dkumar341
07-08 09:52 AM
check this out
http://checkeb.com/default.aspx
http://checkeb.com/default.aspx
wallpaper quotes on oys attitude.
americandesi
04-06 01:31 PM
Refer http://www.murthy.com/pr_thngs.html and search for
"It is also important to understand that the green card approval will be reviewed at the time of the naturalization interview. For employment-based cases, this means inquiries into how long the individual worked for the employer after obtaining the green card. If the period is extremely short, there may be questions about the bona fide nature of the green card process."
As suggested by "Optimystic", any time between 6 to 12 months should be ok.
"It is also important to understand that the green card approval will be reviewed at the time of the naturalization interview. For employment-based cases, this means inquiries into how long the individual worked for the employer after obtaining the green card. If the period is extremely short, there may be questions about the bona fide nature of the green card process."
As suggested by "Optimystic", any time between 6 to 12 months should be ok.
frostrated
05-13 12:00 PM
why are you worried about your labor when your status shows that you have filed your 140?
2011 quotes. quotes on attitude
MahaBharatGC
10-23 05:21 PM
Hi,
My mother-in-law is coming to US on 2nd Dec on a one-way ticket, she will be going back around March 09 i.e. in almost 4 months.
As we dont know abt the dates as such of return so we have booked a one-way ticket from India to US.
Will there be any problem due to that at port of entry?
Do she also need to carry travel insurance along with her?
Thanks in advance.
Plz, this is common sense...don't ever buy one-way ticket if you want to be under the radar...
My mother-in-law is coming to US on 2nd Dec on a one-way ticket, she will be going back around March 09 i.e. in almost 4 months.
As we dont know abt the dates as such of return so we have booked a one-way ticket from India to US.
Will there be any problem due to that at port of entry?
Do she also need to carry travel insurance along with her?
Thanks in advance.
Plz, this is common sense...don't ever buy one-way ticket if you want to be under the radar...
more...
dbevis
May 17th, 2005, 06:33 AM
There are several spots in the Indy area where you can get such a perspective. One with easy access is high atop Crown Hill cemetary (i.e., the James Whitcomb Riley hilltop gravesite). Sunrise or sunset would be your best bet unless you hit on a really crystal-clear day with no midday haze. You might find something close to what you are after around 16th and Georgetown road, too ;)
sam_hoosier
03-26 10:18 AM
I am hoping to travel via emirates to bangalore..I have avoided other airlines due to transit visa issues...any experince using Emirates??.
I have traveled on Emirates to Chennai a couple of times but that was via London. Emirates is definitely among the top 5 airlines in the world in terms of customer service. Nice & comfirtable seats, great food, transit at Dubai was a breeze. Would definitely recommend :)
I have traveled on Emirates to Chennai a couple of times but that was via London. Emirates is definitely among the top 5 airlines in the world in terms of customer service. Nice & comfirtable seats, great food, transit at Dubai was a breeze. Would definitely recommend :)
more...
EB3_SEP04
08-22 11:24 AM
I applied on June 12 (paper file) at TSC , Notice date June 18th , RD June 13th and received EAD cards on Aug 18th (CPO mail on Aug 15th).
Hope this info helps.
My RD is 7/2/08, still waiting for approval, not even an LUD after notice date. I see EB2 folks getting renewals within 30 days or so. Isn't this descrimination?
Hope this info helps.
My RD is 7/2/08, still waiting for approval, not even an LUD after notice date. I see EB2 folks getting renewals within 30 days or so. Isn't this descrimination?
2010 Attitude Quotes For Boys.
mallu
03-04 09:31 PM
It's not like he suddenly realized something. The only reason they changed the policy is that they got sued. Period! :mad: They continue the sabotage with processing dates going backward (which is never supposed to happen!), etc, because they feel no threat to their well-being.
Now USCIS has started finding other reasons , so that their processing times can become sane. "Additional Review" , "RFE for documents issued by INS 10 years ago" etc.
And one example : http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1871043&postcount=2902
Now USCIS has started finding other reasons , so that their processing times can become sane. "Additional Review" , "RFE for documents issued by INS 10 years ago" etc.
And one example : http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1871043&postcount=2902
more...
ski_dude12
09-26 12:56 PM
Please update profile before someone can help.
hair Attitude Quotes For Boys. my
WeShallOvercome
07-30 02:17 PM
How does AC21 will come into play when a person files I-485 with the letter from employer that employment will be availabe once green card is issued.
Does person has to join the employer after green card is issued ? As Green card will be availabe only after 180 days of filing.
Gurus, if someone knows such please reply.
Thanks
Saurav
For a future job, you are supposed to work for the sponsoring employer for a few months after you get your GC. Don't have to start right after your approval but as soon as you can... the definition of 'a few months' is also open for interpretations.
Does person has to join the employer after green card is issued ? As Green card will be availabe only after 180 days of filing.
Gurus, if someone knows such please reply.
Thanks
Saurav
For a future job, you are supposed to work for the sponsoring employer for a few months after you get your GC. Don't have to start right after your approval but as soon as you can... the definition of 'a few months' is also open for interpretations.
more...
LOL123
02-13 03:41 PM
Folks,
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
hot quotes on oys attitude. est
qtoask
07-05 11:22 AM
OK.. We have almost 200 Ready to send flowers...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6025
1. The date will be July 10.
2. Color of the flower is white (peace)
Q1. Let us know Where to send....
Q2. Also if you can pen 3 or 4 lines what message to send along with the flowers.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6025
1. The date will be July 10.
2. Color of the flower is white (peace)
Q1. Let us know Where to send....
Q2. Also if you can pen 3 or 4 lines what message to send along with the flowers.
more...
house funny attitude quotes for
pointlesswait
03-28 11:51 AM
how on earth do u expect ppl to knwo how USCIS functions..:eek:
wait and watch!
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
wait and watch!
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
tattoo hot Great Attitude Quotes
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
more...
pictures quotes on attitude for oys.
nousername
03-30 08:08 PM
Congratulations.. Enjoy your freedom.
Yahoooooooooooooo......We (Me and my wife) received welcome notice today . Our 485 is approved on 25 th March.
no updates online just received postal mail from USCIS today .
I guess end of long wait , been in country from 2001 .
I wish you all the best and hang in there if your PD is current you can expect the notice any time so keep checking your postal mail box .
FYI - I dont know if my back ground check is clear or not , I guess it is .
Yahoooooooooooooo......We (Me and my wife) received welcome notice today . Our 485 is approved on 25 th March.
no updates online just received postal mail from USCIS today .
I guess end of long wait , been in country from 2001 .
I wish you all the best and hang in there if your PD is current you can expect the notice any time so keep checking your postal mail box .
FYI - I dont know if my back ground check is clear or not , I guess it is .
dresses attitude quotes for oys.
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 ??
more...
makeup images attitude quotes for oys
chanduv23
10-09 03:15 PM
Fromnaija and ChanduV-
I may be moving to California in early November. So, I am sorry I am not able to offer a leading role in AZ. But, I believe it will greatly help others considering such a role, if you could explain what kind of responsibilities and commitments such a position may entail.
U can definitely lead till then :), I may also be moving out of Tri State - nature of job is like that.
Lets find more people.
We need people to come out of their closets and start getting active
I may be moving to California in early November. So, I am sorry I am not able to offer a leading role in AZ. But, I believe it will greatly help others considering such a role, if you could explain what kind of responsibilities and commitments such a position may entail.
U can definitely lead till then :), I may also be moving out of Tri State - nature of job is like that.
Lets find more people.
We need people to come out of their closets and start getting active
girlfriend quotes for girls quotes for
ca_immigrant
12-19 07:32 PM
This is Pat B 's broken record. He has lost all his credibility during all these years of immigrant bashing. He can write as many of them but other than red necks, no one is impressed. He is 71 years old and in couple years he will be gone. Old age brings some mental issues with it.
...lol......old age brings some mental issues....I like that ;)
take it easy folks....just ignore what Pat B@#$#@% wrote.......
only a jacka** (who probably does not want to work hard) like Pat would be worried about loosing his job to others.....
...lol......old age brings some mental issues....I like that ;)
take it easy folks....just ignore what Pat B@#$#@% wrote.......
only a jacka** (who probably does not want to work hard) like Pat would be worried about loosing his job to others.....
hairstyles quotes on oys attitude
mna123
07-30 05:38 PM
I am stuck out side of US for my name check for last 9 months when I applied for my H-1. I have approved I 140. is there any way I can file my I 1485 and Advance parole or any thing to get back into US.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
amitjoey
08-06 02:01 PM
Honorable Senator Specter
Did you know that during the immigration debates, the most shrill voices against �immigration reform� (legitimizing illegal immigrants) was by legal immigrants who are living here in the US, and waiting for green cards, while their spouses are not allowed to work (half a million at the most recent count). Others who were against the reforms were immigrants who came here legally after waiting years, and are now green card holders. Democrats and liberal Republican senators have shown no empathy for legal immigrants and US citizens in their zeal for legalizing illegal immigrants through "immigration reform". I was not surprised to see just a single statement in your article, at the far end (probably as an afterthought) about green cards for legal skilled immigrants. Over 350,000 legal immigrants (99%) of who have nothing to do with crime are stuck in FBI name checks, and are unable to naturalize. Another 500,000 highly skilled legal immigrants (Doctors, Engineers etc) most of whom studied in the US, are stuck in retrogression (from countries such as India, China, Philippines etc). These legal immigrants are not even on your radar, even as Senators such as yourself, Ms. Diane Feinstein and others loose no opportunity to try to provide amnesty for the 12 million people who crossed over the border with scant regard for US law. You want to reward these people ahead of any �reform� for legal skilled workers. So much for President Bush�s statement about �putting these undocumented workers at the back of the line�. I don't think the American citizens will ever buy this lopsided reform. Genuine Border control is being held up as bait, for legalizing 12 million people. Please attend to border control and solve legacy problems of legal skilled immigrants already in the US, before doing anything on legalizing �undocumented workers�. Why is this so hard for our honorable congressmen and women to understand?
Lastly neither USCIS nor the FBI is able to timely service the legal immigrants already here, how do you propose to process the illegal immigrants without causing huge delays for those who played by the rules?
On the money, perfectly described. good choice of words.
Did you know that during the immigration debates, the most shrill voices against �immigration reform� (legitimizing illegal immigrants) was by legal immigrants who are living here in the US, and waiting for green cards, while their spouses are not allowed to work (half a million at the most recent count). Others who were against the reforms were immigrants who came here legally after waiting years, and are now green card holders. Democrats and liberal Republican senators have shown no empathy for legal immigrants and US citizens in their zeal for legalizing illegal immigrants through "immigration reform". I was not surprised to see just a single statement in your article, at the far end (probably as an afterthought) about green cards for legal skilled immigrants. Over 350,000 legal immigrants (99%) of who have nothing to do with crime are stuck in FBI name checks, and are unable to naturalize. Another 500,000 highly skilled legal immigrants (Doctors, Engineers etc) most of whom studied in the US, are stuck in retrogression (from countries such as India, China, Philippines etc). These legal immigrants are not even on your radar, even as Senators such as yourself, Ms. Diane Feinstein and others loose no opportunity to try to provide amnesty for the 12 million people who crossed over the border with scant regard for US law. You want to reward these people ahead of any �reform� for legal skilled workers. So much for President Bush�s statement about �putting these undocumented workers at the back of the line�. I don't think the American citizens will ever buy this lopsided reform. Genuine Border control is being held up as bait, for legalizing 12 million people. Please attend to border control and solve legacy problems of legal skilled immigrants already in the US, before doing anything on legalizing �undocumented workers�. Why is this so hard for our honorable congressmen and women to understand?
Lastly neither USCIS nor the FBI is able to timely service the legal immigrants already here, how do you propose to process the illegal immigrants without causing huge delays for those who played by the rules?
On the money, perfectly described. good choice of words.
logiclife
04-06 01:28 AM
As of 10:25 PM PST wednesday, here is where the Senate stands:
1. Bill Frist has proposed a 3-tier solution for 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Tier 1:
Illegals who have been here 5+ years can apply for guestworker program and GC(later) without returning home. Plus the usual - fines, back-taxes, english learning, apologizing to Uncle Sam (ok, I made the last one up ;))
Tier 2:
Illegals who have been here between 2-5 years have to go to port-of-entry to get guest-worker visa and then re-enter and eventually apply for GC.
Tier 3:
Illegals who have been here for less than 2 years have to go back to home country and apply for guest-worker visa (Back to the end of the line). In other words, deportation.
Bill Frist worked this compromise arrangement for the undocumented. Main players behind the scenes are supposed to be Chuck Hagel, Mel Martinez, John McCain and Lindsey Graham on this 3-tier approach of compromise bill.
2. Parliamentary Procedures:
Frist:
Bill Frist went to the Senate floor Wednesday night (around 9:30 PM EST) with a parliamentary motion to send the compromise to the Judiciary Committee for ratification, then scheduled a vote for Friday to cut off debate on that motion.
Reid
Harry Reid has filed a motion to invoke cloture, scheduled for 10:30 AM EST on Thursday. If the cloture succeeds then the debate on SJC version of the bill will be over and a final vote will follow. The SJC bill goes pretty much as-is to a final vote where a simple majority(51 votes) will be enough for it to pass the Senate.
3. The analysis:
The whole thing started when Kyl proposed an amendment to exclude illegals who had felonies to gaining permenant residency or citizenship. That would exclude hundred of thousands who had deportation orders pending or who had been deported by again re-entered.
Democrats, afraid that the original intent of SJC version - mainly to bring people out of shadows will fail if republicans keep chipping away at the provisions with amendments like Kyl's amendment.
So Reid, in a high-risk game, filed a motion for cloture. He probably has 38-40 Democrats on his side plus around 18 republicans. However, nothing is guaranteed. Most of media articles say that his motion will fail. In a rare chance that he succeeds, he will have the "Bargaining power" because of 60 senators' support for him and the SJC version and he will have a lot of fun at the expense of Kyl/Cronyn/Sessions etc. This is highly unusual. Cloture is usually filed by the majority party that wants the minority to shut up and force an up-or-down vote. In this case, THE MINORITY leader has filed a motion for cloture. A total reversal of roles.
4. Our Interest
First of all, from view-point of immigration voice, we would ideally want Reid's cloture to fail, Bill Frists' latest compromise to get ratified in SJC, come back to floor for debates and amendments and succeed on Friday. Dems and Republicans "Kiss and make-up" and everyone gets something. Here's why: If the motion of Reid succeeds, the scope of getting it changed for 485 filing and removing hard-cap gets smaller as SJC version will be popular with 60-plus senators and Reid would be unwilling to play with delicate balance. On the other side, if Dems fail, then Frist's bill would be open for debates and amendments, making it possible to get provisions to make OUR lives better.
However, on the flip side, if Reid fails then whatever Frist brings to table will have almost no support of Dems. Then he too risks getting filibustered when HE files for cloture on his 3-tier version. He wont have 60 votes of his own to beat fillibuster because Dems would oppose him for being tough on illegals and Republicans like Cornyn-Kyl-Sessions etc would also oppose him because the 3-tier version would still have traces of Amnesty and its "Loose" on illegals.
5. What's Happening Wednesday night:
Harry Reid has promised he will be up all night in his PJs and review Frist's 3-tier solution. Cookes and milk are on the way from IV to him for some midnight reading. But he makes no promises. Cornyn and Kyl are still unhappy as 3-tier bill still smells of amnesty. McCain is angry at Reid and will support his party's stand and oppose Reid's motion for cloture. (edited)
Harry Reid
http://www.grassrootspa.com/uploaded_images/HarryRedi44333-734905.jpg
Bill Frist
http://skaroff.com/blog/wp-content/photos/images389071_Frist.jpg
1. Bill Frist has proposed a 3-tier solution for 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Tier 1:
Illegals who have been here 5+ years can apply for guestworker program and GC(later) without returning home. Plus the usual - fines, back-taxes, english learning, apologizing to Uncle Sam (ok, I made the last one up ;))
Tier 2:
Illegals who have been here between 2-5 years have to go to port-of-entry to get guest-worker visa and then re-enter and eventually apply for GC.
Tier 3:
Illegals who have been here for less than 2 years have to go back to home country and apply for guest-worker visa (Back to the end of the line). In other words, deportation.
Bill Frist worked this compromise arrangement for the undocumented. Main players behind the scenes are supposed to be Chuck Hagel, Mel Martinez, John McCain and Lindsey Graham on this 3-tier approach of compromise bill.
2. Parliamentary Procedures:
Frist:
Bill Frist went to the Senate floor Wednesday night (around 9:30 PM EST) with a parliamentary motion to send the compromise to the Judiciary Committee for ratification, then scheduled a vote for Friday to cut off debate on that motion.
Reid
Harry Reid has filed a motion to invoke cloture, scheduled for 10:30 AM EST on Thursday. If the cloture succeeds then the debate on SJC version of the bill will be over and a final vote will follow. The SJC bill goes pretty much as-is to a final vote where a simple majority(51 votes) will be enough for it to pass the Senate.
3. The analysis:
The whole thing started when Kyl proposed an amendment to exclude illegals who had felonies to gaining permenant residency or citizenship. That would exclude hundred of thousands who had deportation orders pending or who had been deported by again re-entered.
Democrats, afraid that the original intent of SJC version - mainly to bring people out of shadows will fail if republicans keep chipping away at the provisions with amendments like Kyl's amendment.
So Reid, in a high-risk game, filed a motion for cloture. He probably has 38-40 Democrats on his side plus around 18 republicans. However, nothing is guaranteed. Most of media articles say that his motion will fail. In a rare chance that he succeeds, he will have the "Bargaining power" because of 60 senators' support for him and the SJC version and he will have a lot of fun at the expense of Kyl/Cronyn/Sessions etc. This is highly unusual. Cloture is usually filed by the majority party that wants the minority to shut up and force an up-or-down vote. In this case, THE MINORITY leader has filed a motion for cloture. A total reversal of roles.
4. Our Interest
First of all, from view-point of immigration voice, we would ideally want Reid's cloture to fail, Bill Frists' latest compromise to get ratified in SJC, come back to floor for debates and amendments and succeed on Friday. Dems and Republicans "Kiss and make-up" and everyone gets something. Here's why: If the motion of Reid succeeds, the scope of getting it changed for 485 filing and removing hard-cap gets smaller as SJC version will be popular with 60-plus senators and Reid would be unwilling to play with delicate balance. On the other side, if Dems fail, then Frist's bill would be open for debates and amendments, making it possible to get provisions to make OUR lives better.
However, on the flip side, if Reid fails then whatever Frist brings to table will have almost no support of Dems. Then he too risks getting filibustered when HE files for cloture on his 3-tier version. He wont have 60 votes of his own to beat fillibuster because Dems would oppose him for being tough on illegals and Republicans like Cornyn-Kyl-Sessions etc would also oppose him because the 3-tier version would still have traces of Amnesty and its "Loose" on illegals.
5. What's Happening Wednesday night:
Harry Reid has promised he will be up all night in his PJs and review Frist's 3-tier solution. Cookes and milk are on the way from IV to him for some midnight reading. But he makes no promises. Cornyn and Kyl are still unhappy as 3-tier bill still smells of amnesty. McCain is angry at Reid and will support his party's stand and oppose Reid's motion for cloture. (edited)
Harry Reid
http://www.grassrootspa.com/uploaded_images/HarryRedi44333-734905.jpg
Bill Frist
http://skaroff.com/blog/wp-content/photos/images389071_Frist.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment