theMan
02-26 08:21 AM
Aristotle, I think as a Non Resident, you are not eligible for Standard deduction. Again, OP you questions will be addressed better in the forum mentioned in my previous post.
wallpaper Jodie Marsh Glamour model
ramus
06-11 07:40 PM
This is not good statement.
He admitted that he did mistake.. I was just not happy by creating new thred. But I don't think we should use these kinda of words..
We need more members and we can't run away our members with this kind of language.
Cut this crap of being positive!!!! A fool is a fool!!!
He admitted that he did mistake.. I was just not happy by creating new thred. But I don't think we should use these kinda of words..
We need more members and we can't run away our members with this kind of language.
Cut this crap of being positive!!!! A fool is a fool!!!
suwarnapatel
07-27 07:55 PM
I have to be out of the country for almost a year, beginning August and until 15th of July.
To prepare for this I applied for my AP in June, thinking that it will take about 30-45 days to be approved. As Luck would have it, my AP was accepted in a week and now I have an expiry on it for the 1st week of June.
Here are my questions:
I still have 2 weeks before I leave for my trip, now is it advisable to apply for another AP this week and wait for it to come?
Will that application make my current AP invalid?
From what I understand, you need to be here in the US while you apply for your AP, but can travel on your older AP while this one is still in process. Is this correct?
Is there a chance for AP denial, and how does that affect the chance of an AP extension in Future?
Regards,
SP
To prepare for this I applied for my AP in June, thinking that it will take about 30-45 days to be approved. As Luck would have it, my AP was accepted in a week and now I have an expiry on it for the 1st week of June.
Here are my questions:
I still have 2 weeks before I leave for my trip, now is it advisable to apply for another AP this week and wait for it to come?
Will that application make my current AP invalid?
From what I understand, you need to be here in the US while you apply for your AP, but can travel on your older AP while this one is still in process. Is this correct?
Is there a chance for AP denial, and how does that affect the chance of an AP extension in Future?
Regards,
SP
2011 Jodie Marsh
lostinbeta
10-05 04:40 PM
:) :) :) =)
more...
meridiani.planum
11-06 05:01 PM
Does she have EAD? If not on H1, she needs to be in EAD. (or other status like F1 etc). Otherwise she is out of status.
incorrect. Her pending 485 gives her status. She does not need to be on any particular status. And EAD does not give status anyway, its just permission to work while your adjustment of status is pending.
In that case, H1 will be denied because an H1 application while out of status will lead to denial.
incorrect. H1 will be approved if properly filed. The 'extension/change of status' part of h1 may not be allowed if you are out of status (ie. the approval wont have an I-94) and at that point you need to leave teh country and re-enter to active the H1.
To OP: I had asked my lawyer this same question a while back, and he was of the opinion that its likely the H1 extension will come through without an I-94 in this case (ie. USCIS might insist we leave the country and return to activate teh H1). He had not handled such a case so far so was not 100% certain about the I-94 part. The transfer itself is not an issue (you dont need to be in any particular status or even within the country to get the H1 extension filed).
incorrect. Her pending 485 gives her status. She does not need to be on any particular status. And EAD does not give status anyway, its just permission to work while your adjustment of status is pending.
In that case, H1 will be denied because an H1 application while out of status will lead to denial.
incorrect. H1 will be approved if properly filed. The 'extension/change of status' part of h1 may not be allowed if you are out of status (ie. the approval wont have an I-94) and at that point you need to leave teh country and re-enter to active the H1.
To OP: I had asked my lawyer this same question a while back, and he was of the opinion that its likely the H1 extension will come through without an I-94 in this case (ie. USCIS might insist we leave the country and return to activate teh H1). He had not handled such a case so far so was not 100% certain about the I-94 part. The transfer itself is not an issue (you dont need to be in any particular status or even within the country to get the H1 extension filed).
neelu
09-16 12:26 AM
Thank you, Roseball.
I will take an Infopass appointment as well. Do you think it is better to take the appointment in October when my date is current (going by the RIR PD)?
By the way, I only have a photocopy of my approved I-140 notices (according to company attorney, it is owned by the company). Hope that suffices.
Also, does the IO have the power to update my case? I thought they only give out information (if in the mood that is :)).
You can also try and get an InfoPass appointment at the local USCIS office and check with an IO during the appointment what PD is assigned to your pending I-485. If its not the old RIR PD which is current, then you can hand them over a copy of your old I-140 approval notice and ask them to link it to your pending I-485. I would advise you to take an InfoPass and verify this information yourself.
I will take an Infopass appointment as well. Do you think it is better to take the appointment in October when my date is current (going by the RIR PD)?
By the way, I only have a photocopy of my approved I-140 notices (according to company attorney, it is owned by the company). Hope that suffices.
Also, does the IO have the power to update my case? I thought they only give out information (if in the mood that is :)).
You can also try and get an InfoPass appointment at the local USCIS office and check with an IO during the appointment what PD is assigned to your pending I-485. If its not the old RIR PD which is current, then you can hand them over a copy of your old I-140 approval notice and ask them to link it to your pending I-485. I would advise you to take an InfoPass and verify this information yourself.
more...
waiting4gc
06-29 01:18 PM
My lawyer asked me to use A# on OPT card as the A# on my 485 application. USCIS does not normally assign A# when 140 is approved. There are only rare scenarios when it does that. Please use the A# on your opt card so that USCIS can easily find your records from the student days.
I was a student on f1 and had applied and used my OPT period. The OPT card has A#. I am applying I-485 with I-140 pending and have I-140 reciept
Should I use the OPT A# everywhere on the application?
I do not have any other documentation related to my OPT except the expired OPT/EAD card. IS this suffiecnt documentation?
There is question on the I-765 which ask IF i had applied for EAD before. WOuld the answer to this be yes I have used OPT before? If yes what is the location of the USCIS office where I applied. I have no clue about this
I was a student on f1 and had applied and used my OPT period. The OPT card has A#. I am applying I-485 with I-140 pending and have I-140 reciept
Should I use the OPT A# everywhere on the application?
I do not have any other documentation related to my OPT except the expired OPT/EAD card. IS this suffiecnt documentation?
There is question on the I-765 which ask IF i had applied for EAD before. WOuld the answer to this be yes I have used OPT before? If yes what is the location of the USCIS office where I applied. I have no clue about this
2010 JODIE MARSH has given her two
god_bless_you
06-14 09:14 PM
From Today's Lou Dobb's....
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
more...
Ind_murali
06-29 11:34 AM
Sakthisagar is correct, i was in the same situation in yr 2006. When i went for stamping in chennai,India I was able to get the stamping for current + future (4years without any problems). At the POE my I-94 was stamped till 2010. I hope this helps.
hair Jodie Marsh Rides Motorcycle
ajju
08-28 04:08 PM
Hello fellow IV members,
I am hoping to port to a new job using AC21. I contacted my attorney with various questions about the process, but she told me that she can not respond to my questions because she represents me as well as the current company I work for. For those of you who are looking to port or have already done so, did you face a similar situation - where your attorney could not advise and assist you through the process of porting? How did you resolve this situation? Did you have to find another attorney to help you with porting to a new job?
Thanks for your help.
What kind of help are you looking for?? Its all in the IV forums about AC21... You need nothing... If you think your employer may revoke your approved I-140.. then you need to inform USCIS of your using AC21 to do a job change... If your I-140 is not approved yet.. you need to wait...
All the needed details would be in AC21 threads...
I am hoping to port to a new job using AC21. I contacted my attorney with various questions about the process, but she told me that she can not respond to my questions because she represents me as well as the current company I work for. For those of you who are looking to port or have already done so, did you face a similar situation - where your attorney could not advise and assist you through the process of porting? How did you resolve this situation? Did you have to find another attorney to help you with porting to a new job?
Thanks for your help.
What kind of help are you looking for?? Its all in the IV forums about AC21... You need nothing... If you think your employer may revoke your approved I-140.. then you need to inform USCIS of your using AC21 to do a job change... If your I-140 is not approved yet.. you need to wait...
All the needed details would be in AC21 threads...
more...
akred
08-10 07:41 PM
I was hired for a position that required Masters and I fortunately was in EB2, but a colleague of mine, who is doing the similar work, was put in EB3 because his manager created the position with a requirement of Bachelors. He had a Master's degree. Here employee suffered because of his manager's ignorance
Wouldn't say it is ignorance on the part of the manager. Ignorance is easily abated by the employee talking to the manager. Plus any good lawyer will ask the manager if a master's degree is required for the job before proceeding with recruitment.
More often there are other reasons such as ego issues ("I don't have a college degree so why does my report need a master's degree") or practical difficulties (necessity to raise the wage offered) that can cause an otherwise qualified person to be classified as EB3.
Wouldn't say it is ignorance on the part of the manager. Ignorance is easily abated by the employee talking to the manager. Plus any good lawyer will ask the manager if a master's degree is required for the job before proceeding with recruitment.
More often there are other reasons such as ego issues ("I don't have a college degree so why does my report need a master's degree") or practical difficulties (necessity to raise the wage offered) that can cause an otherwise qualified person to be classified as EB3.
hot Jodie Marsh Talks About Her
waitingonlc
02-13 03:50 PM
Immigration plan looms in Congress
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
more...
house Jodie Marsh
abhijitp
11-12 05:47 PM
Great going! Good luck Texas State Chapter!
tattoo Jodie Marsh Poppin
greencardfever
09-09 11:16 PM
Hi,
I know there have been numerous posts regarding this matter, but there have been a lot of different responses to the same question. I would really appreciate it if you could please have a look at the questions below and clarify these matters, not only for me, but also for a lot of other IV members who are in the same boat as me.
I am working for an IT consulting company on an H1B visa. My employer (Company X) has applied for my green card under the EB3/India category. I have my labor and I-140 approved. My priority date is March 2006.
If I change my employer, can I transfer my already approved labor and I-140 applications to my new employer (Company Y) or will Company Y have to re-file my labor and I-140 applications from scratch?
If it�s the former:
1) Will my old priority date get transferred too?
2) Does it matter if the Company Y is not located in the same state as compared to Company X?
3) Does it matter if my job description and/or designation at Company Y is/are different?
4) Is there any way Company X can cancel my labor and I-140 applications? If yes, does my old priority date become void if Comapny X does decide to cancel them?
5) Does Company Y have to communicate with Company X to get any green card related paperwork?
6) What if Company Y decides to wait for a couple of years before filing my green card, can I still use my old priority date when Company Y files for my green card application?
7) What if Company X goes bankrupt and closes down, can Company Y�s green card application still use my old priority date?
Any response will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
I know there have been numerous posts regarding this matter, but there have been a lot of different responses to the same question. I would really appreciate it if you could please have a look at the questions below and clarify these matters, not only for me, but also for a lot of other IV members who are in the same boat as me.
I am working for an IT consulting company on an H1B visa. My employer (Company X) has applied for my green card under the EB3/India category. I have my labor and I-140 approved. My priority date is March 2006.
If I change my employer, can I transfer my already approved labor and I-140 applications to my new employer (Company Y) or will Company Y have to re-file my labor and I-140 applications from scratch?
If it�s the former:
1) Will my old priority date get transferred too?
2) Does it matter if the Company Y is not located in the same state as compared to Company X?
3) Does it matter if my job description and/or designation at Company Y is/are different?
4) Is there any way Company X can cancel my labor and I-140 applications? If yes, does my old priority date become void if Comapny X does decide to cancel them?
5) Does Company Y have to communicate with Company X to get any green card related paperwork?
6) What if Company Y decides to wait for a couple of years before filing my green card, can I still use my old priority date when Company Y files for my green card application?
7) What if Company X goes bankrupt and closes down, can Company Y�s green card application still use my old priority date?
Any response will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
more...
pictures jodie marsh body builder
USDream2Dust
06-14 04:24 PM
Hey Nixstor,
I have already started looking and yes I agree. I would not hurry up things. I would take my time and get something good regardless my company pays or not.
Also I am going to do an official contract with my company and they would be paying utilities like internet and others separately. They would also add work insurance to it. It could be possible that another 2 people apart from me would work at my home office. Are you sure that it is not taxable if I get money from my employer as rent?
Any way thanks. I really appreciate all your responses. Market is bad and NJ is terrible for house. I am getting old houses for 500k and prices are not reducing any time. I have been watching it for 5 months now.
I have already started looking and yes I agree. I would not hurry up things. I would take my time and get something good regardless my company pays or not.
Also I am going to do an official contract with my company and they would be paying utilities like internet and others separately. They would also add work insurance to it. It could be possible that another 2 people apart from me would work at my home office. Are you sure that it is not taxable if I get money from my employer as rent?
Any way thanks. I really appreciate all your responses. Market is bad and NJ is terrible for house. I am getting old houses for 500k and prices are not reducing any time. I have been watching it for 5 months now.
dresses Jodie Marsh Wallpaper. jodie
madhu345
11-05 05:44 AM
We will Lit 100 Candles by Diwali for sure
more...
makeup Jodie Marsh Picture amp; Photo
now2know
May 18th, 2005, 07:55 AM
Thanks for all this information!
We are taking these images as source data for visual rendering. We need to capture all data from nominal light levels up to the solar disk into one hemispherical image. To learn more about what HDR is, here's are some sites:
http://athens.ict.usc.edu/Research/HDR/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml
We are taking these images as source data for visual rendering. We need to capture all data from nominal light levels up to the solar disk into one hemispherical image. To learn more about what HDR is, here's are some sites:
http://athens.ict.usc.edu/Research/HDR/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml