glus
05-31 12:52 PM
Thank you to everyone who contributed. Guys, Junior members have contributed, you have to do it too......please do it.
J
J
wallpaper Dragonfly Tattoos
HRPRO
03-07 07:05 PM
6 months.
Can we renew H1 after we're laid off based on 140 approval. I'm thinking going for regular or premium extension because it's about the time for extension. I still have a job this week...not sure about next...so looks like premium is the best. At least I'll have H1 extension for 3 yrs when I jump into the job market again....or is this irrelevant and I can renew even after laid off.
Smuggy,
If I were you, I would start looking right away and will definitely file the transfer with a Premium. I consider it the cost for peace of mind more than anything else.
HRPRO
Can we renew H1 after we're laid off based on 140 approval. I'm thinking going for regular or premium extension because it's about the time for extension. I still have a job this week...not sure about next...so looks like premium is the best. At least I'll have H1 extension for 3 yrs when I jump into the job market again....or is this irrelevant and I can renew even after laid off.
Smuggy,
If I were you, I would start looking right away and will definitely file the transfer with a Premium. I consider it the cost for peace of mind more than anything else.
HRPRO
hoolahoous
09-15 06:23 PM
How about making it standard format. That will make it easy for admins/reporters to sum it up. For e.g. millions of dollars per year paid as taxes by people stuck in GC queue will make a good impact. And so would the average amount of years a person has to wait to get GC. So format could be
1) Name
2) Picture(s)
3) Average Tax paid per year
4) Years in US
5) Years waited for GC
6) Number of US citizen kids (with age)
7) --Optional-- Approximate amount paid to USCIS (H1b fee x number of times ported/extended + Labor cost + I140 Cost + I485 cost + Repeated EAD/AP cost) -- I myself have over 7 H1b stamps, two labors, one I-140 , 2 I-485 and 4 EAD/AP.
8) Personal Story (nothing more captures the attention of reporters than a dramatic story) dealing with USCIS (then INS)
Feel free to improve on it.
1) Name
2) Picture(s)
3) Average Tax paid per year
4) Years in US
5) Years waited for GC
6) Number of US citizen kids (with age)
7) --Optional-- Approximate amount paid to USCIS (H1b fee x number of times ported/extended + Labor cost + I140 Cost + I485 cost + Repeated EAD/AP cost) -- I myself have over 7 H1b stamps, two labors, one I-140 , 2 I-485 and 4 EAD/AP.
8) Personal Story (nothing more captures the attention of reporters than a dramatic story) dealing with USCIS (then INS)
Feel free to improve on it.
2011 cancer zodiac sign tattoos.
pkv
04-13 11:34 AM
This is correct. Only your attorney will get the RFE.
I got Medical RFE, it was sent to me as well as to my attorney. In fact I got it a week earlier than attorney got.
I got Medical RFE, it was sent to me as well as to my attorney. In fact I got it a week earlier than attorney got.
more...
ca_immigrant
12-19 07:32 PM
This is Pat B 's broken record. He has lost all his credibility during all these years of immigrant bashing. He can write as many of them but other than red necks, no one is impressed. He is 71 years old and in couple years he will be gone. Old age brings some mental issues with it.
...lol......old age brings some mental issues....I like that ;)
take it easy folks....just ignore what Pat B@#$#@% wrote.......
only a jacka** (who probably does not want to work hard) like Pat would be worried about loosing his job to others.....
...lol......old age brings some mental issues....I like that ;)
take it easy folks....just ignore what Pat B@#$#@% wrote.......
only a jacka** (who probably does not want to work hard) like Pat would be worried about loosing his job to others.....
kumar1
07-11 12:02 PM
Well, I disagree - I am sure they have certain number of work force dedicated to work on I-485 cases. They will not accept any I-485 till October....so tell me one more time what are they going to do till October?
I agree with rest of your points about family based AP, EAD etc.
I agree with rest of your points about family based AP, EAD etc.
more...
pandu_hawaldar
09-09 01:04 PM
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
2010 dragonfly tattoo
GoneSouth
03-15 05:25 PM
If the first labor is done through PERM, can the 2nd labor be filed? I had heard that there is a policy of one PERM per company per employee. Does that not apply if the new job with the same company is substantially different. That's right. Second PERM can be filed for same employee at same company if first PERM is already approved (not pending) and second PERM is for a "substantially different" position.
