GCapplicant
10-12 04:19 PM
I filed on 8th August and havent yet received my notices in mail.. I contacted my lawyer today and he sent copies of my receipts and then he also found out that they had received my FP notice .. I am supposed to go on 27th Oct to Newark USCIS... Anyone coming on same day ..
My application is being processed at Texas..
Not many people who have filed with me has recieved any notices as of yet..
So dont worry guys we all should be fine..
Glad to see a NJ applicant to receive FP.Hope we also receive ours soon.Thanks for the update
My application is being processed at Texas..
Not many people who have filed with me has recieved any notices as of yet..
So dont worry guys we all should be fine..
Glad to see a NJ applicant to receive FP.Hope we also receive ours soon.Thanks for the update
wallpaper pictures of love quotes. sad
bigboy007
12-10 02:51 PM
My Labor approval uses something that starts with 030-16-**** but there is nothing in SOC with 16 are they changed recently? any clue? + what is the issue of 140 porting if we are not informing USCIS about AC21 so how are we porting 140 ? is it automatically?
se_vnt3
02-24 03:41 PM
To whom it may concern, please, help us. Everything we ever learned from the U.S. about truth and justice is suddenly being deprived of any meaning by the U.S. itself. The hardest part for us is believing that everything we�ve based our lives on � the American way, has no merit.
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
2011 So many types of love poems,
carbon
09-19 12:46 PM
Looks like the article is coming straight out of NumberUSA's mouth!
more...
larun
02-04 08:57 AM
Congratulations!!
sri1309
10-19 09:11 PM
immigration related only please.... imagine, I post related to a car, other did for which course is good, which school is good.. Lets stick to immigration issues for now.
more...
gcpool
08-23 12:02 PM
in EB3, EB2 and EB1
2010 wallpapers of love quotes.
franklin
07-13 08:38 PM
how many ppl are gonna be there? It must be very hot wearing a suit.
We don't really know at this point. It could be 150, it could be 1000!
It's pretty exciting!
Based on today's weather in SF, it'll be a scorcher tomorrow in SJ
We don't really know at this point. It could be 150, it could be 1000!
It's pretty exciting!
Based on today's weather in SF, it'll be a scorcher tomorrow in SJ
more...
abe1
12-27 12:07 AM
Hope some of you might have seen the Wall Street Journal story this weekend on visas/Green Cards for owners of start-up businesses. (Foreign Entrepreneurs Eye StartUp Visa Act - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704694004576020001550357580-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwNTEyNDUyWj.html) )
According to the story there is broad consensus for a program to offer green card to foreign nationals who can bring in as low as $100,000 to start a new business in U.S. While this may not be an option for most of the folks in this forum, the premise of the proposed law has something in common with all of us.
The law is proposed by senators John Kerry (D) and Richard Lugar (R) on the principle that immigrants are more willing to be entrepreneurial and hence offering permanent residency to foreigners who will open a small business will increase the employment opportunities in U.S. Endorsing the entrepreneurial mind of new immigrants WSJ sights that; “Immigrants are nearly 30% more likely to start a business than non-immigrants ” and “about a third of Silicon Valley technology firms were started by Indian or Chinese entrepreneurs” . If the proposed bill is attempting to attract skilled and entrepreneurial minded immigrants into U.S. as a means to increase employment why not U.S. look into the pool of highly skilled and eager folks waiting for a green card for many years? Wouldn’t these folks be highly likely to open a new small business than someone from outside of the U.S. with no U.S. business background? If we are to take cues from the one third of the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs wouldn’t a good number of these people waiting for green card open up the starts up businesses that senators Kerry and Lugar are hoping to .
Would it be worth writing on behalf of Immigration Voice to senators Kerry and Lugar to consider the pool of potential entrepreneurs minded people already in U.S. and have been waiting for an opportunity to realize their entrepreneurial dreams? I don’t have the actual numbers. Aren’t there about 30 or 40,000 people who have been in U.S. with an approved immigration petition but waiting for a green card for many years? Could IV put forward a win-win propositions for everyone?
According to the story there is broad consensus for a program to offer green card to foreign nationals who can bring in as low as $100,000 to start a new business in U.S. While this may not be an option for most of the folks in this forum, the premise of the proposed law has something in common with all of us.
The law is proposed by senators John Kerry (D) and Richard Lugar (R) on the principle that immigrants are more willing to be entrepreneurial and hence offering permanent residency to foreigners who will open a small business will increase the employment opportunities in U.S. Endorsing the entrepreneurial mind of new immigrants WSJ sights that; “Immigrants are nearly 30% more likely to start a business than non-immigrants ” and “about a third of Silicon Valley technology firms were started by Indian or Chinese entrepreneurs” . If the proposed bill is attempting to attract skilled and entrepreneurial minded immigrants into U.S. as a means to increase employment why not U.S. look into the pool of highly skilled and eager folks waiting for a green card for many years? Wouldn’t these folks be highly likely to open a new small business than someone from outside of the U.S. with no U.S. business background? If we are to take cues from the one third of the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs wouldn’t a good number of these people waiting for green card open up the starts up businesses that senators Kerry and Lugar are hoping to .
Would it be worth writing on behalf of Immigration Voice to senators Kerry and Lugar to consider the pool of potential entrepreneurs minded people already in U.S. and have been waiting for an opportunity to realize their entrepreneurial dreams? I don’t have the actual numbers. Aren’t there about 30 or 40,000 people who have been in U.S. with an approved immigration petition but waiting for a green card for many years? Could IV put forward a win-win propositions for everyone?
hair Love Quotes , Love Cards
dixie
01-25 04:52 PM
First of all, everyone on this forum knows that Bush was never the obstacle for skilled immigrants - his restrictionist partymen in congress are the problem. So what purpose does this story serve and how in the wide world is this "promising"? We have been hearing such "promising news" for the last year now with nothing actually happening.
TOI makes it sound as if Bush is dispatching Air Force 1 to India for a planeload of skilled desis and will issue them US passports at the port of entry.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bush_wants_more_young_Indian_minds_in_United_State s/articleshow/1461553.cms
This is very promising and can help our IV team to press on for relief provisions for Skilled workers already here.
Good luck to us all.
TOI makes it sound as if Bush is dispatching Air Force 1 to India for a planeload of skilled desis and will issue them US passports at the port of entry.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bush_wants_more_young_Indian_minds_in_United_State s/articleshow/1461553.cms
This is very promising and can help our IV team to press on for relief provisions for Skilled workers already here.
Good luck to us all.
more...
fromnaija
08-04 03:27 PM
She applied for second AP before travelling. My question is does she have to return before first AP expires OR can I mail her the second AP when it gets approved?
The requirement is that AP must be applied and approved before the applicant leaves the US. So in this case it is better your wife comes back on the old AP before it expires.
PS:
Because Form I-131 is used for multiple applications, many people confuse the instruction on the form as it applies to the different application types. For instance while for a reentry permit, the applicant needs not be in the US for its approval; for AP the applicant must not leave the US until the application is approved.
The requirement is that AP must be applied and approved before the applicant leaves the US. So in this case it is better your wife comes back on the old AP before it expires.
PS:
Because Form I-131 is used for multiple applications, many people confuse the instruction on the form as it applies to the different application types. For instance while for a reentry permit, the applicant needs not be in the US for its approval; for AP the applicant must not leave the US until the application is approved.
hot Looking for love quotes,
sanjuatl
09-04 10:40 AM
I think the Medical's are valid for 18 Months and not one year.I checked this out when i took infopass.Correct me if i am wrong .
As I remember, the validity is one year.
As I remember, the validity is one year.
more...
house wallpapers of love quotes.
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.
tattoo Falling Out Of Love quotes,
qvadis
04-02 11:37 PM
I second morpheus suggestion to add more names to the list. Please, don't take any offense but I believe that it would be good to have some diversity.
Some more immigrants:
Andy Bechtolsheim, cofounder Sun,
Safi Qureshey, cofounder of AST
Some more immigrants:
Andy Bechtolsheim, cofounder Sun,
Safi Qureshey, cofounder of AST
more...
pictures wallpaper of love quotes.
cagedcactus
11-11 03:38 PM
In short... this backlog is not going away, until everyone of us participates at state level, and starts making a difference.
We must stand up and fight this unfair system. they are not going to do anything for us, if we just sit on our lazy behinds....
We must stand up and fight this unfair system. they are not going to do anything for us, if we just sit on our lazy behinds....
dresses images of quotes of love. love
Aah_GC
06-20 02:19 PM
The problem is AC21 is speculative rather than definitive. You can give it your own interpretation as USCIS has not come forward with a good distinction between same and similar.
When you are at the fork of the road, the path of least resistance to GC is a sensible one, that is when you don't have the fear of not getting your GC. It is ultimately up to each one of us.
When you are at the fork of the road, the path of least resistance to GC is a sensible one, that is when you don't have the fear of not getting your GC. It is ultimately up to each one of us.
more...
makeup Compare with Love Quotes
rahulpaper
11-12 03:39 PM
Rishikesh,
How long did it take from RFE response to approval?
Thanks in advance
Luckily I had all but the 1st one when I entered in US. Please see the format letter below [please note that I am copying the format from a word doc & may not display correctly
Dear Sir/Madam,
In response to your letter requesting evidence for FORM I-131. Please find below mentioned details.
a. Copies of all I-94 issued- I do not have copy of I-94 that was issued to me on <>Date (my first arrival in US on H1). The original I-94 was returned to airline official at the time of boarding the flight.
The following entries are in TAB format
Date of Entry mm/DD/yyyy
Date of Exit mm/DD/yyyy
I-94 # NA
Copy Avail? N
Remarks Original I-94 was handed over to airlines staff at the time of boarding [Departed by flight xxx ]. To support my claim, please see attached passport copy that shows arrival record in India on <xxx> [pages 3-4]
b. Approval notices for extensions or change of Status- My original H1 [XXXX] expired on [XXX]. An H1 renewal notice was filed on [XXXX] and was approved on [XXX] [WAC-XXX]. I am attaching copies of both the approval notices.
c. Any other Evidence of your lawful immigrations status: I am attaching a copy of approved I-140 [SRC-XXX] and a copy of I-485 filing receipt [WAC-XXXX]
d. Evidence of relationship: I am attaching the following documents
1. Copy of my birth certificate
2. Copy of my marriage certificate
Thanks & Regards,
<Your Name>
Encl:
1. Passport copy pages displaying the visa issued ,date of entries to US on H1 and displaying the date of arrival in India [6 pages]
2. Copies of H1 approval & extension approval notice [2 pages]
3. Copies of I-94�s issued [5 pages]
4. Copy of I-140 approval [1 pages]
5. Copy of I-485 filing receipt [1 pages]
6. Copy of birth certificate [1 page]
7. Copy of marriage certificate [1 page]
Hope this helps
QUOTE=MYGCBY2010;193771]How did you respond to your RFE?.. Did you have copies of all of your I -94 ?.. Please let me know...[/QUOTE]
How long did it take from RFE response to approval?
Thanks in advance
Luckily I had all but the 1st one when I entered in US. Please see the format letter below [please note that I am copying the format from a word doc & may not display correctly
Dear Sir/Madam,
In response to your letter requesting evidence for FORM I-131. Please find below mentioned details.
a. Copies of all I-94 issued- I do not have copy of I-94 that was issued to me on <>Date (my first arrival in US on H1). The original I-94 was returned to airline official at the time of boarding the flight.
The following entries are in TAB format
Date of Entry mm/DD/yyyy
Date of Exit mm/DD/yyyy
I-94 # NA
Copy Avail? N
Remarks Original I-94 was handed over to airlines staff at the time of boarding [Departed by flight xxx ]. To support my claim, please see attached passport copy that shows arrival record in India on <xxx> [pages 3-4]
b. Approval notices for extensions or change of Status- My original H1 [XXXX] expired on [XXX]. An H1 renewal notice was filed on [XXXX] and was approved on [XXX] [WAC-XXX]. I am attaching copies of both the approval notices.
c. Any other Evidence of your lawful immigrations status: I am attaching a copy of approved I-140 [SRC-XXX] and a copy of I-485 filing receipt [WAC-XXXX]
d. Evidence of relationship: I am attaching the following documents
1. Copy of my birth certificate
2. Copy of my marriage certificate
Thanks & Regards,
<Your Name>
Encl:
1. Passport copy pages displaying the visa issued ,date of entries to US on H1 and displaying the date of arrival in India [6 pages]
2. Copies of H1 approval & extension approval notice [2 pages]
3. Copies of I-94�s issued [5 pages]
4. Copy of I-140 approval [1 pages]
5. Copy of I-485 filing receipt [1 pages]
6. Copy of birth certificate [1 page]
7. Copy of marriage certificate [1 page]
Hope this helps
QUOTE=MYGCBY2010;193771]How did you respond to your RFE?.. Did you have copies of all of your I -94 ?.. Please let me know...[/QUOTE]
girlfriend hot love quotes and sayings
kaisersose
04-21 02:09 PM
Hi,
I am working in US on L1 and my company would start my green card filling in next few months.
I also have valid H1B pettion stamped and can switch to H1B which would mean that I can work freely here at US.
But many of my friends told me that green card processing is faster on L1.
I am not able to make decision whether I should continue working on L1 or change my status to H1 to get better hike and more opportunity.
Pls can anyone tell me which would be wise choice. Is green card processing for L1 visa is faster?
Thanks in advance.
~Greeta
H1b does not exactly make one work "freely" in the US. Certainly not, if the employer is processing your GC as you are pretty much stuck with him.
Only L-1A allows faster GC processing as it does not require Labor and PDs are usually current. L-1B has no such short-cuts and is also plagued by the problem that it is valid only for 5 years. So if you cannot get into a 485 stage within those 5 years, then you are in trouble. On the other hand, a H-1b can be extended indefinitely once you cross a certain point in your GC processing.
So evaluate your options.
I am working in US on L1 and my company would start my green card filling in next few months.
I also have valid H1B pettion stamped and can switch to H1B which would mean that I can work freely here at US.
But many of my friends told me that green card processing is faster on L1.
I am not able to make decision whether I should continue working on L1 or change my status to H1 to get better hike and more opportunity.
Pls can anyone tell me which would be wise choice. Is green card processing for L1 visa is faster?
Thanks in advance.
~Greeta
H1b does not exactly make one work "freely" in the US. Certainly not, if the employer is processing your GC as you are pretty much stuck with him.
Only L-1A allows faster GC processing as it does not require Labor and PDs are usually current. L-1B has no such short-cuts and is also plagued by the problem that it is valid only for 5 years. So if you cannot get into a 485 stage within those 5 years, then you are in trouble. On the other hand, a H-1b can be extended indefinitely once you cross a certain point in your GC processing.
So evaluate your options.
hairstyles pics of love quotes. love
kaisersose
05-07 01:27 PM
Also, keep in mind that CIS has said they are coming out with a regulation on AC21 sometime soon. There is no telling how favorable that will be.
jediknight
01-20 11:12 AM
Short pass plays
WEST COAST OFFENSE OVERVIEW (http://www.westcoastoffense.com/overview.htm)
Obama needs to stop Congress from doing the big comprehensive things and focus them on smaller and faster laws that help americans.
The current healthcare, climate change, immigration reform should be broken up in dozens of smaller bills. They will either pass or he can paint the republicans as siding with the Insurance companies to block access to healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions for example.
There are lots of parts in Healthcare, Energy, CIS, etc, that can pass right now and he should take a lead on that. Otherwise the base that voted for him in 2008 is not going to turn up in 2010.
- JZ
WEST COAST OFFENSE OVERVIEW (http://www.westcoastoffense.com/overview.htm)
Obama needs to stop Congress from doing the big comprehensive things and focus them on smaller and faster laws that help americans.
The current healthcare, climate change, immigration reform should be broken up in dozens of smaller bills. They will either pass or he can paint the republicans as siding with the Insurance companies to block access to healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions for example.
There are lots of parts in Healthcare, Energy, CIS, etc, that can pass right now and he should take a lead on that. Otherwise the base that voted for him in 2008 is not going to turn up in 2010.
- JZ
LostInGCProcess
05-19 04:05 PM
You should have reported these issues within 12 months of your employement. Otherwise there is no use. All you can do is send a letter to the Wipro HR, stateing you are filing a formal complaint to the DOL and wirting to the congress man. Also tell them you are going to make sure this story highted everywhere in the Internet and media to damage WIPRO's name. I am sure they do not want to get a bad PR in this situation where everyone hates the Indian companies.
The statue of limitation is, i believe, 2 years.
The statue of limitation is, i believe, 2 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment