chanduv23
07-02 04:19 PM
Legal fee (Myself and wife) = $1000 + $500 + $100 (expenses) = $1600
Medical = $ 300
Photos + Stationary + Other expenses = $ 200
Total = $2100
Medical = $ 300
Photos + Stationary + Other expenses = $ 200
Total = $2100
wallpaper emo love pictures with quotes.
guy03062
07-27 03:53 PM
why not 1 to Mr. Emilio Gonzales and 1 to Dr. Rice...just to be on safe side...in case none of these centers accepts your application :D
You are not a wellwisher, why did you forget the local service center where sometimes a case gets transferred to.. :D :D :D
You are not a wellwisher, why did you forget the local service center where sometimes a case gets transferred to.. :D :D :D
xbohdpukc
12-03 02:42 PM
I think the most confusion is caused by our willingness to interpret the definition of discrimination too broadly. Let's see what exactly is done here when an employer refuses a visa sponsorship for a prospective employee.
I think no one on this forum will deny that an employment authorization H1b folks possess is limited in nature and valid only as long as the H1b recipient is working for the sponsoring employer. Should such an employee leave his sponsoring employer the employment authorization ceases to exist and a new employer must seek another employment authorization for his newly hired employee, a process commonly known as an H1b visa transfer.
According to the Workplace Fairness website the following stands true:
An employer should not ask about your citizenship status during a job interview. The employer can only notify you as a job applicant that, should a job be offered to you, you will be expected to provide evidence that you are legally entitled to work in the US within the first three days of starting work. The employer should say this to every job candidate, as saying this selectively may be illegal discrimination.
The only valid question during an interview or as a part of a pre-screen process could be "Are you authorized to work for any employer in this country?" This question will NOT constitute any discrimination, as per the law employers have to verify the work authorization status of all new hires by the way of I-9 form filing within 3 day period after employment commencement.
NO H1b person can answer YES to this question, therefore an employer has a right to refuse employment to any such applicant. Employer's willingness to apply for a visa transfer is a pure good will and no employer can be forced to do so under the current law.
As for the insurance, banking, etc., the decision to extend such services is always based on the risk assessment. You might argue that an H1b holder does not represent a greater risk for a US lender (insurer) than an ordinary US citizen. I am sure that all these insurance companies have their own studies somewhere which prove that people with no permanent status in the country represent a greater risk for their business, than those who possess such status. Providing that there are some stories about H1b workers who maxed out their credit lines, abandoned their houses and fled the country after being laid off, I do not think that any court in this country would side with non-immigrants on this matter.
But we can always keep complaining on here how badly treated and unprotected we are.
I think no one on this forum will deny that an employment authorization H1b folks possess is limited in nature and valid only as long as the H1b recipient is working for the sponsoring employer. Should such an employee leave his sponsoring employer the employment authorization ceases to exist and a new employer must seek another employment authorization for his newly hired employee, a process commonly known as an H1b visa transfer.
According to the Workplace Fairness website the following stands true:
An employer should not ask about your citizenship status during a job interview. The employer can only notify you as a job applicant that, should a job be offered to you, you will be expected to provide evidence that you are legally entitled to work in the US within the first three days of starting work. The employer should say this to every job candidate, as saying this selectively may be illegal discrimination.
The only valid question during an interview or as a part of a pre-screen process could be "Are you authorized to work for any employer in this country?" This question will NOT constitute any discrimination, as per the law employers have to verify the work authorization status of all new hires by the way of I-9 form filing within 3 day period after employment commencement.
NO H1b person can answer YES to this question, therefore an employer has a right to refuse employment to any such applicant. Employer's willingness to apply for a visa transfer is a pure good will and no employer can be forced to do so under the current law.
As for the insurance, banking, etc., the decision to extend such services is always based on the risk assessment. You might argue that an H1b holder does not represent a greater risk for a US lender (insurer) than an ordinary US citizen. I am sure that all these insurance companies have their own studies somewhere which prove that people with no permanent status in the country represent a greater risk for their business, than those who possess such status. Providing that there are some stories about H1b workers who maxed out their credit lines, abandoned their houses and fled the country after being laid off, I do not think that any court in this country would side with non-immigrants on this matter.
But we can always keep complaining on here how badly treated and unprotected we are.
2011 emo love quotes tagalog.
vin13
06-24 01:32 PM
Source: Frank Sharry: Memo to the President: Yes, Move Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-sharry/memo-to-the-president-yes_b_220072.html)
On June 25th, President Obama is convening a bi-partisan meeting to discuss the prospects for moving on comprehensive immigration reform later this year. If he asked me about the politics of immigration reform in this economic climate, this is the memo I would send to him:
Mr. President, with so many challenges facing America, is it too much to tackle immigration reform this year?
Reform advocates point to the pledge you made on the campaign trail, to make immigration reform a "top priority in my first year." Yet skeptics argue that the economic crisis makes your campaign promise moot. They believe you should delay immigration legislation and focus on the economy and your other legislative priorities. While addressing immigration may seem to be heaping another issue onto an already-full plate of priorities, there are four compelling reasons for you to move forward with reform this year.
First, the public support for immigration reform is growing stronger notwithstanding the conventional wisdom advanced by the political class. For a big majority of Americans, the failure to address immigration is a symbol of Washington's failure to confront and solve tough problems. Comprehensive immigration reform - the key elements of which require strong enforcement at the borders and in the workplace, coupled with a mechanism for unauthorized immigrants to get legal, learn English and pay taxes - is viewed by the majority of Americans as the most practical approach to addressing this complicated problem.
And in this economic downturn, voters are actually more supportive of immigration reform than at any other time. As pollster Celinda Lake tells it, "voters are very focused on finding solutions to our problems. They support comprehensive immigration reform as a practical, common-sense solution and have no patience for politicians who want to point fingers and score points rather than fix the problem."
The evidence for this point of view is growing. A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 61% support for giving undocumented immigrants the right to live in the U.S. "if they pay a fine and meet other requirements," a 12% increase since 2007. The Pew Research Center recently found that 63% of respondents supported a pathway to citizenship, up 5% from 2007.
In polling conducted in May by Pete Brodnitz of Benenson Strategies for the organization I direct, 64% of voters support comprehensive immigration reform before it is described, and a whopping 86% support comprehensive reform after it is described. In response to a head-to-head question that pits comprehensive reform against the enforcement-only approach favored by most Republicans and some conservative Democrats, comprehensive wins 67% to 31%. Among those voters who describe themselves as undecided for the 2010 Congressional elections, they not only favor comprehensive reform at the same levels as Democratic voters, by a 69% - 28% they want their elected leaders to tackle immigration reform this year.
The second reason you should move forward is that your commitment to move on immigration reform has created enormous expectations in the Latino community. Your campaign promise was a galvanizing factor in motivating Latinos - especially Latino immigrant voters - to turn out in record numbers in 2008 and swing decisively to the Democratic column. These new voters helped flip at least four states that voted for George W. Bush in 2004 to Obama states in 2008 (Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada).
While some like to point out that polls of Hispanics put issues related to the economy as higher on the priority list than immigration reform, the fact is that Immigration reform is a defining issue for Latinos the way civil rights is for many African-American voters, choice is for many female voters, and Israel is for many Jewish voters. For example, in a recent poll of Latino voters conducted by Bendixen and Associates on behalf of America's Voice, 82% called the issue personally important and 87% said they would not consider voting for a Congressional candidate who favors forcing most of those in the U.S. illegally to leave the country. Moreover, expectations are sky-high: three out of four Latino voters expect you to keep your pledge to move on immigration reform in the first year.
The third reason you should move forward is that fixing immigration is a critical component of fixing the economy. Immigration reform will benefit American taxpayers by requiring workers and their employers to get legal and comply with their tax obligations; it will benefit American workers whose wages and working conditions are depressed by unscrupulous employers who exploit unauthorized workers; and it will benefit law-abiding employers currently undercut by bad-actor competitors by significantly reducing the incentive to underpay workers and pay them off the books in order to win business. As for increased revenues, get this: a Congressional Budget Office study of a legalization component included in the 2006 McCain-Kennedy bill projected increased revenues over 10 years totaling $66 billion. Not bad at a time of squeezed budgets.
Finally, the moral stakes are high and getting higher. How we as a nation deal with illegal immigration has become a defining moral issue for our nation. Ultimately, the question we face is this: are we going to allow hardliners who want nothing less than the expulsion of millions of immigrant families already living in our communities to dominate the debate? Or are we going to live up to our tradition as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws and write a new chapter in the American story of how including "them" makes for a stronger "us?"
Immigration reform will not be easy, and yet, this is the kind of big issue that led you to proclaim the fierce urgency of now and run for President.
This is your kind of fight, Mr. President. History is calling.
On June 25th, President Obama is convening a bi-partisan meeting to discuss the prospects for moving on comprehensive immigration reform later this year. If he asked me about the politics of immigration reform in this economic climate, this is the memo I would send to him:
Mr. President, with so many challenges facing America, is it too much to tackle immigration reform this year?
Reform advocates point to the pledge you made on the campaign trail, to make immigration reform a "top priority in my first year." Yet skeptics argue that the economic crisis makes your campaign promise moot. They believe you should delay immigration legislation and focus on the economy and your other legislative priorities. While addressing immigration may seem to be heaping another issue onto an already-full plate of priorities, there are four compelling reasons for you to move forward with reform this year.
First, the public support for immigration reform is growing stronger notwithstanding the conventional wisdom advanced by the political class. For a big majority of Americans, the failure to address immigration is a symbol of Washington's failure to confront and solve tough problems. Comprehensive immigration reform - the key elements of which require strong enforcement at the borders and in the workplace, coupled with a mechanism for unauthorized immigrants to get legal, learn English and pay taxes - is viewed by the majority of Americans as the most practical approach to addressing this complicated problem.
And in this economic downturn, voters are actually more supportive of immigration reform than at any other time. As pollster Celinda Lake tells it, "voters are very focused on finding solutions to our problems. They support comprehensive immigration reform as a practical, common-sense solution and have no patience for politicians who want to point fingers and score points rather than fix the problem."
The evidence for this point of view is growing. A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 61% support for giving undocumented immigrants the right to live in the U.S. "if they pay a fine and meet other requirements," a 12% increase since 2007. The Pew Research Center recently found that 63% of respondents supported a pathway to citizenship, up 5% from 2007.
In polling conducted in May by Pete Brodnitz of Benenson Strategies for the organization I direct, 64% of voters support comprehensive immigration reform before it is described, and a whopping 86% support comprehensive reform after it is described. In response to a head-to-head question that pits comprehensive reform against the enforcement-only approach favored by most Republicans and some conservative Democrats, comprehensive wins 67% to 31%. Among those voters who describe themselves as undecided for the 2010 Congressional elections, they not only favor comprehensive reform at the same levels as Democratic voters, by a 69% - 28% they want their elected leaders to tackle immigration reform this year.
The second reason you should move forward is that your commitment to move on immigration reform has created enormous expectations in the Latino community. Your campaign promise was a galvanizing factor in motivating Latinos - especially Latino immigrant voters - to turn out in record numbers in 2008 and swing decisively to the Democratic column. These new voters helped flip at least four states that voted for George W. Bush in 2004 to Obama states in 2008 (Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada).
While some like to point out that polls of Hispanics put issues related to the economy as higher on the priority list than immigration reform, the fact is that Immigration reform is a defining issue for Latinos the way civil rights is for many African-American voters, choice is for many female voters, and Israel is for many Jewish voters. For example, in a recent poll of Latino voters conducted by Bendixen and Associates on behalf of America's Voice, 82% called the issue personally important and 87% said they would not consider voting for a Congressional candidate who favors forcing most of those in the U.S. illegally to leave the country. Moreover, expectations are sky-high: three out of four Latino voters expect you to keep your pledge to move on immigration reform in the first year.
The third reason you should move forward is that fixing immigration is a critical component of fixing the economy. Immigration reform will benefit American taxpayers by requiring workers and their employers to get legal and comply with their tax obligations; it will benefit American workers whose wages and working conditions are depressed by unscrupulous employers who exploit unauthorized workers; and it will benefit law-abiding employers currently undercut by bad-actor competitors by significantly reducing the incentive to underpay workers and pay them off the books in order to win business. As for increased revenues, get this: a Congressional Budget Office study of a legalization component included in the 2006 McCain-Kennedy bill projected increased revenues over 10 years totaling $66 billion. Not bad at a time of squeezed budgets.
Finally, the moral stakes are high and getting higher. How we as a nation deal with illegal immigration has become a defining moral issue for our nation. Ultimately, the question we face is this: are we going to allow hardliners who want nothing less than the expulsion of millions of immigrant families already living in our communities to dominate the debate? Or are we going to live up to our tradition as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws and write a new chapter in the American story of how including "them" makes for a stronger "us?"
Immigration reform will not be easy, and yet, this is the kind of big issue that led you to proclaim the fierce urgency of now and run for President.
This is your kind of fight, Mr. President. History is calling.
more...
akred
07-14 07:47 PM
Its not only for illegals but its also for kids of legals that aged out due to retrogression or backlogs in visas...plz don't be selfish with view points like "it doesnt help us so im gonna oppose it"....instead help the children who aged out due to the visa backlogs!!! Read what Greg Siskind wrote:
FYI - You can read the bill at http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02075: . Note that it applies to kids who entered illegally and kids who entered legally but became illegal later.
On the 245(i) question, unfortunately I have heard nothing about this being reintroduced any time soon.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | July 14, 2007 at 05:24 AM
Aging out does not mean that you become illegal. I suspect you are from Alipac or NumbersUSA trying to bait IV into supporting something to do with illegal immigration.
FYI - You can read the bill at http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02075: . Note that it applies to kids who entered illegally and kids who entered legally but became illegal later.
On the 245(i) question, unfortunately I have heard nothing about this being reintroduced any time soon.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | July 14, 2007 at 05:24 AM
Aging out does not mean that you become illegal. I suspect you are from Alipac or NumbersUSA trying to bait IV into supporting something to do with illegal immigration.
VSS2007
08-26 12:02 PM
My AP is expiring very soon. I do not have any travel plans to India in 6 months from now. Is it mandatory that I have to renew the AP before the old one expires?
Thanks in advance.
Ram
Thanks in advance.
Ram
more...
coopheal
08-10 11:27 AM
I came here in late 2006 and i have applied for 140 & 485 due to LS.
All i can say for you is angoor khatte hain(grapes are sour for you) since you didnt get it.
This is what happens to jealous people.
Anyways, we have played by the rules.
What do you say about people getting GC by lottery.
Go and blame the govt for the rules not us.
Nobody asked you if you did LC Sub. It was one of you who started this thread.
All i can say for you is angoor khatte hain(grapes are sour for you) since you didnt get it.
This is what happens to jealous people.
Anyways, we have played by the rules.
What do you say about people getting GC by lottery.
Go and blame the govt for the rules not us.
Nobody asked you if you did LC Sub. It was one of you who started this thread.
2010 2010 images Sad Love Quotes,
ssss
11-19 02:23 PM
I filed I-140/1-485 concurrently July 4th. Got my EAD and AP. I-140/1-485 still pending. Is it true that you get FP notice only when your I-140 is approved?
I know lot of people who got FP notices for concurrently filed I-485
I know lot of people who got FP notices for concurrently filed I-485
more...
mbawa2574
07-10 09:13 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fx--jNQYNgA
Let's send as many letters to CNN and get his ass fired.
Let's send as many letters to CNN and get his ass fired.
hair tattoo emo love quotes with
ragz4u
03-16 01:32 PM
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18845
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee finally broached the controversial subject of the undocumented population on day five of the Committee's markup of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, but deferred any votes on the subject until after next week's congressional recess.
Chairman Specter began the day's proceedings by reiterating that it would be a "colossal mistake" for Senate Majority Leader Frist to bring an immigration bill to the Senate floor that had not been completely vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As background, Senator Frist has threatened to bring his enforcement-only legislation directly to the Senate floor unless the Judiciary Committee produces a bill by March 27. Senator Frist could do this using the seldom employed "Rule 14" procedure that permits him to introduce a bill and bypass the committee process so that it goes directly to the Senate calendar. According to Senate sources, Senator Frist's bill would simply take Chairman Specter's proposal and strip out the guestworker plan and the provisions dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens present in the U.S.
Because Senator Frist apparently will not back off of his deadline, Chairman Specter proposed this morning to continue the Committee's work beyond what was to have been the final day of the markup (today). Unfortunately, the Senate is out on recess next week, leaving tomorrow or Monday, March 27, as the only available options for continued work. Most of the Senators present agreed that meeting on March 27 would make sense, with the exception of Senator Cornyn, who disagreed that bringing the Committee's incomplete bill to the floor would be problematic (clearly an attempt on his part to stave off debate in the Committee on what to do with the undocumented population). However, in a clear rebuke to Senator Cornyn, Chairman Specter responded that the Committee would proceed immediately to debate on the controversial issue of a path to citizenship for the undocumented!
Chairman Specter said that he and Senator Kennedy talked at length yesterday about the issue of the undocumented. He reiterated his concerns about the undocumented workers jumping the line in front of those who have followed the legal channels. He's concerned about 25-year backlogs for 4th preference beneficiaries and other long backlogs. However, he noted his willingness to find a way to put the undocumented on a path to citizenship at the end of the line. Chairman Specter also reiterated that he wants a bill to come out of Committee that can pass the floor and be reconciled with the House bill.
Senator Kennedy argued that the McCain/Kennedy bill will not lead to line-jumping, explaining that the bill's formula would clear backlogs and deal with the lines themselves. In addition, he noted his willingness to accept a 2nd degree amendment to ensure that legal permanent residence would not be granted to the undocumented population until both the current employment-based and family-based backlogs had been cleared. "What really is the alternative," he asked? "Mass deportations? Criminalization and a permanent subclass?"
Senator Kennedy continued by talking eloquently about the pure motives of immigrants who have come to this country, both historically and currently, to make a better life for themselves and their families. He said that we should admire the drive of these people. We should not treat them as criminals but should give them an opportunity. We should bring them out of shadows, have them pay a fine, work, and wait their turn. Senator Kennedy also noted that some 60,000 legal permanent residents currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Senator Kyl noted that no one on the Committee supports enforcement only, adding that his and Senator Cornyn's proposal would provide a "work opportunity," not a punishment. He said that the Specter "gold card" would be just like a green card but without the right to citizenship. He also opined that people waiting in the family-based backlog don't have the right to be in the U.S. now, so letting undocumented aliens get in line would harm those individuals who have been waiting patiently. At one point, he allowed that it might be OK to give a path to citizenship to high skilled workers but not to low skilled workers.
Senator Cornyn associated himself with Senator Kyl's remarks. "We can't accept everyone in the world who wants to come here," he said. And while he professed agreement with Senator Kennedy about the beneficial contributions and benevolent motivations of the undocumented population, he couldn't seem to get past the "law breaking" issue. "The American people won't accept a program to deal with the undocumented if we haven't finished the bill's enforcement titles," he argued. He also defended the Cornyn/Kyl "report to deport" proposal, noting that it is neither a ruse nor impractical. He added that the intention of the proposal is not to strand people outside of the country as some have accused.
Senator Durbin weighed in by stating that the immigration system has been broken for a long while. He recounted stories about important individuals he knows whose parents were undocumented aliens. He stood in support of the McCain/Kennedy proposal, calling it "tough but fair," and reiterated that we should not be criminalizing undocumented status, as both the Chairman's Mark and H.R. 4437 would do.
Senator Graham noted that many people, including many on the Republican side of the aisle, don't even want to debate this complex issue. For them, rounding these immigrants up and deporting them is the only answer. "Such a proposal is simply not feasible," Senator Graham added. He also noted that half of his family likely would not be able to meet the requirements of the McCain/Kennedy legislation, thereby buttressing the argument that it is no easy give away. "While there are lots of people on talk radio complaining about the undocumented, these folks are out there working," he said. "This is not a 'get out of jail free' card." In addition to those who would deport the undocumented population, there are others who would put them all in jail, he continued, adding that this also would not work. He warned Chairman Specter and others that they shouldn't be trying to avoid criticism on this issue, because they're all going to get it. He agreed that the undocumented population should be put in line behind all those currently waiting in the backlogs but does not believe it is appropriate to force them to leave the country in order to take part in the program, as this would break up families.
Senator Feinstein argued that the DHS would be incapable of handling such a massive program. She was also concerned with what would happen to those who apply for the program if they are unable to pass the requisite background checks. "Could people with minor misdemeanors get status,?" she asked. She requested a letter from Senator Kennedy's staff on the issue. Senator Feinstein also returned to the issue of DHS's processing capabilities, asking for additional information on the subject before the issue is brought to a vote.
Senator Specter indicated that he intends to work through the undocumented issue by beginning with the McCain/Kennedy bill and the 2nd degree amendment mentioned above by Senator Kennedy. He also indicated that there is a deal on the table between Senators Cornyn and Kennedy on the temporary worker (future flows) program.
Senator Feinstein brought up the subject of agricultural workers and wanted to know why they weren't included as part of the guestworker program. Senator Kennedy responded that the reason is because Senator Craig, the chief sponsor of AgJobs, would offer it as an amendment on the floor. Senator Brownback opined that they needed to have staff work out the details of any agricultural program.
Chairman Specter then noted that staff would be working out various details during next week's recess, confirmed continuation of the markup on March 27th, and gaveled the meeting to a close.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee finally broached the controversial subject of the undocumented population on day five of the Committee's markup of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, but deferred any votes on the subject until after next week's congressional recess.
Chairman Specter began the day's proceedings by reiterating that it would be a "colossal mistake" for Senate Majority Leader Frist to bring an immigration bill to the Senate floor that had not been completely vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As background, Senator Frist has threatened to bring his enforcement-only legislation directly to the Senate floor unless the Judiciary Committee produces a bill by March 27. Senator Frist could do this using the seldom employed "Rule 14" procedure that permits him to introduce a bill and bypass the committee process so that it goes directly to the Senate calendar. According to Senate sources, Senator Frist's bill would simply take Chairman Specter's proposal and strip out the guestworker plan and the provisions dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens present in the U.S.
Because Senator Frist apparently will not back off of his deadline, Chairman Specter proposed this morning to continue the Committee's work beyond what was to have been the final day of the markup (today). Unfortunately, the Senate is out on recess next week, leaving tomorrow or Monday, March 27, as the only available options for continued work. Most of the Senators present agreed that meeting on March 27 would make sense, with the exception of Senator Cornyn, who disagreed that bringing the Committee's incomplete bill to the floor would be problematic (clearly an attempt on his part to stave off debate in the Committee on what to do with the undocumented population). However, in a clear rebuke to Senator Cornyn, Chairman Specter responded that the Committee would proceed immediately to debate on the controversial issue of a path to citizenship for the undocumented!
Chairman Specter said that he and Senator Kennedy talked at length yesterday about the issue of the undocumented. He reiterated his concerns about the undocumented workers jumping the line in front of those who have followed the legal channels. He's concerned about 25-year backlogs for 4th preference beneficiaries and other long backlogs. However, he noted his willingness to find a way to put the undocumented on a path to citizenship at the end of the line. Chairman Specter also reiterated that he wants a bill to come out of Committee that can pass the floor and be reconciled with the House bill.
Senator Kennedy argued that the McCain/Kennedy bill will not lead to line-jumping, explaining that the bill's formula would clear backlogs and deal with the lines themselves. In addition, he noted his willingness to accept a 2nd degree amendment to ensure that legal permanent residence would not be granted to the undocumented population until both the current employment-based and family-based backlogs had been cleared. "What really is the alternative," he asked? "Mass deportations? Criminalization and a permanent subclass?"
Senator Kennedy continued by talking eloquently about the pure motives of immigrants who have come to this country, both historically and currently, to make a better life for themselves and their families. He said that we should admire the drive of these people. We should not treat them as criminals but should give them an opportunity. We should bring them out of shadows, have them pay a fine, work, and wait their turn. Senator Kennedy also noted that some 60,000 legal permanent residents currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Senator Kyl noted that no one on the Committee supports enforcement only, adding that his and Senator Cornyn's proposal would provide a "work opportunity," not a punishment. He said that the Specter "gold card" would be just like a green card but without the right to citizenship. He also opined that people waiting in the family-based backlog don't have the right to be in the U.S. now, so letting undocumented aliens get in line would harm those individuals who have been waiting patiently. At one point, he allowed that it might be OK to give a path to citizenship to high skilled workers but not to low skilled workers.
Senator Cornyn associated himself with Senator Kyl's remarks. "We can't accept everyone in the world who wants to come here," he said. And while he professed agreement with Senator Kennedy about the beneficial contributions and benevolent motivations of the undocumented population, he couldn't seem to get past the "law breaking" issue. "The American people won't accept a program to deal with the undocumented if we haven't finished the bill's enforcement titles," he argued. He also defended the Cornyn/Kyl "report to deport" proposal, noting that it is neither a ruse nor impractical. He added that the intention of the proposal is not to strand people outside of the country as some have accused.
Senator Durbin weighed in by stating that the immigration system has been broken for a long while. He recounted stories about important individuals he knows whose parents were undocumented aliens. He stood in support of the McCain/Kennedy proposal, calling it "tough but fair," and reiterated that we should not be criminalizing undocumented status, as both the Chairman's Mark and H.R. 4437 would do.
Senator Graham noted that many people, including many on the Republican side of the aisle, don't even want to debate this complex issue. For them, rounding these immigrants up and deporting them is the only answer. "Such a proposal is simply not feasible," Senator Graham added. He also noted that half of his family likely would not be able to meet the requirements of the McCain/Kennedy legislation, thereby buttressing the argument that it is no easy give away. "While there are lots of people on talk radio complaining about the undocumented, these folks are out there working," he said. "This is not a 'get out of jail free' card." In addition to those who would deport the undocumented population, there are others who would put them all in jail, he continued, adding that this also would not work. He warned Chairman Specter and others that they shouldn't be trying to avoid criticism on this issue, because they're all going to get it. He agreed that the undocumented population should be put in line behind all those currently waiting in the backlogs but does not believe it is appropriate to force them to leave the country in order to take part in the program, as this would break up families.
Senator Feinstein argued that the DHS would be incapable of handling such a massive program. She was also concerned with what would happen to those who apply for the program if they are unable to pass the requisite background checks. "Could people with minor misdemeanors get status,?" she asked. She requested a letter from Senator Kennedy's staff on the issue. Senator Feinstein also returned to the issue of DHS's processing capabilities, asking for additional information on the subject before the issue is brought to a vote.
Senator Specter indicated that he intends to work through the undocumented issue by beginning with the McCain/Kennedy bill and the 2nd degree amendment mentioned above by Senator Kennedy. He also indicated that there is a deal on the table between Senators Cornyn and Kennedy on the temporary worker (future flows) program.
Senator Feinstein brought up the subject of agricultural workers and wanted to know why they weren't included as part of the guestworker program. Senator Kennedy responded that the reason is because Senator Craig, the chief sponsor of AgJobs, would offer it as an amendment on the floor. Senator Brownback opined that they needed to have staff work out the details of any agricultural program.
Chairman Specter then noted that staff would be working out various details during next week's recess, confirmed continuation of the markup on March 27th, and gaveled the meeting to a close.
more...
Macaca
09-01 10:17 PM
Based on this, GC holders with 40 work credits (that is, 10 years of US work experience) and reside in any of the 50 US states are eligible for SS, if they satisfy age and other requirements.
It is possible that the the articles I read assumed that it will take 10 years to get citizenship. I have read this remark more then once.
I will not be able locate the articles but keep in mind in the following articles. I have put a question mark on my original post.
It is possible that the the articles I read assumed that it will take 10 years to get citizenship. I have read this remark more then once.
I will not be able locate the articles but keep in mind in the following articles. I have put a question mark on my original post.
hot emo love quotes english
nolud
02-11 04:08 PM
I received a letter from uscis/DHS on Jan 28.
It was in response to my request about my wifes I-485 being in namecheck for a long time.
The response stated:
"The review of our records indicate that the investigation into your background has been completed. The processing of your case has been delayed because the requirement review is still in process."
Does this mean that the namecheck has been completed?
What is "requirement review"?
Did anyone else get this type of letter?
Wifes Case dates:
PD - Jul 2003
Interview Date - Jan 4 2006
Type - Family based ( on marriage )
Info Pass - Sep 2007
Last FP - Oct 2007
LUD - 10/2007 ( probably because of FP )
Current Status:
On October 7, 2003, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Note: If this is the wrong forum/area, please advise where is this question best suited for...
Thanks to ALL
It was in response to my request about my wifes I-485 being in namecheck for a long time.
The response stated:
"The review of our records indicate that the investigation into your background has been completed. The processing of your case has been delayed because the requirement review is still in process."
Does this mean that the namecheck has been completed?
What is "requirement review"?
Did anyone else get this type of letter?
Wifes Case dates:
PD - Jul 2003
Interview Date - Jan 4 2006
Type - Family based ( on marriage )
Info Pass - Sep 2007
Last FP - Oct 2007
LUD - 10/2007 ( probably because of FP )
Current Status:
On October 7, 2003, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Note: If this is the wrong forum/area, please advise where is this question best suited for...
Thanks to ALL
more...
house emo love quotes english
mbawa2574
07-10 09:13 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fx--jNQYNgA
Let's send as many letters to CNN and get his ass fired.
Let's send as many letters to CNN and get his ass fired.
tattoo emo love quotes sayings
knacath
08-20 02:15 PM
Expedite request approved yesterday. Hopeful.....
more...
pictures emo quotes and sayings about
user1205
02-20 05:27 PM
I have the same feeling. With the move to Jan 2005 and the new rule about namechecks I think the numbers will get used fast for ROW.
The only people that will not be able to take advantage of this are the ones with old PDs from BEC that filed 485 and 140 in the June-August madness and are waiting for the 140 to be approved.
I presume that ROW would be significantly impacted by this as India & China would not benefit a lot from it now because of PDs being badly retrogressed. I'm afraid that this has the potential of exhausting EB3-ROW row numbers for the rest of the year. Am I wrong to assume this?
The only people that will not be able to take advantage of this are the ones with old PDs from BEC that filed 485 and 140 in the June-August madness and are waiting for the 140 to be approved.
I presume that ROW would be significantly impacted by this as India & China would not benefit a lot from it now because of PDs being badly retrogressed. I'm afraid that this has the potential of exhausting EB3-ROW row numbers for the rest of the year. Am I wrong to assume this?
dresses cute emo quotes about love.
thomachan72
05-20 01:52 PM
I dont know about other members but it is hard for me to blv that IIT's and IIM's will come to US for a masters degree coz they could not find a job in India or they could not get an admit in a master's program.
If that was the case people would have stopped going got IIT's/IIM's. Why will someone work so hard to get to the top most program - to not get a job and then pursue MS from US OF A????
I think the IIT's/IIM's come here they MOSTLY (not all) come here for a purpose....research/money/better life/whatevet.....
Any IITians or IIM's who are member care to throw some light. I personally know 2 IIT's and 1 IIM who are in US for good and would check with them.....
Let me put it in an other way..
If you graduated from an IIT or IIM the chance that you are here in the US is 5-10%. Or in other words, 95% of those currently doing masters / PhDs in the US wouldn't be here if they were capable of securing admissions into an IIT / IIM.
If that was the case people would have stopped going got IIT's/IIM's. Why will someone work so hard to get to the top most program - to not get a job and then pursue MS from US OF A????
I think the IIT's/IIM's come here they MOSTLY (not all) come here for a purpose....research/money/better life/whatevet.....
Any IITians or IIM's who are member care to throw some light. I personally know 2 IIT's and 1 IIM who are in US for good and would check with them.....
Let me put it in an other way..
If you graduated from an IIT or IIM the chance that you are here in the US is 5-10%. Or in other words, 95% of those currently doing masters / PhDs in the US wouldn't be here if they were capable of securing admissions into an IIT / IIM.
more...
makeup emo love quotes with pictures.
go_guy123
05-15 12:47 AM
How many ever bills get introduced or hearings happen, there is the CHC which is blocking everything. Lets start a email/fax/phone campaign...
Democratic party has become a party for illegal amnesty
Democratic party has become a party for illegal amnesty
girlfriend emo love quotes pictures. love
webm
10-30 03:01 PM
PD: EB3 ROW, Apr 2004, Current now
I-140 :Approved on Mar 2006
Invoked AC21 on September and sent all necessary docs. No LUDs then.
I think ex-employer have revoked I-140 already but not sure (He threaten me in 2007 that he will do so in I invoke AC21).
Now check this out:
Soft LUD on I-140 on 10/15/2008.
Soft LUD on I-485 on 10/24/2008.
Soft LUD on my spouse's I-485 on 10/27/2008.
Soft LUD on I-485 on 10/29/2008.
Soft LUD on I-140 on 10/30/2008.
Soft LUD on I-485 on 10/30/2008.
I am clueless! Somebody please help me! :confused:
good luck for you!...looks there might be some activity going on with your case or it could be a just routine update..we never know..keep hope.. :)
I-140 :Approved on Mar 2006
Invoked AC21 on September and sent all necessary docs. No LUDs then.
I think ex-employer have revoked I-140 already but not sure (He threaten me in 2007 that he will do so in I invoke AC21).
Now check this out:
Soft LUD on I-140 on 10/15/2008.
Soft LUD on I-485 on 10/24/2008.
Soft LUD on my spouse's I-485 on 10/27/2008.
Soft LUD on I-485 on 10/29/2008.
Soft LUD on I-140 on 10/30/2008.
Soft LUD on I-485 on 10/30/2008.
I am clueless! Somebody please help me! :confused:
good luck for you!...looks there might be some activity going on with your case or it could be a just routine update..we never know..keep hope.. :)
hairstyles emo love pictures with quotes.
widad2020
06-12 09:28 PM
This report is just released: Very interesting comments
The U.S. retains its global pre-eminence in science and technology,with a big boost from foreign students,scientists and engineers, a RandCorp. report said.
U.S. Still Leads the World in Science and Technology; Nation Benefits From Foreign Scientists, Engineers
Despite perceptions that the nation is losing its competitive edge, the United States remains the dominant leader in science and technology worldwide, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.
The United States accounts for 40 percent of the total world�s spending on scientific research and development, employs 70 percent of the world�s Nobel Prize winners and is home to three-quarters of the world�s top 40 universities.
An inflow of foreign students in the sciences -- as well as scientists and engineers from overseas -- has helped the United States build and maintain its worldwide lead, even as many other nations increase their spending on research and development. Continuing this flow of foreign-born talent is critical to helping the United States maintain its lead, according to the study.
�Much of the concern about the United States losing its edge as the world�s leader in science and technology appears to be unfounded,� said Titus Galama, co-author of the report and a management scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. �But the United States cannot afford to be complacent. Effort is needed to make sure the nation maintains or even extends its standing.�
U.S. investments in research and development have not lagged in recent years, but instead have grown at rates similar to what has occurred elsewhere in the world -- growing even faster than what has been seen in Europe and Japan. While China is investing heavily in research and development, it does not yet account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to be dominated by the United States, Europe and Japan, according to RAND researchers.
However, other nations are rapidly educating their populations in science and technology. For instance, the European Union and China each are graduating more university-educated scientists and engineers every year than the United States.
Policymakers often receive advice from ad hoc sources. Although their viewpoints are valuable, they should be balanced by more complete and critical assessments of U.S. science and technology, said report co-author James Hosek, a RAND senior economist. The absence of a balanced assessment can feed a public misperception that U.S. science and technology is failing when in fact it remains strong, even preeminent.
�There is a pressing need for ongoing, objective analyses of science and technology performance and the science and technology workforce. We need this information to ensure that decision makers have a rigorous understanding of the issues,� Hosek said.
Among the study�s recommendations:
Establish a permanent commitment to fund a chartered body that would periodically monitor and analyze U.S. science and technology performance and the condition of the nation�s science and engineering workforce.
Make it easier for foreigners who have graduated from U.S. universities with science and engineering degrees to stay indefinitely in the United States.
Make it easier for highly skilled labor to immigrate to the United States to ensure the benefits of expanded innovation are captured in the United States and to help the United States remain competitive in research and innovation.
Increase the United States� capacity to learn from science centers in Europe, Japan, China, India and other countries.
Continue to improve K-12 education in general, and science and technology education in particular.
The inflow of foreign students, scientists and engineers has been a key factor that has enabled the U.S. science and engineering workforce to grow faster than the U.S. is graduating native-born scientists and engineers, according to the report. Researchers found that foreign-born scientists and engineers are paid the same as native born, suggesting their quality is on par.
But a recent reduction in the cap on skilled immigrant visas (H1-B) has the potential to reduce the inflow of foreign science and engineering workers, and the report argues that curtailing the supply of these scientists and engineers can lead U.S. firms to outsource more research and development to foreign countries and locate new facilities overseas. Rather than protecting jobs, this could lead to reduced investment and employment at home.
Among potential weaknesses faced by the United States are the persistent underperformance of older, native-born K-12 students in math and science and the heavy focus of federal research funding on the life sciences versus physical sciences. Another unknown is whether an increasing U.S. reliance on foreign-born workers in science and engineering makes the U.S. vulnerable. In recent years, about 70 percent of the foreign scientists and engineers who receive PhDs from U.S. universities choose to remain here, but the stay rate could fall as research conditions and salaries improve abroad.
The RAND report was sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness and conducted within the Forces and Resources Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps., the defense agencies and the defense Intelligence Community.
The report, �U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology,� can be found at www.rand.org.
The U.S. retains its global pre-eminence in science and technology,with a big boost from foreign students,scientists and engineers, a RandCorp. report said.
U.S. Still Leads the World in Science and Technology; Nation Benefits From Foreign Scientists, Engineers
Despite perceptions that the nation is losing its competitive edge, the United States remains the dominant leader in science and technology worldwide, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.
The United States accounts for 40 percent of the total world�s spending on scientific research and development, employs 70 percent of the world�s Nobel Prize winners and is home to three-quarters of the world�s top 40 universities.
An inflow of foreign students in the sciences -- as well as scientists and engineers from overseas -- has helped the United States build and maintain its worldwide lead, even as many other nations increase their spending on research and development. Continuing this flow of foreign-born talent is critical to helping the United States maintain its lead, according to the study.
�Much of the concern about the United States losing its edge as the world�s leader in science and technology appears to be unfounded,� said Titus Galama, co-author of the report and a management scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. �But the United States cannot afford to be complacent. Effort is needed to make sure the nation maintains or even extends its standing.�
U.S. investments in research and development have not lagged in recent years, but instead have grown at rates similar to what has occurred elsewhere in the world -- growing even faster than what has been seen in Europe and Japan. While China is investing heavily in research and development, it does not yet account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to be dominated by the United States, Europe and Japan, according to RAND researchers.
However, other nations are rapidly educating their populations in science and technology. For instance, the European Union and China each are graduating more university-educated scientists and engineers every year than the United States.
Policymakers often receive advice from ad hoc sources. Although their viewpoints are valuable, they should be balanced by more complete and critical assessments of U.S. science and technology, said report co-author James Hosek, a RAND senior economist. The absence of a balanced assessment can feed a public misperception that U.S. science and technology is failing when in fact it remains strong, even preeminent.
�There is a pressing need for ongoing, objective analyses of science and technology performance and the science and technology workforce. We need this information to ensure that decision makers have a rigorous understanding of the issues,� Hosek said.
Among the study�s recommendations:
Establish a permanent commitment to fund a chartered body that would periodically monitor and analyze U.S. science and technology performance and the condition of the nation�s science and engineering workforce.
Make it easier for foreigners who have graduated from U.S. universities with science and engineering degrees to stay indefinitely in the United States.
Make it easier for highly skilled labor to immigrate to the United States to ensure the benefits of expanded innovation are captured in the United States and to help the United States remain competitive in research and innovation.
