FinalGC
04-01 11:16 AM
You are technically getting into the EAD track and not H1 track. There will not be any issues during adjudication, however make sure the new W2 work using EAD is similar to your job profile defined in the LC.
The only problem that may come(worst case scenario) is that if ever there is a mess up by USCIS on your case or your records are incorrect or if your case is rejected.....then you could become illegal, since u r on EAD. However, being in H1 and working for the desi consulting company...would be the safest bet, until you cross the GC bridge
The only problem that may come(worst case scenario) is that if ever there is a mess up by USCIS on your case or your records are incorrect or if your case is rejected.....then you could become illegal, since u r on EAD. However, being in H1 and working for the desi consulting company...would be the safest bet, until you cross the GC bridge
wallpaper Gears of War, Battle Royale,
hydboy77
10-07 06:19 PM
Yes things are really bad. You are lucky that your company is even willing to consider filing eb2 other companies are not even filling willing to file eb3 perm. They dont want to apply any perm at all. On an average DOL is taking 9 months to approve perm, if it eb2 there is a good chace of getting audited and that will takes a couple of years.
As far as I know the business necessity statement is required whenever you apply for a Eb2 requirement (MS or bachelors+5) when according to DOL the job does not require a EB2 (basically the position you are applying for perm does not require EB2 but requires eb3 according to DOL but you are saying this position requires eb2 and not eb3). almost all jobs in IT according to DOL do not fall under EB2 they fall under Eb3, so every eb2 perm has a very good chance of getting audited. This situation has been further worsened by the economy and also the line cutters who try to jump from eb3 to eb2 by reapplying. DOL has caught on to this abuse just like they caught up with the labor sale(labor substitution) and abolished labor substitution. Similarly DOL is cracking down on any eb2 perm especially those who are reapplying. Before someone asks how does dol know you are trying to jump line by reapplying in Eb2, DOL knows because of the following information they ask in ETA form
"1. Are you seeking to utilize the filing date for a previously submitted application for Alien Employemnt Certification (ETA 750)?"
"1-A. If Yes, enter the previous filing date"
"2-A. "Indicate the previous SWA or local offiice case number OR, if not available, specify the state where case was originally filed:"
I would really love to hear comments from ppl who can relate to this possibly with some first-hand experience in going through this stage!
My labor cert was filed just this February (been about 8 months now). The application was put in as EB2 with the minimum requirements being - Masters + 3 yrs, or alternatively, a Bachelors + 5 yrs.
Now the law firm has contacted my manager asking her to prepare a "Business Necessity Statement" for a "POSSIBLE" audit! (note the word "possible", its not really an audit yet). They want my manager to explain why a Masters and 3 years is better than a Bachelors + 5 yrs for this job, and stuff like that.
Preparing a business necessity statement if there was really an audit is understandable, but this request from the law firm makes it look like they're more than certain that there will be an audit on my application. Have things gotten that bad really? Or is our law firm just pre-emptively preparing for the worst? Just to let you know, there are other ppl at my office with my similar job profile, whose labor cert has also been applied for as an EB3 (requiring only a Bachelors and work experience).
How scared should I be realistically about the possibility of an audit? And how realistic is it in this day and age to actually get an approved labor cert after responding to a business necessity audit.
Also, here's an excerpt from the email that the law firm sent to my manager. Can anyone of you suggest what kind of "additional documentation" they are talking about including with all the explanation for business necessity?
"All business necessity arguments must be evidenced via supporting documentation. Please note that the DOL prefers �independent� forms of documentation to statements from or information created by <companyname>. Make sure to be reasonably specific and identify the sources and bases for your assertions in the context of <companyname>'s business. Independent documentation that contains financial justification(s) to substantiate the business necessity argument will be particularly helpful."
As far as I know the business necessity statement is required whenever you apply for a Eb2 requirement (MS or bachelors+5) when according to DOL the job does not require a EB2 (basically the position you are applying for perm does not require EB2 but requires eb3 according to DOL but you are saying this position requires eb2 and not eb3). almost all jobs in IT according to DOL do not fall under EB2 they fall under Eb3, so every eb2 perm has a very good chance of getting audited. This situation has been further worsened by the economy and also the line cutters who try to jump from eb3 to eb2 by reapplying. DOL has caught on to this abuse just like they caught up with the labor sale(labor substitution) and abolished labor substitution. Similarly DOL is cracking down on any eb2 perm especially those who are reapplying. Before someone asks how does dol know you are trying to jump line by reapplying in Eb2, DOL knows because of the following information they ask in ETA form
"1. Are you seeking to utilize the filing date for a previously submitted application for Alien Employemnt Certification (ETA 750)?"
"1-A. If Yes, enter the previous filing date"
"2-A. "Indicate the previous SWA or local offiice case number OR, if not available, specify the state where case was originally filed:"
I would really love to hear comments from ppl who can relate to this possibly with some first-hand experience in going through this stage!
My labor cert was filed just this February (been about 8 months now). The application was put in as EB2 with the minimum requirements being - Masters + 3 yrs, or alternatively, a Bachelors + 5 yrs.
Now the law firm has contacted my manager asking her to prepare a "Business Necessity Statement" for a "POSSIBLE" audit! (note the word "possible", its not really an audit yet). They want my manager to explain why a Masters and 3 years is better than a Bachelors + 5 yrs for this job, and stuff like that.
Preparing a business necessity statement if there was really an audit is understandable, but this request from the law firm makes it look like they're more than certain that there will be an audit on my application. Have things gotten that bad really? Or is our law firm just pre-emptively preparing for the worst? Just to let you know, there are other ppl at my office with my similar job profile, whose labor cert has also been applied for as an EB3 (requiring only a Bachelors and work experience).
How scared should I be realistically about the possibility of an audit? And how realistic is it in this day and age to actually get an approved labor cert after responding to a business necessity audit.
Also, here's an excerpt from the email that the law firm sent to my manager. Can anyone of you suggest what kind of "additional documentation" they are talking about including with all the explanation for business necessity?
"All business necessity arguments must be evidenced via supporting documentation. Please note that the DOL prefers �independent� forms of documentation to statements from or information created by <companyname>. Make sure to be reasonably specific and identify the sources and bases for your assertions in the context of <companyname>'s business. Independent documentation that contains financial justification(s) to substantiate the business necessity argument will be particularly helpful."
hopefulgc
05-12 04:35 PM
while that i true... imagine where we would have been if MLk had decided to sit back..
or talk about another great soul from your motherland
...If Sherpa Tenzing had decided that he is happy climbing a knoll than conquer the heights of everest.... would he be distinguished.
As someone said, We will have to be the change, we wish to see in this world.
or talk about another great soul from your motherland
...If Sherpa Tenzing had decided that he is happy climbing a knoll than conquer the heights of everest.... would he be distinguished.
As someone said, We will have to be the change, we wish to see in this world.
2011 Gears of War Lancer
vinabath
05-15 01:04 PM
What a coincidence.....
1. EB3 I-140 ceritified - Feb2003. - Salary 60K (Soft Developer)
2. EB2 - Labor approved -Oct 2005 Waiting for PD to port - Salary 80k ( IS manager)
I do not know what to do, I am thinking couple of situations.
I. File 485 with EB3.
Advantages:
Low Salary Requirements,
Generic Job Duties,
Easy to use AC21,
Already approved I-140
Disadvantages:
Possible retrogression,
So more wait before realizing the dream of actual freedom.
II. File 485 with EB2 labor (concurrent filing)
Advantages:
Less chance of retrogression.
Quicker path to GC.
Disadvantages:
I-140 denial chances
more money to spend for I-140 and PP
Difficult to use AC21 - difficult to find managerial job with 80K salary in Midwest.
Someone please tell us that we can replace/upgrade the underlying I-140 tagged to 485 application.
1. EB3 I-140 ceritified - Feb2003. - Salary 60K (Soft Developer)
2. EB2 - Labor approved -Oct 2005 Waiting for PD to port - Salary 80k ( IS manager)
I do not know what to do, I am thinking couple of situations.
I. File 485 with EB3.
Advantages:
Low Salary Requirements,
Generic Job Duties,
Easy to use AC21,
Already approved I-140
Disadvantages:
Possible retrogression,
So more wait before realizing the dream of actual freedom.
II. File 485 with EB2 labor (concurrent filing)
Advantages:
Less chance of retrogression.
Quicker path to GC.
Disadvantages:
I-140 denial chances
more money to spend for I-140 and PP
Difficult to use AC21 - difficult to find managerial job with 80K salary in Midwest.
Someone please tell us that we can replace/upgrade the underlying I-140 tagged to 485 application.
more...
jonty_11
07-05 04:41 PM
I have got my canadian PR approval for me and my wife and have sent the passports to the Canadian Consulate in NYC for immigrant visa stamping. To get my PR card I have to land in Canada before Dec 19, 2007 when the visa expires.
I have not traveled outside the US after I got my H1B and am planning to go to Canada for stamping H1B for me H4 for my wife.
Would there be any problem for me to land in Canada since I will not be landing there with the intention to settle but will return after getting my H1B stamped in a couple of days.
Anyone gone through my kind of situation before. Please send me a PM.
I am concerend about being denied entry in Canada and then I will be nowhere because I cannot return to US without a vaid H1B stamp.
there is a Automatic VISA reavalidation Rule that allows u to visit Canada or Mexico and return within30 days only w/o valid US VISA...google it. or search on these forums...
I have not traveled outside the US after I got my H1B and am planning to go to Canada for stamping H1B for me H4 for my wife.
Would there be any problem for me to land in Canada since I will not be landing there with the intention to settle but will return after getting my H1B stamped in a couple of days.
Anyone gone through my kind of situation before. Please send me a PM.
I am concerend about being denied entry in Canada and then I will be nowhere because I cannot return to US without a vaid H1B stamp.
there is a Automatic VISA reavalidation Rule that allows u to visit Canada or Mexico and return within30 days only w/o valid US VISA...google it. or search on these forums...
krishnam70
03-13 08:22 PM
Hey Kris
I really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to Jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
If that is the intent just report with facts to your state DOL and they will take care of the rest
- cheers
kris
I really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to Jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
If that is the intent just report with facts to your state DOL and they will take care of the rest
- cheers
kris
more...
seahawks
06-27 03:02 PM
Check this forum (http://www.baraban.org/go/printthread.php?threadid=15493)
Question:Name misspelled on I-485 NOA
Yesterday we recieved 3 NOAs (for 130, 485, and 131) from USCIS, and unfortunately, most important (I-485) NOA misspelled my last name (while two other NOAs not). Nothing was misspelled on my application - I checked my copy.
On the NOA, USCIS wrote in bold: Please notify us immediately if any of the above is incorrect. Well, my last name is incorrect (twice). Unfortunately, USCIS didn't say how exactly I should notify them immediately.
So, what is the best way to correct this? Infopass? Or any good phone/fax numbers or email? We are in San Francisco.
Thank you.
Answer Yes, you can do it through INFOPASS or you can wait until your fingerprinting appointment which will happen shortly and do it at that time
An attorney has suggested them to take an infopass appt and I suggest you do the same
This is true since you haven't messed up and the USCIS did, in my case, the form that was filed had wrong information. There is no information in USCIS that tells us how we can correct it.
Question:Name misspelled on I-485 NOA
Yesterday we recieved 3 NOAs (for 130, 485, and 131) from USCIS, and unfortunately, most important (I-485) NOA misspelled my last name (while two other NOAs not). Nothing was misspelled on my application - I checked my copy.
On the NOA, USCIS wrote in bold: Please notify us immediately if any of the above is incorrect. Well, my last name is incorrect (twice). Unfortunately, USCIS didn't say how exactly I should notify them immediately.
So, what is the best way to correct this? Infopass? Or any good phone/fax numbers or email? We are in San Francisco.
Thank you.
Answer Yes, you can do it through INFOPASS or you can wait until your fingerprinting appointment which will happen shortly and do it at that time
An attorney has suggested them to take an infopass appt and I suggest you do the same
This is true since you haven't messed up and the USCIS did, in my case, the form that was filed had wrong information. There is no information in USCIS that tells us how we can correct it.
2010 ”Gears
binadh
10-03 01:24 PM
No! not with the fargoman. Mine is a small time law firm based in Arlington VA.
more...
bkarnik
04-20 05:29 PM
I called the CBP office at the nearest international airport and the officer said "As long as they leave the country with in 6 months they are good. I don't have to come to the airport to get it corrected". He did not ask me the I-94 numbers or any thing. He just confirmed they are here on class B2.
So what does the gurus suggest?
When it comes to immigration matters, my mantra is safe than sorry. I would still make the trip to the CBP office and get a date noted on the I-94. This way if you want to extend their stay, etc you will be covered.
So what does the gurus suggest?
When it comes to immigration matters, my mantra is safe than sorry. I would still make the trip to the CBP office and get a date noted on the I-94. This way if you want to extend their stay, etc you will be covered.
hair Gears Of War tattoo#39;s!
jonty_11
05-15 10:27 AM
Good going IV..
Yes I agree being current means NOTHING...if it retrogresses again befor eyo uhave your GC in hand...u will be in a waiting game again like always...so reform is the only solution.
Yes I agree being current means NOTHING...if it retrogresses again befor eyo uhave your GC in hand...u will be in a waiting game again like always...so reform is the only solution.
more...
eb3_nepa
05-14 01:44 PM
Point taken.
I did look under the visa bulletin section of the forums, I did not see anything on pages 1 and 2 so I posted.
But, point taken.
Mocking me so much shows you in bad taste, my friends.
This is the last thing you will see me posting here.
And it is a "her".
You lied! ;). You posted one more time.
Fortunately or unfortunately on this forum, saying this is your last post doesnt make people become nicer to you :)
I did look under the visa bulletin section of the forums, I did not see anything on pages 1 and 2 so I posted.
But, point taken.
Mocking me so much shows you in bad taste, my friends.
This is the last thing you will see me posting here.
And it is a "her".
You lied! ;). You posted one more time.
Fortunately or unfortunately on this forum, saying this is your last post doesnt make people become nicer to you :)
hot have the gears of war logo
immi_seeker
07-12 11:57 PM
Hi,
Just wanted to know about your EAD: Which Center you have applied ? NSC/TSC. What date they have received. My EAD Renewal is pending, and I wish to change job. :confused:
Appreciate your reply. Anyways, You should not be worrying too much on EAD, as your PD is current now, and youshoudlget the Card in coming months. :)
Thanks.
Center is NSC. They recieved the Application on june 19th
Just wanted to know about your EAD: Which Center you have applied ? NSC/TSC. What date they have received. My EAD Renewal is pending, and I wish to change job. :confused:
Appreciate your reply. Anyways, You should not be worrying too much on EAD, as your PD is current now, and youshoudlget the Card in coming months. :)
Thanks.
Center is NSC. They recieved the Application on june 19th
more...
house Gears of War 3
sbmallik
09-03 02:27 PM
Correct! TSC is bend on approving cases with later PDs ... no other logic holds ...
tattoo gears of war 2 wallpaper known
iv_only_hope
02-17 11:00 PM
What abt the other categories which seem to be current 4th 5th religious workers etc. Where will their visas go if they stay current?
more...
pictures war wallpapers. war
sorcerer666
03-31 04:17 PM
Have you ever participated any of the IV's campaign on various issues. Have you ever volunteered your time or donated money.
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell. There is no solution and you people are running to IV only when disastor strikes. But its too late.
If you cannot get the original contract nothing can be done...
So by your logic, if he had contributed to IV his visa would've been issued no questions asked?? And he won't deserve help coz he didnt contribute?? Man I feel sorry for your selfish attitude!!
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell. There is no solution and you people are running to IV only when disastor strikes. But its too late.
If you cannot get the original contract nothing can be done...
So by your logic, if he had contributed to IV his visa would've been issued no questions asked?? And he won't deserve help coz he didnt contribute?? Man I feel sorry for your selfish attitude!!
dresses How to Draw Gears of War Skull
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...
makeup Most of the gears tattoos ive
aph0025
11-12 12:24 PM
it depends on USCIS officer. i had a good lawer when I applied for h1b transfer. i got stuck for one 15 days paycheck. eventually it is cleared after submitting the paper work. having good lawer is not enough. depends on your luck or USCIS officer also
Thanks for your input. So, the pay stub that you submitted, was it from your previous employer, or the one you got your visa transferred to? Hey, if you don't mind, can I have your lawyer�s contact details?
Thanks for your input. So, the pay stub that you submitted, was it from your previous employer, or the one you got your visa transferred to? Hey, if you don't mind, can I have your lawyer�s contact details?
girlfriend used on the Gears of War 2
kshitijnt
07-17 01:00 PM
I am confused with regards to AOS Vs. CP and which one to choose.
My visa status is L1B with Company A and my green card for future employment is with Company B.
Since I am on L1B, should I choose AOS (Adjustment of status) or CP (Counslar processing) for my I485 processing. Which one wld be the best for me, since I may be in India when the dates become current or may be here in the US ? The timing is a big unknown.
IF I choose CP, what are the steps after I140 approval?
How hard is it to switch from AOS to CP or vice- versa?
What are the pros and cons for AOS Vs CP?
I am looking for some guidance from anyone who has gone through this / familiar with this situation. Thanks!
I initially chose CP on my form but now going to file 485. You can switch it either way
Switching from CP to AOS:
Just file 485, nothing else needs to be done. No need (as of now), to wait for I140 approval. If you do not switch to AOS downside is you cant make use of attorney certified I140 and must make appointment through consular process.
Switching from AOS to CP:
I140 must be approved. Then you need to file I824. Once I824 receipt notice is received, you can talk to the consulate and schedule an appointment. No need to go through NVC. However, if you have already filed 485, it will be abandoned, at the least all the money paid for it, you have to pay for visa again & travel cost to your home country.
My visa status is L1B with Company A and my green card for future employment is with Company B.
Since I am on L1B, should I choose AOS (Adjustment of status) or CP (Counslar processing) for my I485 processing. Which one wld be the best for me, since I may be in India when the dates become current or may be here in the US ? The timing is a big unknown.
IF I choose CP, what are the steps after I140 approval?
How hard is it to switch from AOS to CP or vice- versa?
What are the pros and cons for AOS Vs CP?
I am looking for some guidance from anyone who has gone through this / familiar with this situation. Thanks!
I initially chose CP on my form but now going to file 485. You can switch it either way
Switching from CP to AOS:
Just file 485, nothing else needs to be done. No need (as of now), to wait for I140 approval. If you do not switch to AOS downside is you cant make use of attorney certified I140 and must make appointment through consular process.
Switching from AOS to CP:
I140 must be approved. Then you need to file I824. Once I824 receipt notice is received, you can talk to the consulate and schedule an appointment. No need to go through NVC. However, if you have already filed 485, it will be abandoned, at the least all the money paid for it, you have to pay for visa again & travel cost to your home country.
hairstyles go play some Gears of War
kartikiran
11-09 04:07 PM
Hey Krish2005, I see that you have a long wait before getting green card. I am not sure whether killing time by posting these would help you...:rolleyes:
Anyway, to answer your thoughts, it might be informative on a more relevant science based forum than an immigration forum.
Trying to see how it is relevant here?...:confused:
Maybe some of us might be aware on the importance of umbilical chord and cord blood. They are life savers as they contain stem cells which can be used to treat hematopoietic and genetic disorders.
Let me tie this to an important activity that happens in southern part of india (maybe its prevalent too in entire india - not sure though).
Whenever a baby is born, the umbilical chord is cut and a clip is put up in the baby's navel end with the umbilical chord part extending out. In a matter of few days the external portion will heal and fall off.
This is then taken to a goldsmith who in turn stuffs this into a small golden (or silver depending upon one's capacity) and seals them air tight (mind this air tight) using fire. this is then tied along with a thread and is generally worn around the hips of babies.
Maybe our ancestors knew that this part of tissue might help in healing some disorders for the babies. Who knows better than them. Many of us indians would have worn this without much aware of its importance.
Hope that I have submitted a informative post here.
Anyway, to answer your thoughts, it might be informative on a more relevant science based forum than an immigration forum.
Trying to see how it is relevant here?...:confused:
Maybe some of us might be aware on the importance of umbilical chord and cord blood. They are life savers as they contain stem cells which can be used to treat hematopoietic and genetic disorders.
Let me tie this to an important activity that happens in southern part of india (maybe its prevalent too in entire india - not sure though).
Whenever a baby is born, the umbilical chord is cut and a clip is put up in the baby's navel end with the umbilical chord part extending out. In a matter of few days the external portion will heal and fall off.
This is then taken to a goldsmith who in turn stuffs this into a small golden (or silver depending upon one's capacity) and seals them air tight (mind this air tight) using fire. this is then tied along with a thread and is generally worn around the hips of babies.
Maybe our ancestors knew that this part of tissue might help in healing some disorders for the babies. Who knows better than them. Many of us indians would have worn this without much aware of its importance.
Hope that I have submitted a informative post here.
boreal
08-24 06:38 PM
Quick point:
I would request members to please post their threads under the proper forum header. The issue raised by this thread has nothing to do with IV Agenda or Legislative issues.
Thanks,
BKarnik
wow .. 483 posts! Way to go!
I would request members to please post their threads under the proper forum header. The issue raised by this thread has nothing to do with IV Agenda or Legislative issues.
Thanks,
BKarnik
wow .. 483 posts! Way to go!
sammyb
03-24 08:37 PM
just listen to the show - wonderful performance - you were crisp and to the point ... your points on this EB mess and the closing comments were great ... the 2nd caller shows the typical American common man mentality towards EB community ...
Thanks ... wil listen to it from home ...
Thanks ... wil listen to it from home ...
No comments:
Post a Comment