Would you please elaborate on "substantially different". If the job title is different and job duties are very different, would that qualify as "substantially different". I have been thinking about doing the same. This is not well defined. In my case, the second PERM was for a position in a different O*NET category and a different job zone, and this was considered "substantially different" by DoL. My guess would be that if the two positions are different O*net codes, you should probably be fine (this is a guess only - please consult your attorney).
Is there any issue when 1st labor was not a PERM labor and 2nd labor is going to be PERM labor and both from same employer ?Sorry, I don't have any experience in that area, so I can't comment.
Would you please elaborate on "substantially different". If the job title is different and job duties are very different, would that qualify as "substantially different". I have been thinking about doing the same. This is not well defined. In my case, the second PERM was for a position in a different O*NET category and a different job zone, and this was considered "substantially different" by DoL. My guess would be that if the two positions are different O*net codes, you should probably be fine (this is a guess only - please consult your attorney).
Is there any issue when 1st labor was not a PERM labor and 2nd labor is going to be PERM labor and both from same employer ?Sorry, I don't have any experience in that area, so I can't comment.
more...
hopefulgc
03-08 12:57 PM
AFAIK, I-140 is the underlying petition for the I-485. If I-140 is denied, the i-485 is automatically denied.
Move fast, start a PERM and see if u can lock in a date.
i missed the second part of your question.
i personally know a friend whose 1-140 was denied and their 485 is obviously pending....he is working on EAD, they have appealed for the 140. While the case is pending the EAD has been extended by 2 years.
Hope this helps.
Move fast, start a PERM and see if u can lock in a date.
i missed the second part of your question.
i personally know a friend whose 1-140 was denied and their 485 is obviously pending....he is working on EAD, they have appealed for the 140. While the case is pending the EAD has been extended by 2 years.
Hope this helps.
hair dragonfly tattoo
richana
05-14 06:59 PM
I would suggest councillor processing they're higher in the order than the counselor. But Do not try the consular processing because it's too hard to google it
more...
gparr
June 4th, 2004, 02:58 PM
I hope you don't mind but with about 20 minutes in photoshop...
:D
I needed that laugh after the day I've had. Thanks.
Gary
:D
I needed that laugh after the day I've had. Thanks.
Gary
hot Temporary Dragonfly Tattoo On
manfrmind
11-03 05:42 PM
Do you guys think this 2008 election will have any impact on the immigration process?
more...
house Tribal Dragonfly Tattoo
aau
08-08 10:37 AM
I have filed for my EAD and 485 in july 2007. I have not got my EAD due to Name check (dont know why they cannot issue EAD bcos of name check).
Well in my case USCIS did not give me any information.
So i had to call the senator office. Their office contacted the TSC, and got the information that my case is pending Name check.
Now i know my case is pending name check, whenever i call USCIS, they submit a request to provide me an update and ask me to call after 1 month, 2 months and like that.
So i have stopped calling USCIS and directly call the Senator office.
Infopass does not show any appointment dates in Altanta region. So i am relying on the Senator office.
So may be you can try calling the Senator office and ask them to followup with your case.
Should you call your Senator or Congressman - and does it matter? Thanks in advance ppl..
Well in my case USCIS did not give me any information.
So i had to call the senator office. Their office contacted the TSC, and got the information that my case is pending Name check.
Now i know my case is pending name check, whenever i call USCIS, they submit a request to provide me an update and ask me to call after 1 month, 2 months and like that.
So i have stopped calling USCIS and directly call the Senator office.
Infopass does not show any appointment dates in Altanta region. So i am relying on the Senator office.
So may be you can try calling the Senator office and ask them to followup with your case.
Should you call your Senator or Congressman - and does it matter? Thanks in advance ppl..
tattoo tribal dragonfly drawings.
njdude26
03-31 08:37 AM
Im on my 8th year on H1. still stuck in Labor :(
My company is giving me a promotion and a raise in salary. Do i have to inform Labor about any of this ??!!
My company is giving me a promotion and a raise in salary. Do i have to inform Labor about any of this ??!!
more...
pictures of Dragonfly Tattoos
raghuram
11-10 09:43 PM
For my recent in-laws trip, I took insurance from ICICI Lombard. As one of the previous poster mentioned they are tied up with United Healthcare and they give you an Identity Card from United Healthcare. I previously used United and they are pretty good. So its a reliable Insurance.
I took the platinum cover for my in-laws(age:mid 50s) and it came to around INR 16k for both of them for a 3 months stay, which I consider is reasonable, given a $ 250K coverage.
Previously when my parents came, I have taken ICICI Lombard. Though I was lucky enough that they did not have any medical issues and I did not need to show up at any doctor/hospital.
ICICI Lombard is only a fixed coverage plan for people age over 55 years. It is not a comprehensive coverage plan. It only pays a small fraction of the actual costs.
I took the platinum cover for my in-laws(age:mid 50s) and it came to around INR 16k for both of them for a 3 months stay, which I consider is reasonable, given a $ 250K coverage.
Previously when my parents came, I have taken ICICI Lombard. Though I was lucky enough that they did not have any medical issues and I did not need to show up at any doctor/hospital.
ICICI Lombard is only a fixed coverage plan for people age over 55 years. It is not a comprehensive coverage plan. It only pays a small fraction of the actual costs.
dresses dragonfly tattoos
dressking
08-31 11:58 AM
I think there is some truth to this poll.
A lot of Americans lost their jobs to foreigners because they are over qualified for those jobs.
Well, when you buy tools for yourself, you buy the cheaper ones that have all the functions that you need, not the most expensive ones that have all the functions, including the functions that you don�t need. The same thing happens to people as it does to tools.
I think most people will become overqualified at some point in their life. The best thing to do after you have become over qualified is to start your own business in the field that you are over qualified for. With the experience you have in that field, you will have better chance of success. If you don�t want to run a business, try investment. With the money you have earned earlier in your life, you should be able to do some investment. If you have invested in real estate, try to make money from the real estate you own.
One should take responsibility for oneself. The government can only take care of the citizens to certain point. Mothers can only breast feed their babies to certain time, and parents can only take care of their children until they are 18. Parents can not take care of you all your life. So don�t expect the government to take care of you all your life, either.
I am writing this here because a lot of us will have this problem in our life later on.
A lot of Americans lost their jobs to foreigners because they are over qualified for those jobs.
Well, when you buy tools for yourself, you buy the cheaper ones that have all the functions that you need, not the most expensive ones that have all the functions, including the functions that you don�t need. The same thing happens to people as it does to tools.
I think most people will become overqualified at some point in their life. The best thing to do after you have become over qualified is to start your own business in the field that you are over qualified for. With the experience you have in that field, you will have better chance of success. If you don�t want to run a business, try investment. With the money you have earned earlier in your life, you should be able to do some investment. If you have invested in real estate, try to make money from the real estate you own.
One should take responsibility for oneself. The government can only take care of the citizens to certain point. Mothers can only breast feed their babies to certain time, and parents can only take care of their children until they are 18. Parents can not take care of you all your life. So don�t expect the government to take care of you all your life, either.
I am writing this here because a lot of us will have this problem in our life later on.
more...
makeup new dragonfly tattoo tribal
javaconsultant
04-03 01:37 AM
Lets Do it Guys !!!!Now is the time......
NOT KNOW HOW TRUE BELOW IS, BUT POST IT ANYWAY
PLEASE POST BELOW ON EVERY website and different forums within a website (murthy/immigrationportal/etc) YOU VISIT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are trying to conduct a nation wide rally of faxes/mail to be sent to Concerned authorities on April 3rd and April 4th, if your Labor is stuck in any of the BEC please send a
- Mail to below address (so that all mail could reach authorities on same week)
- Fax to below number (so that all faxes could reach authorities on same day)
Dates: April 3rd (preferable) and APRIL 4th (if you forget)
MAKE A CALENDER ENTRY
Please use same subject in all your faxes, no matter how you want to address your content of the letter. Please try to post matter of this posting to all forums you visit.
Subject: Delay in Foreign Labor Certification application approval process at Philadelphia Backlog Processing Center
DOL Contacts
Ms. Elaine L. Chao
Secretary of Labor
(202) 693-6000
Mr. Paul T. Conway
Chief of Staff
(202) 693-6007
Mr. Steven J. Law
Deputy Secretary
(202) 693-6000
Ms. Ruth D. Knouse
Executive Secretariat Director
(202) 693-6100
Ms. Amy Barrera
Director of Advance & Scheduling
(202) 693-6003
Ms. Laura Genero
Associate Deputy Secretary
(202) 693-6000
Address for all the above people
U.S. Department of Labor
Frances Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WE SEND LETTERS ON APRIL 3rd or 4th (NOT BEFORE)
WE FAX LETTERS ON APRIL 3rd or 4th
Below is the sample draft:
-------------------------
Subject: Delay in Foreign Labor Certification Application approval process at Philadelphia Backlog Processing Center
Dear Sir / Madam:
I would like to bring it to your attention the delays in LCA approval process at Philadelphia Backlog Processing Center. I have been waiting for almost 2 years since the commencement of Philadelphia Backlog Processing Center and has not received my approval.
My family and I are suffering constantly due to these delays. Please take necessary measures to speed up the approval process.
I would be highly appreciated if you look into this matter as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
your name
City, State, Zipcode
__________________
ETA Case Number:
YOUR PRIORITY DATE
YOUR STATE
TR/RIR
NOT KNOW HOW TRUE BELOW IS, BUT POST IT ANYWAY
PLEASE POST BELOW ON EVERY website and different forums within a website (murthy/immigrationportal/etc) YOU VISIT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are trying to conduct a nation wide rally of faxes/mail to be sent to Concerned authorities on April 3rd and April 4th, if your Labor is stuck in any of the BEC please send a
- Mail to below address (so that all mail could reach authorities on same week)
- Fax to below number (so that all faxes could reach authorities on same day)
Dates: April 3rd (preferable) and APRIL 4th (if you forget)
MAKE A CALENDER ENTRY
Please use same subject in all your faxes, no matter how you want to address your content of the letter. Please try to post matter of this posting to all forums you visit.
Subject: Delay in Foreign Labor Certification application approval process at Philadelphia Backlog Processing Center
DOL Contacts
Ms. Elaine L. Chao
Secretary of Labor
(202) 693-6000
Mr. Paul T. Conway
Chief of Staff
(202) 693-6007
Mr. Steven J. Law
Deputy Secretary
(202) 693-6000
Ms. Ruth D. Knouse
Executive Secretariat Director
(202) 693-6100
Ms. Amy Barrera
Director of Advance & Scheduling
(202) 693-6003
Ms. Laura Genero
Associate Deputy Secretary
(202) 693-6000
Address for all the above people
U.S. Department of Labor
Frances Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WE SEND LETTERS ON APRIL 3rd or 4th (NOT BEFORE)
WE FAX LETTERS ON APRIL 3rd or 4th
Below is the sample draft:
-------------------------
Subject: Delay in Foreign Labor Certification Application approval process at Philadelphia Backlog Processing Center
Dear Sir / Madam:
I would like to bring it to your attention the delays in LCA approval process at Philadelphia Backlog Processing Center. I have been waiting for almost 2 years since the commencement of Philadelphia Backlog Processing Center and has not received my approval.
My family and I are suffering constantly due to these delays. Please take necessary measures to speed up the approval process.
I would be highly appreciated if you look into this matter as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
your name
City, State, Zipcode
__________________
ETA Case Number:
YOUR PRIORITY DATE
YOUR STATE
TR/RIR
girlfriend dragonfly tattoos
rajuram
01-14 03:47 PM
It is just frustrating to visit these forums and see nothing is happening. We need more members and more money. But if that happens in 10 years, what is the use. Not much anyone can do. Might as well as start packing.
hairstyles dragonfly tattoos
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
needhelp!
03-16 02:50 PM
I got this letter from USCIS last week, but wasn't aware of this action item. I hope it's not too late.
Thnaks!
Please fax/email if any of you get the responses.
Thnaks!
Please fax/email if any of you get the responses.
sammyb
04-20 06:53 AM
any luck with PIMS pre-verification ... please share ...
I got this from different website(not sure if I can quote here).
Before going /planning for a perticular consualte, you can email the consulate with a i797 copy asking them to check if it exists in their system. If it doesn't then they will request concerned athorities to make it available in system so that you won't get stuck with PIMS delay. So far I have heard mexico/canada consualte responding to emails positively.
I will be mailing(canada consulate) them soon. Will keep you updated if i hear anything from them. if it works..its indeed a good options for us.:D
I got this from different website(not sure if I can quote here).
Before going /planning for a perticular consualte, you can email the consulate with a i797 copy asking them to check if it exists in their system. If it doesn't then they will request concerned athorities to make it available in system so that you won't get stuck with PIMS delay. So far I have heard mexico/canada consualte responding to emails positively.
I will be mailing(canada consulate) them soon. Will keep you updated if i hear anything from them. if it works..its indeed a good options for us.:D
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий