loudoggs
07-30 01:14 PM
Congrats!!!
I guess timing really matters......and you were at the right place at the right time....
I have got my case approved as well. I also received my GC cards. Thanks for all the info and Best of Luck,
I guess timing really matters......and you were at the right place at the right time....
I have got my case approved as well. I also received my GC cards. Thanks for all the info and Best of Luck,
wallpaper lego party food
widad2020
07-17 04:58 PM
D. JULY EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
This is what I am seeing in Aug bulletin.Does this mean are July dates current.Pls help
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
This is what I am seeing in Aug bulletin.Does this mean are July dates current.Pls help
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 ??
2011 Kids love#39;em, and it makes it
eb3retro
12-25 01:23 AM
Hi
I am on H1B for past 7 months. My employer had difficulty getting job for me I got job(with 3 layers of companies before the client) after my own efforts(with little help from my company) and my employer cornered me to send an email in which i have agreed that i will get paid only if my employer gets the money from the last layer of the company he is contracting with.
Because of that i am getting paid very late after 100 days, as companies pay late. I have got new job and i am taking it up from Jan. Till now my employer has paid only salary till August only. He has run pay stub still Mid of september(though he has not paid for september). And is refusing to give me pay stubs after that. Also he says, as i am quitting he will pay the salary going forward as bonus without pay stubs in next year 2008 as he will not be able to pay it as my salary as i will not be with them as employee after December.
I have proper timesheets that i had submitted with client to prove my work hours with client.
How do i get my pay stubs and my pay?
Can i take legal action against my employer for not paying me on time and not giving me pay stubs. Will the email i sent have any advantage to him?
Please help
Thanks
MRD
for god sake, let us know the name of the employer. that will save a soul or two. thanks.
I am on H1B for past 7 months. My employer had difficulty getting job for me I got job(with 3 layers of companies before the client) after my own efforts(with little help from my company) and my employer cornered me to send an email in which i have agreed that i will get paid only if my employer gets the money from the last layer of the company he is contracting with.
Because of that i am getting paid very late after 100 days, as companies pay late. I have got new job and i am taking it up from Jan. Till now my employer has paid only salary till August only. He has run pay stub still Mid of september(though he has not paid for september). And is refusing to give me pay stubs after that. Also he says, as i am quitting he will pay the salary going forward as bonus without pay stubs in next year 2008 as he will not be able to pay it as my salary as i will not be with them as employee after December.
I have proper timesheets that i had submitted with client to prove my work hours with client.
How do i get my pay stubs and my pay?
Can i take legal action against my employer for not paying me on time and not giving me pay stubs. Will the email i sent have any advantage to him?
Please help
Thanks
MRD
for god sake, let us know the name of the employer. that will save a soul or two. thanks.
more...
sixburgh
08-13 11:01 AM
Once you are on AOS status you do not need H4. If you have renewed it that's fine it does not matter.
My wife came to us in 2004 and she got her EAD/AP in 2007 and I did not apply H4 for her ever since. We have have gone out of country and come back in on AP.
Exactly.
I should be fine!
I renewed it for the reason that for any reason her 485 gets cancelled, since she will always have an approved H4, she can atleast go to India, get an new H4 stamp and re-enter
Than going out of status completely.
Isnt that a good plan?
But no, someone is scaring me, is all.
I do hope that more experts read this thread and concur with me OR atleast tell me any corrective action.
My wife came to us in 2004 and she got her EAD/AP in 2007 and I did not apply H4 for her ever since. We have have gone out of country and come back in on AP.
Exactly.
I should be fine!
I renewed it for the reason that for any reason her 485 gets cancelled, since she will always have an approved H4, she can atleast go to India, get an new H4 stamp and re-enter
Than going out of status completely.
Isnt that a good plan?
But no, someone is scaring me, is all.
I do hope that more experts read this thread and concur with me OR atleast tell me any corrective action.
Riakapoor
09-16 05:20 PM
here is an article from murthy about unemployment benefits:
MurthyDotCom : Unemployment Benefits and Impact on U.S. Immigration (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_unembe.html)
Thank you!
MurthyDotCom : Unemployment Benefits and Impact on U.S. Immigration (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_unembe.html)
Thank you!
more...
sss2000
10-30 04:16 PM
I want to donate about 6400 miles I have on delta. Does anybody know how can I do that?
2010 kids-irthday-party-lego-
shirish
04-27 09:41 AM
I had received the same story in email about 7 years back.
This looks like a hoax to me. Could you quote a credible news story or a link on a enforcement site where there is any advisory?
This looks like a hoax to me. Could you quote a credible news story or a link on a enforcement site where there is any advisory?
more...
CCC2006
09-26 01:21 PM
Hi All,
My visa will expire (6 yrs completion) in the month of October 2007. What can I do next. Will I get an years extension based on the Green card filing. What is the standard procedure ?
CCC2006
My visa will expire (6 yrs completion) in the month of October 2007. What can I do next. Will I get an years extension based on the Green card filing. What is the standard procedure ?
CCC2006
hair Kids Birthday Party Food
RiaonH4
01-18 11:13 AM
Cool. Thanks for your replies. One more question. Are you guys currently in US and have applied 485. How do i use Canadian citizenship and 485 pending to maximize my opportunities in us and also have Canadian citizenship as a backup?
Ria
:D
King37 sent you a PM
Ria
:D
King37 sent you a PM
more...
h1b_tristate
07-28 08:35 PM
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for your replies. I called a couple of lawyer offices and this is the response i got.
For the candidate to switch jobs here are the rules:
1) The labour in the new company should be filed 365 days BEFORE the end of the second H1B.
AND
2) To keep getting 3 year extentions, your I-140 in the First company should be approved
AND
3) The First company should NOT revoke your existing Green Card application.
Thanks for your replies. I called a couple of lawyer offices and this is the response i got.
For the candidate to switch jobs here are the rules:
1) The labour in the new company should be filed 365 days BEFORE the end of the second H1B.
AND
2) To keep getting 3 year extentions, your I-140 in the First company should be approved
AND
3) The First company should NOT revoke your existing Green Card application.
hot irthday party food for kids.
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDLoj10OKbQS98oZXIhE_hiDkorKkzrK1ZXdDjAbTH5oTaylUuvzhgOe2uD7WivYjcdDSbG4bSUOP1lbKh6fKcoXUAbM3zsJDOO8_8Z-ACBP-0mgTn2ZpCQzkUo3VjFnN4kwCAtFEuhpA/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDLoj10OKbQS98oZXIhE_hiDkorKkzrK1ZXdDjAbTH5oTaylUuvzhgOe2uD7WivYjcdDSbG4bSUOP1lbKh6fKcoXUAbM3zsJDOO8_8Z-ACBP-0mgTn2ZpCQzkUo3VjFnN4kwCAtFEuhpA/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDLoj10OKbQS98oZXIhE_hiDkorKkzrK1ZXdDjAbTH5oTaylUuvzhgOe2uD7WivYjcdDSbG4bSUOP1lbKh6fKcoXUAbM3zsJDOO8_8Z-ACBP-0mgTn2ZpCQzkUo3VjFnN4kwCAtFEuhpA/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDLoj10OKbQS98oZXIhE_hiDkorKkzrK1ZXdDjAbTH5oTaylUuvzhgOe2uD7WivYjcdDSbG4bSUOP1lbKh6fKcoXUAbM3zsJDOO8_8Z-ACBP-0mgTn2ZpCQzkUo3VjFnN4kwCAtFEuhpA/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
more...
house hair tangled party food kids
pappu
05-29 07:28 PM
AVS channel has an indian program every saturday starting 10am -12.00pm
I am sure many indians watch this.There is also 'free' immigration advise by some lawyers at the end of the program.
If some one has contacts at AVS may be IV could get more coverage.
Thinking out loud..
Thanks. could you please get in touch with them and seek their help. If you get a positive response and they are interested, let us know and we will pursue it further. thanks
I am sure many indians watch this.There is also 'free' immigration advise by some lawyers at the end of the program.
If some one has contacts at AVS may be IV could get more coverage.
Thinking out loud..
Thanks. could you please get in touch with them and seek their help. If you get a positive response and they are interested, let us know and we will pursue it further. thanks
tattoo party food for Kids
felix31
02-12 05:41 PM
both H1 and H4 extension are filed together regularly.
However, the need now arises to upgrade both to premium processing.
Attorney claims I can only get H1 under premium and if processing center wants they will process H4 under premium as well.
But I cannot find this memo that speaks of premium processing being available for I-539 applications as well. It happened sometime last year.
Anyway, thanks for all replies. I'll keep digging....
However, the need now arises to upgrade both to premium processing.
Attorney claims I can only get H1 under premium and if processing center wants they will process H4 under premium as well.
But I cannot find this memo that speaks of premium processing being available for I-539 applications as well. It happened sometime last year.
Anyway, thanks for all replies. I'll keep digging....
more...
pictures a child#39;s irthday party,
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
dresses Party food, Duck cake by
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
more...
makeup kids birthday party food
lacrossegc
07-30 03:33 PM
When do you get FP notices?
girlfriend cooking irthday party of
dtekkedil
07-03 11:16 AM
I am sending a flower with a note to LincolN, NE address.
Could anyone give me the complete and correct address?
We should all send individually the flowers.
--sri
The address -
The Honorable Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20529
Could anyone give me the complete and correct address?
We should all send individually the flowers.
--sri
The address -
The Honorable Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20529
hairstyles FOOD FOR KIDS PARTIES AND
GCard_Dream
07-09 06:49 PM
Yes. We both did get the TB test done (test and X-ray) back in 2007. Even though the TB skin test came out negative, doctor didn't wait the test result and ordered the X-ray anyway.
I did take my wife for another medical today. Didn't need any vaccination but just the TB skin test, and blood test for HIV and RPE. The doctor said that the TB test does expire after a year but I am not sure if that's true. By the way, what do you mean by both TB test (skin test and X-ray)? Is X-ray mandatory?
Thanks to all for sharing their experience and knowledge.
1) Did you both get TB tested? The rules have changed. This is the most common cause for an RFE on medical exam.
2) Is she on any medication? Sometimes this requires a certificate from the prescribing physician. No big deal
Overall, there is probably no cause to worry about this. In fact, this could mean you are close to being approved. Same thing happened to me (see my history in my sig line).
I did take my wife for another medical today. Didn't need any vaccination but just the TB skin test, and blood test for HIV and RPE. The doctor said that the TB test does expire after a year but I am not sure if that's true. By the way, what do you mean by both TB test (skin test and X-ray)? Is X-ray mandatory?
Thanks to all for sharing their experience and knowledge.
1) Did you both get TB tested? The rules have changed. This is the most common cause for an RFE on medical exam.
2) Is she on any medication? Sometimes this requires a certificate from the prescribing physician. No big deal
Overall, there is probably no cause to worry about this. In fact, this could mean you are close to being approved. Same thing happened to me (see my history in my sig line).
San_Chez
03-19 01:33 PM
Hello jnrajan and King37:
I am planning to apply to Canadian PR. Can you help me with information?
Many thanks!
I am planning to apply to Canadian PR. Can you help me with information?
Many thanks!
dreamworld
09-12 03:46 PM
Any advise about Unpaid vacation period in usa for h1b's and staying in usa.
What is the legal vacation period in usa for h1b's? And how long it could be!!!
few weeks or few months???
Thanks...
What is the legal vacation period in usa for h1b's? And how long it could be!!!
few weeks or few months???
Thanks...
No comments:
Post a Comment