H1B and my wife is working using her EAD. Like most people on here we applied in the July 2007 rush.
Now her licence in PA was expiring and we went to renew it and provided ALL necessary documents such as Passport, I-94, current and future EADs. However at the very end after about half an hour of providing documents, the DMV guy said that the system needed "more info" and that he would have to fax everything to Harrisburg who would then contact the INS for the missing info and we would get some "letter" from the DMV.
Has anyone faced a similar issue in PA before? If so how soon after did they receive this letter? Is there anything I can do to expedite the process such as contacting my local Sentator/Congressman's office? We have a small baby and my wife needs to drive to go to work.
Thanks.
Which area of PA are you in? If you're in Southeastern PA near Philly, try the Malvern DMV. They accept I-485 receipts.
more...
LONGGCQUE
01-04 07:26 PM
I also left a top 10 Indian company while on a US deputation and they are holding my PF, gratuity etc. They have been asking me to pay approx 12-15K USD to settle things.
I have no clue how to recover my PF money which would be atleast 6-7K USD based on my 63 months of employment with them.
Gurus, can someone shed some light on this. Has anyone resigned from so called top 10 indian companies which make you sign those bonds, and then ask you to come back to India and serve 3-6 months. How to recover PF etc from those indian companies if you do not sign off on good terms. For me, they say settle the a/c first and we will process your PF.
shed some light please
I have no clue how to recover my PF money which would be atleast 6-7K USD based on my 63 months of employment with them.
Gurus, can someone shed some light on this. Has anyone resigned from so called top 10 indian companies which make you sign those bonds, and then ask you to come back to India and serve 3-6 months. How to recover PF etc from those indian companies if you do not sign off on good terms. For me, they say settle the a/c first and we will process your PF.
shed some light please
Lasantha
02-06 06:48 PM
H1B Stamping in Halifax Canada (only for revalidation)
She told me ( as with other applicants) that my information is not in the new system called PIMPS, so its possible that I could not get my passport the next day at 3 pm.
PIMPS? :D
I think it's PIMS. :cool:
She told me ( as with other applicants) that my information is not in the new system called PIMPS, so its possible that I could not get my passport the next day at 3 pm.
PIMPS? :D
I think it's PIMS. :cool:
more...
gc_check
10-07 05:32 PM
Got an email from HR (Large US Based Tech company) sometime back that there is a possibility representative of the USCIS may come to work location to review an employees immigration petition and this appears to be part of USCIS standard procedure. Employees have been provided with HR contact details to contact, if it happens for anyone. This is not unusual and this could very well happen to any one. Just a routine procedure. Nothing to worry much on this as long as you provide the details and if you have not violated any laws, etc..
suresh.emails
01-23 11:34 AM
Well,
The following is the process to schedule parents visiting visa interview online (assuming both Mother and Father are above 45 years old)
1. Pay HDFC Visa fee for $131. If you have paid visa fee on or before December 31, 2007, then take a Demand Draft for $31 (eqv in INR) and present the same during the interview process.
2. Wait for 2 days to activate the bar code.
3. Fill the D-156 and D-157 forms online thru VFS website and wait for dates to show up. Remember such filled application will be valid for 7 days and meanwhile , if interview dates show up, then one can schedule interview.
4. The BEST TIME FOR interview dates check up is early morning 5 AM EST thru 7:30 AM EST. ( I did little research during my parents interview schedule).
5. Filling the D-156 and D-157 online does not mean that, they will be automatically submitted to US consulate. You have to take print out D-156 back to back and D-157 on single page. Then you sign and date the form (if you have filled it on behalf of your parents). Send the forms to parents. They also need to sign the forms.
6. Remember, one have to write applicant names in their NATIVE language (ex: Telugu/Tamil/Kannada etc..,) on 3'rd column of D-157 form.
7. Send notarized affidavit for support I-134 form.
8. All supporting documents
9. If your current H1-B visa is expired. then send your Receipt Notice/H1-B extension approved notice as a proof of your Current STATUS at USA.
10. If you have valid H1-B visa stamping, then send the same along with H1-B I-797 approval notice.
11. If you are on EAD/GC, send your copied of EAD/GC.
12. In case, if you are sponsoring your in-laws. Then send your suppose Date of Birth certificate, passport copies, marriage certificate along with your documents.
13. Educate your parents with all possible questions/answers they may face during the interview.
14. Advice your parents not to lie during the interview process. ask them to answer frankly.
Let me know if you need more information for visiting visa. I can/may answer all possible questions.
P.S: My parents got their visiting visa stamped during the second attempt.
The following is the process to schedule parents visiting visa interview online (assuming both Mother and Father are above 45 years old)
1. Pay HDFC Visa fee for $131. If you have paid visa fee on or before December 31, 2007, then take a Demand Draft for $31 (eqv in INR) and present the same during the interview process.
2. Wait for 2 days to activate the bar code.
3. Fill the D-156 and D-157 forms online thru VFS website and wait for dates to show up. Remember such filled application will be valid for 7 days and meanwhile , if interview dates show up, then one can schedule interview.
4. The BEST TIME FOR interview dates check up is early morning 5 AM EST thru 7:30 AM EST. ( I did little research during my parents interview schedule).
5. Filling the D-156 and D-157 online does not mean that, they will be automatically submitted to US consulate. You have to take print out D-156 back to back and D-157 on single page. Then you sign and date the form (if you have filled it on behalf of your parents). Send the forms to parents. They also need to sign the forms.
6. Remember, one have to write applicant names in their NATIVE language (ex: Telugu/Tamil/Kannada etc..,) on 3'rd column of D-157 form.
7. Send notarized affidavit for support I-134 form.
8. All supporting documents
9. If your current H1-B visa is expired. then send your Receipt Notice/H1-B extension approved notice as a proof of your Current STATUS at USA.
10. If you have valid H1-B visa stamping, then send the same along with H1-B I-797 approval notice.
11. If you are on EAD/GC, send your copied of EAD/GC.
12. In case, if you are sponsoring your in-laws. Then send your suppose Date of Birth certificate, passport copies, marriage certificate along with your documents.
13. Educate your parents with all possible questions/answers they may face during the interview.
14. Advice your parents not to lie during the interview process. ask them to answer frankly.
Let me know if you need more information for visiting visa. I can/may answer all possible questions.
P.S: My parents got their visiting visa stamped during the second attempt.
more...
vik352
12-03 01:51 PM
Anyone?
arrarrgee
07-13 11:59 AM
Dont know why...i was LOL after reading this post....
"we are highly skilled people. so we should wear business suit , it will give impact"
we are highly skilled people. so we should wear business suit , it will give impact.
"we are highly skilled people. so we should wear business suit , it will give impact"
we are highly skilled people. so we should wear business suit , it will give impact.
more...
BPforGC
10-15 12:28 PM
1. It goes to the mail room and stamped on the date it was received.
2. Goes through tagging, "A" number will be assigned, bar code and a cover sheet will be attached.
3. All of your pending petitions such as I-140s, priority date information, finger prints, name check, chargability country information will be loaded into your A-file.
4. USCIS has a system of tracking the A-files of the pending 485s and picks those who satisfies all these conditions for adjudication.
a) I-140 must be approved and no inconsistencies should be found related to your employer letter, residence, etc.
b) Priority date must be current otherwise VISA number file cannot be requested. The date when USCIS got your 485 matters very little here. Guys who sent their 485 after you may get ahead of you.
c) Your finger prints must be there along with medicals. Namecheck may be waived if you are past 180 days.
d) Then, if everything is fine, your file will be allocated to an Officer. Wait! it did not go to him yet. It may take upto 30 days for your file to go to the officer. By that time if priority date goes backward, you are back to square one.
e) Once it reaches the officer's desk, he can take upto 2 weeks to adjudicate it. When he enters your information, A-number and if VISA number is not available, it goes back to "pending VISA number availability" status. You are out of luck. Fortunately, USCIS can track these kind of cases separately and as soon as VISA numbers are available and priority date is current, they will adjudicate your 485.
Its like the flow chart for a COBAL the program, if 'yes' got to step 4, at step 4 "if answer is 'no', go back to step 1 and start over". Its an unending loop and if you can manage 4-5 'yes', you get your card.
So, many things can go wrong for people from India and China due to retrogression and adjudication of 485 is a matter of luck even if your priority date is current. A single issue can derail the whole process. It is also upto officer's discretion if he considers some information not complete and issue a RFE.
Its a messed up system. In my case, USCIS agreed that my work is on national interest and greatly benefit the country and my I-140 was approved under EB2-NIW. However, being from India, I need to wait another 5 years to get my green card. How ridiculous?
God save us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All at NSC
EB1-EA: I-140 (4/3/2007; RFE-9/2/2008; pending)
EB2-NIW: I-140 (4/4/2007)- approved 8/7/2008
I-485 : 7/24/2007 - Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. Goes through tagging, "A" number will be assigned, bar code and a cover sheet will be attached.
3. All of your pending petitions such as I-140s, priority date information, finger prints, name check, chargability country information will be loaded into your A-file.
4. USCIS has a system of tracking the A-files of the pending 485s and picks those who satisfies all these conditions for adjudication.
a) I-140 must be approved and no inconsistencies should be found related to your employer letter, residence, etc.
b) Priority date must be current otherwise VISA number file cannot be requested. The date when USCIS got your 485 matters very little here. Guys who sent their 485 after you may get ahead of you.
c) Your finger prints must be there along with medicals. Namecheck may be waived if you are past 180 days.
d) Then, if everything is fine, your file will be allocated to an Officer. Wait! it did not go to him yet. It may take upto 30 days for your file to go to the officer. By that time if priority date goes backward, you are back to square one.
e) Once it reaches the officer's desk, he can take upto 2 weeks to adjudicate it. When he enters your information, A-number and if VISA number is not available, it goes back to "pending VISA number availability" status. You are out of luck. Fortunately, USCIS can track these kind of cases separately and as soon as VISA numbers are available and priority date is current, they will adjudicate your 485.
Its like the flow chart for a COBAL the program, if 'yes' got to step 4, at step 4 "if answer is 'no', go back to step 1 and start over". Its an unending loop and if you can manage 4-5 'yes', you get your card.
So, many things can go wrong for people from India and China due to retrogression and adjudication of 485 is a matter of luck even if your priority date is current. A single issue can derail the whole process. It is also upto officer's discretion if he considers some information not complete and issue a RFE.
Its a messed up system. In my case, USCIS agreed that my work is on national interest and greatly benefit the country and my I-140 was approved under EB2-NIW. However, being from India, I need to wait another 5 years to get my green card. How ridiculous?
God save us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All at NSC
EB1-EA: I-140 (4/3/2007; RFE-9/2/2008; pending)
EB2-NIW: I-140 (4/4/2007)- approved 8/7/2008
I-485 : 7/24/2007 - Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
kirupa
11-26 03:52 AM
You'll be surprised at all the things that I pretend to know.
more...
ticktoe
09-06 02:06 PM
Doesn't matter. MS+0 works just fine. (My EB-2 was MS+0).
The biggest issue is that just with MS, IS NOT HARD TO REFUTE OTHER RESUMES. EVEN IF SOME ONE WITH A MS+6 MONTHS apply to the ad. Then it will be hard for me to justify. That's what makes me little uncomfortable here.
But how did you manage to justify that you have enough knowledge/experience for that job. Did you use any particular course material or project work or anything of that kind against some one who applied for your ad ?
Please do let me know your experience. It will greatly help me.
Thanks
The biggest issue is that just with MS, IS NOT HARD TO REFUTE OTHER RESUMES. EVEN IF SOME ONE WITH A MS+6 MONTHS apply to the ad. Then it will be hard for me to justify. That's what makes me little uncomfortable here.
But how did you manage to justify that you have enough knowledge/experience for that job. Did you use any particular course material or project work or anything of that kind against some one who applied for your ad ?
Please do let me know your experience. It will greatly help me.
Thanks
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
sury
11-07 10:26 AM
If EB2 PD is 1 APR 2004 then what does the ProcessingTimeFrame Date(August 25, 2006) mean for I-485 in Texas Service Center.
Can anyone clarify. Guys exuse my Ignorance...I just want to know the rule
Can anyone clarify. Guys exuse my Ignorance...I just want to know the rule
leoindiano
03-17 10:02 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
fromnaija
08-18 04:41 PM
If she is here on H4 and while she was here her H1B got approved then there is no problem. As H1B is not VISA and its intent to hire. Infact if she wanted to to Join work on H1B, she will need to apply status change application for H4 to H1B.
No, not correct. Since she got a new I-94 her status changed to H1 w.e.f October 1, 2008.
However, because she did not work she is currently out of status. She will have to change her status back to H4 either by going out of country and re-entering with H4 visa or filing I-539.
No, not correct. Since she got a new I-94 her status changed to H1 w.e.f October 1, 2008.
However, because she did not work she is currently out of status. She will have to change her status back to H4 either by going out of country and re-entering with H4 visa or filing I-539.
psaxena
06-10 05:39 PM
wow thats a news.. as your alias is "vivid" write something "different"(vividh) which we dun know.
USCIS tops any other US pubic office in these 3 qualities
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
USCIS tops any other US pubic office in these 3 qualities
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
amsgc
04-12 12:49 PM
As someone mentioned - Do not Lie.
Also note that by not replying, you are in fact condoning the actions of your previous employer. You had a good reason to leave him, and the DOL probably knows about it. If you are worried about your H1, you can go for premium processing on your H1 and then send the letter to DOL.
Also note that by not replying, you are in fact condoning the actions of your previous employer. You had a good reason to leave him, and the DOL probably knows about it. If you are worried about your H1, you can go for premium processing on your H1 and then send the letter to DOL.
No comments:
Post a Comment