bujji_d
10-12 04:33 AM
Dear experts.. Need your advise..
I stayed in US for full 5 years on L1-B. After 5 years period I applied for H1-B and returned to Inida on 1-Jan-07. And I got H1-B in lottery. Below are my queries
1) My I-797 says that its valid for only one year till October 2008. What could be the reason. (Because I stayed 5 years in US? )
2) So is it advisable to go to stamping after 1-Jan-08? Or can I go for stamping now? I don't want to be in a situtation where I'll b given Visa till Jan'08?
3) Now my company wants to apply for L1-A. What happens to my current H1-B if L1 is applied?
Assuming applying L1 is not going to be invalidate my H1 papers,
4) If I go for L1 stamping, will it invalidate my H1-B papers?
5) If I come to US on L1, is it possible to change status to H1?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
I stayed in US for full 5 years on L1-B. After 5 years period I applied for H1-B and returned to Inida on 1-Jan-07. And I got H1-B in lottery. Below are my queries
1) My I-797 says that its valid for only one year till October 2008. What could be the reason. (Because I stayed 5 years in US? )
2) So is it advisable to go to stamping after 1-Jan-08? Or can I go for stamping now? I don't want to be in a situtation where I'll b given Visa till Jan'08?
3) Now my company wants to apply for L1-A. What happens to my current H1-B if L1 is applied?
Assuming applying L1 is not going to be invalidate my H1 papers,
4) If I go for L1 stamping, will it invalidate my H1-B papers?
5) If I come to US on L1, is it possible to change status to H1?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
wallpaper justin ieber funny face.
babu123
08-20 03:14 PM
I got name check information atlast today. Its cleared
Still waiting for GC Approval. God knows when it will get approved.
Labor Priority Date: May 24, 2006
I -140 Approved: Oct 2006
I-485 RD July 2, 2007
I-485 ND Aug 27, 2007 with SRCXXXXXXX
Still waiting for GC Approval. God knows when it will get approved.
Labor Priority Date: May 24, 2006
I -140 Approved: Oct 2006
I-485 RD July 2, 2007
I-485 ND Aug 27, 2007 with SRCXXXXXXX
InTheMoment
06-05 07:55 PM
In such cases, the PO Box owner or auth rep. takes the note that is left in the PO Box and collects the mail piece. This also applies for signature confirmation and other USPS services that requires a signature
The online status of my package on USPS tracking page shows same message as yours. It just struck me that how can a certified mail be delivered to the agency if one is sending it to a PO Box. I mean how can USPS get a delivery signature from a real person if the address is not a physical address, but a PO Box number. Any thoughts?
The online status of my package on USPS tracking page shows same message as yours. It just struck me that how can a certified mail be delivered to the agency if one is sending it to a PO Box. I mean how can USPS get a delivery signature from a real person if the address is not a physical address, but a PO Box number. Any thoughts?
2011 justin ieber funny faces
diptam
09-07 08:14 AM
Which company will create a new PERM and new I-140 for someone in this economy ? The chances of rejection are high , the audit chance is also hanging...
That was exactly my plan 2.5 years ago when i applied for my I-140 and I-485 in 2007 (PD is Mar '05 EB3) however USCIS approved my I-140 in Jan 2009 which was too late. The economy was already in deep recession with unemployment sky rocketing. If my I-140 approval would have come 6 months earlier ( before Lehmann broke) I would have pulled through a new PERM and new I-140.
Anyway , that's what i was destined so I didn't get I-140 in regular time frame. :)
If you can try for it that will make your GC faster.
That was exactly my plan 2.5 years ago when i applied for my I-140 and I-485 in 2007 (PD is Mar '05 EB3) however USCIS approved my I-140 in Jan 2009 which was too late. The economy was already in deep recession with unemployment sky rocketing. If my I-140 approval would have come 6 months earlier ( before Lehmann broke) I would have pulled through a new PERM and new I-140.
Anyway , that's what i was destined so I didn't get I-140 in regular time frame. :)
If you can try for it that will make your GC faster.
more...
neelu
02-09 11:27 PM
Hi
My status has changed recently from H4 to H1. I haven't got my H1 visa stamped in passport. I need to travel to India due to family emergency.