Increase the United States� capacity to learn from science centers in Europe, Japan, China, India and other countries.
Continue to improve K-12 education in general, and science and technology education in particular.
The inflow of foreign students, scientists and engineers has been a key factor that has enabled the U.S. science and engineering workforce to grow faster than the U.S. is graduating native-born scientists and engineers, according to the report. Researchers found that foreign-born scientists and engineers are paid the same as native born, suggesting their quality is on par.
But a recent reduction in the cap on skilled immigrant visas (H1-B) has the potential to reduce the inflow of foreign science and engineering workers, and the report argues that curtailing the supply of these scientists and engineers can lead U.S. firms to outsource more research and development to foreign countries and locate new facilities overseas. Rather than protecting jobs, this could lead to reduced investment and employment at home.
Among potential weaknesses faced by the United States are the persistent underperformance of older, native-born K-12 students in math and science and the heavy focus of federal research funding on the life sciences versus physical sciences. Another unknown is whether an increasing U.S. reliance on foreign-born workers in science and engineering makes the U.S. vulnerable. In recent years, about 70 percent of the foreign scientists and engineers who receive PhDs from U.S. universities choose to remain here, but the stay rate could fall as research conditions and salaries improve abroad.
The RAND report was sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness and conducted within the Forces and Resources Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps., the defense agencies and the defense Intelligence Community.
The report, �U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology,� can be found at www.rand.org.
GCInThisLife
06-02 12:16 AM
Well.. it didn't turn out to be a major issue after all. At least for us. Both my self and my wife got approved in May. The first LUD since FP was on the day we were approved.
I do understand that 'not working' immediately after getting H1B is a problem and considered out of status and in addition you can also work while SSN is pending. However, most employers do not know about work with out SSN (pending) and according to some lawyers, we may be able to fight for this.
As I investigated further, there are so many people in the similar situation esp. spouses, i.e., getting on payroll a little late etc. Many of them for genuine reasons (though you will find fault with those reasons) and fell into unknowingly. However, most of them got GCs with out any problem.
The trick may be to put forward the documentation in such a way that it will not raise any flag. You require to submit Paystubs, w2s, tax returns only for primary applicant as supporting documentation I134 (affidavit) to prove that the dependent is not public charge. You need to make sure that information entered in the any forms (I485, Bio, I-134 etc) agree with supporting documentation such as I94, I797, PP/Visa or any documentation you included. If information do not match, it may raise a flag and IO may ask for more information. So do not get overexcited and submit only what is asked. YOU SHOULDN'T LIE. JUST SUBMIT ONLY WHAT IS ASKED.
I do understand the forms are useful, but I honestly feel that it is unnecessary stress. As I mentioned I was never been under so much stress as I was when folks pointed that we may not get GCs. I didn't sleep for couple days.. And stopped visiting this forum. Later my wife made me realize that family life is most important as long as we are together, country of residence does not matter. When our son was born last month, I truly felt 'damn GC'.. funnily got approved in the same week :).
There are few people who are truly helpful, but most come to forms just for kicks and show of their knowledge and talk/act like lawyers. My suggestion is DON'T HURT PEOPLE WHO COME FOR HELP. Esp, when there is something negative, don't try to prove and re-prove your point or satisfy your ego with logical answers or internet search results etc. This will hurt the person 'in trouble' even more. Just imagine your self in similar situation, then you will realize that most people get into situations unknowingly and probably unaware of till some one like you points out. Try to offer some suggestions if you can or stay away. If you want kicks, have a drink and watch a game or something. THANKS FOR READING THIS.
BYE BYE. Good luck to every one who is still waiting.
I do understand that 'not working' immediately after getting H1B is a problem and considered out of status and in addition you can also work while SSN is pending. However, most employers do not know about work with out SSN (pending) and according to some lawyers, we may be able to fight for this.
As I investigated further, there are so many people in the similar situation esp. spouses, i.e., getting on payroll a little late etc. Many of them for genuine reasons (though you will find fault with those reasons) and fell into unknowingly. However, most of them got GCs with out any problem.
The trick may be to put forward the documentation in such a way that it will not raise any flag. You require to submit Paystubs, w2s, tax returns only for primary applicant as supporting documentation I134 (affidavit) to prove that the dependent is not public charge. You need to make sure that information entered in the any forms (I485, Bio, I-134 etc) agree with supporting documentation such as I94, I797, PP/Visa or any documentation you included. If information do not match, it may raise a flag and IO may ask for more information. So do not get overexcited and submit only what is asked. YOU SHOULDN'T LIE. JUST SUBMIT ONLY WHAT IS ASKED.
I do understand the forms are useful, but I honestly feel that it is unnecessary stress. As I mentioned I was never been under so much stress as I was when folks pointed that we may not get GCs. I didn't sleep for couple days.. And stopped visiting this forum. Later my wife made me realize that family life is most important as long as we are together, country of residence does not matter. When our son was born last month, I truly felt 'damn GC'.. funnily got approved in the same week :).
There are few people who are truly helpful, but most come to forms just for kicks and show of their knowledge and talk/act like lawyers. My suggestion is DON'T HURT PEOPLE WHO COME FOR HELP. Esp, when there is something negative, don't try to prove and re-prove your point or satisfy your ego with logical answers or internet search results etc. This will hurt the person 'in trouble' even more. Just imagine your self in similar situation, then you will realize that most people get into situations unknowingly and probably unaware of till some one like you points out. Try to offer some suggestions if you can or stay away. If you want kicks, have a drink and watch a game or something. THANKS FOR READING THIS.
BYE BYE. Good luck to every one who is still waiting.
jonty_11
12-05 02:58 PM
Not going to happen - whole point of not giving h1's their Social Security is to use to fund USs' dwindling Social Security funds. H1 is supposed to fund SS for the Baby boomers here. There is no way in hell we will get it before 10 years on H1.