gcpool
07-08 09:19 AM
My friends lawyer screwed up the application and it was returned. Later on it was filed and got accepted without their help. Now they are billing him and threatening him. What can he do?
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. cars and ikes wallpapers. hd
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
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. 40 Great Cars HD Wallpapers
neha_garg123
01-07 10:09 PM
I am sorry for "atrocious" english. I guess I am just very nervous. Lemme reprahse:
I never worked on that H1-B application. I just filled the H1-B and left USA (I was working on OPT before that with another company). My biggest mistake in life was filing the H1-B with a shady consultant out of desperation. Good that I never worked with him before leaving states. obviously I got a 221G, but now a big company has recruited me from India. I am again nervous if they can transfer my H1-B(which I never used).
Now do I make some sense?
I never worked on that H1-B application. I just filled the H1-B and left USA (I was working on OPT before that with another company). My biggest mistake in life was filing the H1-B with a shady consultant out of desperation. Good that I never worked with him before leaving states. obviously I got a 221G, but now a big company has recruited me from India. I am again nervous if they can transfer my H1-B(which I never used).
Now do I make some sense?
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. hd wallpapers of cars and
dilber
07-16 06:24 PM
How about setting up a poll to get a rough idea we could create a poll with a salary range and EB level for example 48000~ 59999 EB3 48000~59999 EB2 60000~70000 EB3 60000~70000 EB2 etc. this would give us a rough Idea about Levels and corresponding EB categories. I suggest using numerical ranges Instead of Levels because some people may not know the levels.
This poll can give us some thing like X% of level 3 are EB2 and Y% of Level 2 are EB3 sort of estimates.
This poll can give us some thing like X% of level 3 are EB2 and Y% of Level 2 are EB3 sort of estimates.
more...
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. Cars And Bikes Wallpapers
nixstor
11-14 02:51 PM
Lawyer told me that I cannot contest. They screwed it up some thing
What the hell?? Its your right to know what happened with your case and why it was rejected. Ask them and get more information about where things went wrong. Damn BEC's dont answer on status telling that its freaking lawyers and employers property and here lawyers and employers appear not to tell the beneficiary what happened, even after sucking the crap out of his brain for 4 yrs
What the hell?? Its your right to know what happened with your case and why it was rejected. Ask them and get more information about where things went wrong. Damn BEC's dont answer on status telling that its freaking lawyers and employers property and here lawyers and employers appear not to tell the beneficiary what happened, even after sucking the crap out of his brain for 4 yrs
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. hd wallpapers of cars and
mdforgc
02-21 06:35 PM
EB3 nepa, please do print out these links too and send to Sen Specters office
http://www.flight-capital.com/- David Heenans article
http://www.creativeclass.org/ Dr Richard Florid's site Book"Flight of the creative class"
[1] Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, “Does Immigration Affect Wages? A Look at Occupation-Level Evidence” Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Working Paper No. 2003-2a, August 2003, at http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/wp0302a.pdf.
[2] “America Needs More, Not Fewer, Workers from Overseas,” editorial, The Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2005, at http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/
printThis.html?id=110007166.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm886.cfm#_ftn1- link supporting recapture of visas
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/state/minnesota/13614107.htm- MN Gov Pawlnety's comment on legal immigration
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060208-105741-3392r Intel Chairman calling for more H1Bs and Green cards
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/PolicyBrief13_Jan06_13.pdf report of the migration policy institute, suggesting moving other visa cateogires to skilled EB immigration and removing country quotas.
http://www.flight-capital.com/- David Heenans article
http://www.creativeclass.org/ Dr Richard Florid's site Book"Flight of the creative class"
[1] Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, “Does Immigration Affect Wages? A Look at Occupation-Level Evidence” Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Working Paper No. 2003-2a, August 2003, at http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/wp0302a.pdf.
[2] “America Needs More, Not Fewer, Workers from Overseas,” editorial, The Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2005, at http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/
printThis.html?id=110007166.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm886.cfm#_ftn1- link supporting recapture of visas
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/state/minnesota/13614107.htm- MN Gov Pawlnety's comment on legal immigration
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060208-105741-3392r Intel Chairman calling for more H1Bs and Green cards
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/PolicyBrief13_Jan06_13.pdf report of the migration policy institute, suggesting moving other visa cateogires to skilled EB immigration and removing country quotas.
more...
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. hd wallpapers of cars and
saketkapur
04-21 04:49 PM
Well California is not same....they took 4 months to renew my lisence....and its purely based on the expiry of the H1B I-94 :mad:
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. hd wallpapers of cars and ikes. best wallpapers of cars and; best wallpapers of cars and. Cutwolf. Mar 18, 11:30 AM. Found it:
eb3_nepa
01-08 04:22 PM
How did you guys manage to get H1's so recently from H4?
Is there a way that H4 are exempt from the H1 quota?
Is there a way that H4 are exempt from the H1 quota?
more...
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. quot; Cool Cars and Bikes HD
wandmaker
12-21 11:22 AM
Can she be of any help to IV's Agenda.
Good thought but your IV handle has the answer to your question. BTW, nothing wrong in making an attempt.
Good thought but your IV handle has the answer to your question. BTW, nothing wrong in making an attempt.
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. Wallpapers Cars amp; Bikes
hsm2007
09-20 08:36 PM
Someone please help...I have a limited time to respond to this and would be great to hear from someone who received similar RFE and responded.
more...
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. Hd Wallpapers Of Bikes. Cars
copsmart
06-16 07:23 PM
Thanks for the update! Congrats!
By receipt date do you mean "received date" or "notice date"?
Was there any SLUDs prior to the CPO?
Receipt date 5/13 WAC receipt
Card production ordered : 6/16
By receipt date do you mean "received date" or "notice date"?
Was there any SLUDs prior to the CPO?
Receipt date 5/13 WAC receipt
Card production ordered : 6/16
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. hd wallpapers of cars and ikes. Wallpapers. 35 Wonderful Moto; Wallpapers. 35 Wonderful Moto. caspersoong. May 3, 05:47 AM
smisachu
12-24 11:50 AM
Same situation here. I know about renewing H1 with same company is OK but as you have asked with a different company is a big ?. Hope some one answers.....I have appointment in Kolkota but not sure if I should cancel the appointment or go...
Hi,
I have a question:
- H1-B's I-797 is valid, but visa stamping has expired.
- I use AP document to re-enter.
- I do not use EAD at all
After using AP, can I move to a different company by petitioning for H1-B?
The other question is: Is it worthwhile to go for H1-B stamping when I have an AP?
-----------------
Detailed scenario
-----------------
My only reason for being on H1-B is to have a backup if there is a problem with my I-485 application. I don't want to use EAD, since it will terminate my H1-B status. With the recent retrogression I think its going to be a real long while.
My questions are:
1. If I use the AP (and don't use EAD), I read that I can be on H1-B with the same employer, and get my H1-B renewed with the same company. However, in future can I re-apply for a H1-B through some other company?
2. If I use my AP, I will be on a parolee status (on I-94), so when reapply for H1-B, and I send my I-94 , would my new H1-B be approved? Any such cases? Links, etc. would be helpful
I have a appt. in Chennai in mid january and am wondering if its worthwhile to go there at all. I have seen some messages about delays in visa approvals.
Thanks
Hi,
I have a question:
- H1-B's I-797 is valid, but visa stamping has expired.
- I use AP document to re-enter.
- I do not use EAD at all
After using AP, can I move to a different company by petitioning for H1-B?
The other question is: Is it worthwhile to go for H1-B stamping when I have an AP?
-----------------
Detailed scenario
-----------------
My only reason for being on H1-B is to have a backup if there is a problem with my I-485 application. I don't want to use EAD, since it will terminate my H1-B status. With the recent retrogression I think its going to be a real long while.
My questions are:
1. If I use the AP (and don't use EAD), I read that I can be on H1-B with the same employer, and get my H1-B renewed with the same company. However, in future can I re-apply for a H1-B through some other company?
2. If I use my AP, I will be on a parolee status (on I-94), so when reapply for H1-B, and I send my I-94 , would my new H1-B be approved? Any such cases? Links, etc. would be helpful
I have a appt. in Chennai in mid january and am wondering if its worthwhile to go there at all. I have seen some messages about delays in visa approvals.
Thanks
more...
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. Trek Bike HD wallpaper
Joey Foley
May 18th, 2005, 04:23 PM
Yeah, but if I cleaned the sensor and lenses what else could it be?
Clean the sensor again?
Clean the sensor again?
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. hd wallpapers of cars and
jasmin45
08-08 04:36 PM
Even if you are not working on a project, you are technically working for a H1-B sponsorer. Once you could file your AOS, you are legal with a status of "AOS pending". During 180 days period, you don't have to work and just sit at home. Its very unlikely that your already filed AOS application will get adjudicated within 180 days. Once after 180days of filing, you invoke AC21 and start working on again with any employer.
It sounds a cake walk from your response, What if there is an RFE after 180 days on your sponsor/employer? You missed the point that GC is for future employment with the sponsor. There are certain situations where employee can invoke AC21 and get the protection against employer initiated termination etc. If you do not work for extended period.. no matter whether it is with in 180 or not.. USCIS may anytime during adjudication, question your intention for GC.
It sounds a cake walk from your response, What if there is an RFE after 180 days on your sponsor/employer? You missed the point that GC is for future employment with the sponsor. There are certain situations where employee can invoke AC21 and get the protection against employer initiated termination etc. If you do not work for extended period.. no matter whether it is with in 180 or not.. USCIS may anytime during adjudication, question your intention for GC.
more...
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. Cars And Bikes Wallpapers
raysaikat
08-04 03:22 PM
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
I do not think that this statement is correct since the lady (presumably) never had her own H1-B.
I do not think that this statement is correct since the lady (presumably) never had her own H1-B.
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. More Cars amp; Bikes Wallpapers
innervoice
03-15 01:35 PM
Donated, S-90D44255UL602673B
more...
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. hd wallpapers of cars and
WaitingForMyGC
01-09 02:30 PM
It would definately move..but movement would be backward. :-)
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. More Cars amp; Bikes Wallpapers
ivy55
07-17 09:26 PM
How did you open Expedite SR, I opened SR nearly five times, took two InfoPass, yet not FP ?
hd wallpapers of cars and bikes. hd-cars-on-screen
rraina
05-21 02:56 AM
When your second I-140 under EB2 gets approved do you have to apply for a new I-485 ??
walking_dude
11-25 11:43 PM
Let us not turn it into EB immigrants vs. undocumented fight. They are human beings too, with a dream for better tomorrow just like us.
As long as CIR includes fixes for EB immigration there is no reason to oppose Legalization or the CIR. We the last CIR was opposed by our community not because it had Amnesty, but because it was really bad for EB immigrants due to the short-sightedness or some hard-leftist politicians. If CIR 2007 had pro-EB measures included our community would have supported it CIR or not.
On a personal level, I support legalization as I am opposed to the formation of another underclass. Just like I feel it morally repulsive that Indians, Chinese, legal Mexicans and Phillipinos being denied voting rights for years based on the country of birth, it's equally repulsive that 12 million people will live in this country with no voting rights. (make no istake, most of them aren't going anywhere). It's a mockery of the reason that America broke away from the British Empire - 'No taxation without representation'. (Studies have shown many undocumented immigrants in good paying jobs pay taxes using fake or someone-else's SSN. These taxes add up to millions of dollars every year)
CIR must be defeated. It has no benefits for legal immigrants but only for illegal immigrants. Worksite enforcement must be increased to make it impossible for illegal immigrants to make a living in the USA. If not, USA will become like Mexico and USA will lose it's magnet for attracting the world's best!
The economic basis for CIR is stupid. Illegals can still pay taxes using a TIN number. Most illegals make minimum wage - some might not even fall under the preview of the US tax law.
CIR is only a way for hispanic politicians to gain ground in the US. 90% of US problems are because of illegal immigration. Imagine if we have 15 million illegals legal - now, they are no longer doing jobs tha Americans want to do but they feel (and are probably going get fast track) like they are American citizens and demand non-farm American jobs. The whole cycle is stupid.
As long as CIR includes fixes for EB immigration there is no reason to oppose Legalization or the CIR. We the last CIR was opposed by our community not because it had Amnesty, but because it was really bad for EB immigrants due to the short-sightedness or some hard-leftist politicians. If CIR 2007 had pro-EB measures included our community would have supported it CIR or not.
On a personal level, I support legalization as I am opposed to the formation of another underclass. Just like I feel it morally repulsive that Indians, Chinese, legal Mexicans and Phillipinos being denied voting rights for years based on the country of birth, it's equally repulsive that 12 million people will live in this country with no voting rights. (make no istake, most of them aren't going anywhere). It's a mockery of the reason that America broke away from the British Empire - 'No taxation without representation'. (Studies have shown many undocumented immigrants in good paying jobs pay taxes using fake or someone-else's SSN. These taxes add up to millions of dollars every year)
CIR must be defeated. It has no benefits for legal immigrants but only for illegal immigrants. Worksite enforcement must be increased to make it impossible for illegal immigrants to make a living in the USA. If not, USA will become like Mexico and USA will lose it's magnet for attracting the world's best!
The economic basis for CIR is stupid. Illegals can still pay taxes using a TIN number. Most illegals make minimum wage - some might not even fall under the preview of the US tax law.
CIR is only a way for hispanic politicians to gain ground in the US. 90% of US problems are because of illegal immigration. Imagine if we have 15 million illegals legal - now, they are no longer doing jobs tha Americans want to do but they feel (and are probably going get fast track) like they are American citizens and demand non-farm American jobs. The whole cycle is stupid.
TeddyKoochu
01-24 10:04 AM
Annual Report of the Visa Office for 2010 has been released here...
Report of the Visa Office 2010 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/statistics_5240.html)
Table V Part 2
India Received
EB1 6741
EB2 19961
EB3 3036
Other Info
EB1 received a total of 41026 which means there was no spillover from EB1.
Last year the annual cap was 149200, so EB1's share by 28.8% rule is 42963
EB1 as you say received 41026.
Spillover from EB1 was 42964 - 41026 = 1944 ~ 2K.
This year we are back to the regular cap so the spillover from EB1 last year was on account of FB Spillover being added.
Report of the Visa Office 2010 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/statistics_5240.html)
Table V Part 2
India Received
EB1 6741
EB2 19961
EB3 3036
Other Info
EB1 received a total of 41026 which means there was no spillover from EB1.
Last year the annual cap was 149200, so EB1's share by 28.8% rule is 42963
EB1 as you say received 41026.
Spillover from EB1 was 42964 - 41026 = 1944 ~ 2K.
This year we are back to the regular cap so the spillover from EB1 last year was on account of FB Spillover being added.
No comments:
Post a Comment