1. Can I get an emergency appointment?
2. Would I have any problem related to transit visa if travelling via Amsterdam or Frankfurt?
3. How long does it take to recieve the passport after stamping?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
TEKNMEK
1. You should be able to get an emergency appointment. Check out the following links:
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/appointments2.html
https://www.vfs-usa.co.in/Home.aspx
2. My mother recently flew via Frankfurt. She did not require a transit VISA.
3. If you get VISA stamped in India, it usually is given to you the same evening (at least in Chennai).
Hope this helps. Wish you good Luck!
My status has changed recently from H4 to H1. I haven't got my H1 visa stamped in passport. I need to travel to India due to family emergency.
1. Can I get an emergency appointment?
2. Would I have any problem related to transit visa if travelling via Amsterdam or Frankfurt?
3. How long does it take to recieve the passport after stamping?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
TEKNMEK
1. You should be able to get an emergency appointment. Check out the following links:
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/appointments2.html
https://www.vfs-usa.co.in/Home.aspx
2. My mother recently flew via Frankfurt. She did not require a transit VISA.
3. If you get VISA stamped in India, it usually is given to you the same evening (at least in Chennai).
Hope this helps. Wish you good Luck!
sujan_vatrapu
10-27 11:17 AM
You probably know what you are getting, but there are others who believe all the lies that FOX spreads - don't always look through the prism of your problems...
At least on the other news outlets, they bring 2 sides of opinions, unlike FOX - which only shows one side of the issues 25% of the time, and the host spews his/her talking points for the rest of the 75% of the show!
Having said that, I would much prefer for the news outlets (ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, NPR ..) to not only give 2 sides of the story, but actually do some investigative journalism and come to conclusions. Ask the tough questions and if all they get is talking points cut them off.........
Again you missed the point, main news media outlets have liberal views on issues, they don't bring conservative view but they say so, i watch CNN, CBS, listen to NPR, I am not saying FOX is the best but they are as good as the rest, agn my point is all the channels have left or right view (NONE have a centrist view), we should not discount FOX because they have conservative views,
in a recent survey more than half surveyed picked FOX as the most trusted new channel, if we think they are fools there is definitely something with us!
At least on the other news outlets, they bring 2 sides of opinions, unlike FOX - which only shows one side of the issues 25% of the time, and the host spews his/her talking points for the rest of the 75% of the show!
Having said that, I would much prefer for the news outlets (ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, NPR ..) to not only give 2 sides of the story, but actually do some investigative journalism and come to conclusions. Ask the tough questions and if all they get is talking points cut them off.........
Again you missed the point, main news media outlets have liberal views on issues, they don't bring conservative view but they say so, i watch CNN, CBS, listen to NPR, I am not saying FOX is the best but they are as good as the rest, agn my point is all the channels have left or right view (NONE have a centrist view), we should not discount FOX because they have conservative views,
in a recent survey more than half surveyed picked FOX as the most trusted new channel, if we think they are fools there is definitely something with us!
more...
HV000
08-10 08:47 PM
Reforms To Visa Programs For Highly Skilled Workers.
IMPROVING EXISTING IMMIGRATION
22. The Administration Will Reform And Expedite Background Checks For Immigration. Current mechanisms for conducting immigration background checks are backed up, slowing processing times and endangering national security. The Administration is investing substantial new funds to address the backlog, and the FBI and USCIS are working together on a variety of projects designed to streamline existing processes so as to reduce waiting times without sacrificing security.
23. The President Is Directing The Department Of Homeland Security And The Social Security Administration To Study The Technical And Recordkeeping Reforms Necessary To Guarantee That Illegal Aliens Do Not Earn Credit In Our Social Security System For Illegal Work. Currently, aliens who make Social Security payments while working here legally can continue to accrue credits even if they overstay their visa. Improved data-sharing can lay the foundation for eventual Congressional action to eliminate this practice (which proved an obstacle to comprehensive reform). The relevant agencies are ordered to report to the President with a detailed plan for eliminating the problem.
The funny thing is ONLY now they are thinking about their JOB RESPONSIBILITIES which is to UPHOLD the Law!! However, they have not specified ANY TIMELINE for REFORM!!
SEPTEMBER Rally would be ideal to raise these issues!
ISSUES THAT WE COULD RAISE DURING THE RALLY
1. Eliminate EB Backlog
2. Processing Timeline for I-485
3. Faster processing of FBI Name Check(Questionable process according to USCIS OMBUDSMAN)
4. Uniform Processing Methodology across all USCIS Service Centers
5. Uniform Level of Customer Service across all USCIS Service Centers
6. Increase Coordination between USCIS and DOS
7. Allocation of ALL VISA Numbers by DOS at the beginning of fiscal year rather than a piece meal allocation during the first 3 quarters.
8. More Transparency and flexibility in invoking AC21
9. Decrease the time to invoke AC21 from 6 months to atleast 3 months
IMPROVING EXISTING IMMIGRATION
22. The Administration Will Reform And Expedite Background Checks For Immigration. Current mechanisms for conducting immigration background checks are backed up, slowing processing times and endangering national security. The Administration is investing substantial new funds to address the backlog, and the FBI and USCIS are working together on a variety of projects designed to streamline existing processes so as to reduce waiting times without sacrificing security.
23. The President Is Directing The Department Of Homeland Security And The Social Security Administration To Study The Technical And Recordkeeping Reforms Necessary To Guarantee That Illegal Aliens Do Not Earn Credit In Our Social Security System For Illegal Work. Currently, aliens who make Social Security payments while working here legally can continue to accrue credits even if they overstay their visa. Improved data-sharing can lay the foundation for eventual Congressional action to eliminate this practice (which proved an obstacle to comprehensive reform). The relevant agencies are ordered to report to the President with a detailed plan for eliminating the problem.
The funny thing is ONLY now they are thinking about their JOB RESPONSIBILITIES which is to UPHOLD the Law!! However, they have not specified ANY TIMELINE for REFORM!!
SEPTEMBER Rally would be ideal to raise these issues!
ISSUES THAT WE COULD RAISE DURING THE RALLY
1. Eliminate EB Backlog
2. Processing Timeline for I-485
3. Faster processing of FBI Name Check(Questionable process according to USCIS OMBUDSMAN)
4. Uniform Processing Methodology across all USCIS Service Centers
5. Uniform Level of Customer Service across all USCIS Service Centers
6. Increase Coordination between USCIS and DOS
7. Allocation of ALL VISA Numbers by DOS at the beginning of fiscal year rather than a piece meal allocation during the first 3 quarters.
8. More Transparency and flexibility in invoking AC21
9. Decrease the time to invoke AC21 from 6 months to atleast 3 months
2010 justin ieber funny faces
pd_recapturing
03-07 08:46 PM
I have a quick question on salary issue with 485. My EB2 I-140 states that my yearly salary 87k per annum. It got approved last year. I realized that my w-2 only reflects 64k for last year. I did not work for 2 months because of some personal reason. Is this less salary going to affect my 485 application? I thougt, GC is for future jobs so its okay. Can somebody please clarify this ?
more...
iqube00
04-24 01:48 PM
my EAD is about to expire on may 6th. I applied for EAD renewal in january , i had around 90 days. My application package along with the cheque came back to me after 1month because I forgot to sign the application form.. Dumb right....
Then i signed my form and send it back to TSC . So i was in a bad situation becuase my employer said if i do not get my EAD card before it expires, they will have to lay me off. So here is what i did , i contacted my local Congressman's office through their website and raised a request to expedite my case and stated if i do not get my EAD i will loose my job.
Surprisingly i got a mail from the congressman office that they are looking into my case and they will take it forward... and after a week i got a mail from USCIS saying my case is approved . So if someone is in my kind of situation its better to go through congressman or senator rather than info pass all that route.. Politics and politicians speak in a different language and so it always wins!!!
You are lucky. My EAD has expired and I sent an expedite request through my local congressman. They denied my request saying that they will not expedite because the 90 day window was not up yet.
Then i signed my form and send it back to TSC . So i was in a bad situation becuase my employer said if i do not get my EAD card before it expires, they will have to lay me off. So here is what i did , i contacted my local Congressman's office through their website and raised a request to expedite my case and stated if i do not get my EAD i will loose my job.
Surprisingly i got a mail from the congressman office that they are looking into my case and they will take it forward... and after a week i got a mail from USCIS saying my case is approved . So if someone is in my kind of situation its better to go through congressman or senator rather than info pass all that route.. Politics and politicians speak in a different language and so it always wins!!!
You are lucky. My EAD has expired and I sent an expedite request through my local congressman. They denied my request saying that they will not expedite because the 90 day window was not up yet.
hair justin ieber funny faces
delax
08-03 09:47 PM
I think thousand is over exagerated. Most people have filled their application at NSC.
I also have a consiparacy theory now. The dates porbably have moved out because of TSC as they did not have enough cases to process.
U may be right. Do you know the NSC, TSC 485 break up. This is the first time I have heard that NSC has way more apps than TSC. Sorry I may be behind the curve on this..........
I also have a consiparacy theory now. The dates porbably have moved out because of TSC as they did not have enough cases to process.
U may be right. Do you know the NSC, TSC 485 break up. This is the first time I have heard that NSC has way more apps than TSC. Sorry I may be behind the curve on this..........
more...
DDash
03-28 03:57 PM
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 will have to go for a stamping soon and this info will help. Thanks! :)
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 will have to go for a stamping soon and this info will help. Thanks! :)
hot Justin Bieber Funny Photos
H4_losing_hope
02-13 04:33 PM
H1B or not to Be is the question ?
join IV for the answers ;)
I like this one!
join IV for the answers ;)
I like this one!
more...
house justin ieber funny faces
amsgc
07-03 08:01 AM
There is no such thing as an H-1B transfer - it is unfortunate that this word is used and it confuses people all the time.
Your company B has filed a new petition on our behalf to employ you with a request for:
- The petition to be not counted in the yearly cap
- Your status be extended till the end date on the new petition
Generally speaking:
Since you have already started working for the new employer, you MUST enter using the H-1B approval notice of the new employer (even if you use the visa stamped through the previous employer).
Regarding Mexico - never been there so I don't know how it works with the I-94.
Mine is not h1 extension but what is called transfer - Company A to company B. Can I not enter using Company A's documents as they did not cancel my h1b and wont cancel it either. Also I will get pay stub from them till jul 15 for work done till jun 20th.
Your company B has filed a new petition on our behalf to employ you with a request for:
- The petition to be not counted in the yearly cap
- Your status be extended till the end date on the new petition
Generally speaking:
Since you have already started working for the new employer, you MUST enter using the H-1B approval notice of the new employer (even if you use the visa stamped through the previous employer).
Regarding Mexico - never been there so I don't know how it works with the I-94.
Mine is not h1 extension but what is called transfer - Company A to company B. Can I not enter using Company A's documents as they did not cancel my h1b and wont cancel it either. Also I will get pay stub from them till jul 15 for work done till jun 20th.
tattoo girlfriend justin ieber funny
Munna Bhai
09-15 11:36 AM
great idea ...
please keep this thread alive... we don't have much way out..we need to do something quickly and I am in favour of this idea..
please keep this thread alive... we don't have much way out..we need to do something quickly and I am in favour of this idea..
more...
pictures JUSTIN BIEBER FUNNY FACE 2011
miththoo
01-10 08:56 PM
>if one enters using AP,then works for his current employer , even then, >he/she has to leave and reenter to get h1 status? or only in case of ac21?
Ok, after using AP there are two ways in order to reinstate H1B status.
1) By applying H1b extension after entering on AP
2) going out of country and entering with valid h1b visa stamp.
This is based on what i read in immigration-law.com and again as per murthy office.
I used AP recently. My H1 is valid till Jun 10 2008. So I am asking my company to file for an extension. My paroled I-94 is valid till Dec24th 2008. My company is saying that they can not file for H1 extension now as my I-94 is valid till Dec 24th 2008. And they can only file for extension 6 month prior to I-94 expiry. But if that's the case then I will not be able to file for H1 extension until Jun24 (i.e. 6 month before I-94 expiry Dec24) and by that time my H1 ll be invalid. I would appreciate if you someone let me know if the H1 extension is possible in my case or not.
Thanks,
Miththoo
Ok, after using AP there are two ways in order to reinstate H1B status.
1) By applying H1b extension after entering on AP
2) going out of country and entering with valid h1b visa stamp.
This is based on what i read in immigration-law.com and again as per murthy office.
I used AP recently. My H1 is valid till Jun 10 2008. So I am asking my company to file for an extension. My paroled I-94 is valid till Dec24th 2008. My company is saying that they can not file for H1 extension now as my I-94 is valid till Dec 24th 2008. And they can only file for extension 6 month prior to I-94 expiry. But if that's the case then I will not be able to file for H1 extension until Jun24 (i.e. 6 month before I-94 expiry Dec24) and by that time my H1 ll be invalid. I would appreciate if you someone let me know if the H1 extension is possible in my case or not.
Thanks,
Miththoo
dresses pictures justin ieber funny
psaxena
02-04 07:24 PM
Hi All,
I have created the evite invitation for the members who would like to attend the Meet & Greet Event. The location is not yet decided but can be decided based on the number of participants.
Please find below the link for the evite.
http://www.evite.com/pages/invite/viewInvite.jsp?inviteId=FCRJTQXZAHRPZTMFUNXT&li=iq&src=email&trk=aei6
Before entering the details please make sure in the "Reply Here" box to click on
"NOT member.iv@gmail.com" and then enter you name and members attending the potluck item you will be bringing. please refer to the comments of the other members attending the event to bring in more variety.
Lets make this event successful. Small steps to our successful future.
All the best.
I have created the evite invitation for the members who would like to attend the Meet & Greet Event. The location is not yet decided but can be decided based on the number of participants.
Please find below the link for the evite.
http://www.evite.com/pages/invite/viewInvite.jsp?inviteId=FCRJTQXZAHRPZTMFUNXT&li=iq&src=email&trk=aei6
Before entering the details please make sure in the "Reply Here" box to click on
"NOT member.iv@gmail.com" and then enter you name and members attending the potluck item you will be bringing. please refer to the comments of the other members attending the event to bring in more variety.
Lets make this event successful. Small steps to our successful future.
All the best.
more...
makeup JUSTIN BIEBER FUNNY FACE 2011
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
girlfriend Justin Bieber Funny Face Full
saimrathi
07-03 09:21 AM
Sorry if you find it offensive, but I dont think its going to prove anything to the USCIS and I am not even sure they will notice it.
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
I hope you get a day off from work for doing that..
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
I hope you get a day off from work for doing that..
hairstyles Bieber#39;s face superimposed
dreamgc_real
12-06 02:06 PM
Dream Act is a moral issue and being fair to the kids who have made this country their own.
Recapture - Legal immigrants who lost visa numbers due to bureaucratic mistakes, should not be punished. Most of the people seeking recapture have followed every law written in the books and this too is a moral issue - to be fair to the people who did everything right.
Granted, both the dream act students and eb immigrants are in the mess, and it needs to be fixed. The only difference is that the Dream kids have been more vocal and active in getting people to back their issue than we have done.
Recapture - Legal immigrants who lost visa numbers due to bureaucratic mistakes, should not be punished. Most of the people seeking recapture have followed every law written in the books and this too is a moral issue - to be fair to the people who did everything right.
Granted, both the dream act students and eb immigrants are in the mess, and it needs to be fixed. The only difference is that the Dream kids have been more vocal and active in getting people to back their issue than we have done.
jthomas
05-06 03:44 PM
This conference is for lawyers and employers and organized by lawyers. The organizers are charging fees for it too.
So what will IV gain by meeting lawyers and paying money to just get in?
Or by showing our face to USCIS official, Do you think by showing your face you will get your greencard and can promote IV? If that is true why don't you go and sit in front of USCIS and show your face to everyone entering that building?
And if you want to go then go. Why do you want IV to pay your $350?
Doing something is always better than doing nothing. If IV members would go for the meeting there are chances that they would meet some people and talk to them. In the next meeting these people would go to the stage and talk about IV. If one does not do anything there is a high chance that one would do anything in future.
Please motivate IV members to do something. It does not matter whether it would bear results or not. After few errors they would be doing better and right things. Lets walk the talk and not talk talk talk.
So what will IV gain by meeting lawyers and paying money to just get in?
Or by showing our face to USCIS official, Do you think by showing your face you will get your greencard and can promote IV? If that is true why don't you go and sit in front of USCIS and show your face to everyone entering that building?
And if you want to go then go. Why do you want IV to pay your $350?
Doing something is always better than doing nothing. If IV members would go for the meeting there are chances that they would meet some people and talk to them. In the next meeting these people would go to the stage and talk about IV. If one does not do anything there is a high chance that one would do anything in future.
Please motivate IV members to do something. It does not matter whether it would bear results or not. After few errors they would be doing better and right things. Lets walk the talk and not talk talk talk.
GCBoy786
09-16 12:09 AM
I don't know what "UNKNOWN" means. My wife is on her F1 (OPT). Same is the case with my friend. Both of our's says unknown.
TUnlimited: is your wife also on F1? I am about to call USCIS customer service on Monday.
Guys, please update if you know any more details about this.
TUnlimited: is your wife also on F1? I am about to call USCIS customer service on Monday.
Guys, please update if you know any more details about this.
No comments:
Post a Comment