sukhwinderd
03-07 09:57 AM
out of the country indefinitely and then come back lets say after 10 yrs?
meher
12-26 10:50 AM
Today based on the talks with my employer, he told that he will not be able to process my payments. I informed him that i am going to DOL. He has not committed but has said that legally he has to pay only the minimum wage requirement which is the 44000$ only. I am in the process to consult attorney at present.
Dear Internet,
I am not an anti immigrant, but i am a legal immigrant(hope you are also one like me) and trying to get your help. Please don't look at all people with suspicious eyes.
As it has gone this far let me give my Employer Details
Objects Worldwide Incorporation it is based in Virginia.
Address below.
Objects Worldwide Inc.
10316, Wood Road Suite �A�,
Fairfax, VA 22030
http://www.owiusa.com
Dear Internet,
I am not an anti immigrant, but i am a legal immigrant(hope you are also one like me) and trying to get your help. Please don't look at all people with suspicious eyes.
As it has gone this far let me give my Employer Details
Objects Worldwide Incorporation it is based in Virginia.
Address below.
Objects Worldwide Inc.
10316, Wood Road Suite �A�,
Fairfax, VA 22030
http://www.owiusa.com
Anders �stberg
June 16th, 2005, 11:07 AM
Thanks for your comments! I'll see what I can do to lighten the second one up a little bit more. Please feel free to experiment if you like.
EDIT: OK, I've lightened the mid tones a bit, hopefully there's some detail visible in the feathers now. I don't want to make it too light though. Black feathers are difficult...
EDIT: OK, I've lightened the mid tones a bit, hopefully there's some detail visible in the feathers now. I don't want to make it too light though. Black feathers are difficult...
ssingh92
01-24 12:53 AM
Although reference in the text above refers to "receipt date shown on your receipt", I doubt if they really mean that. As per latest processing status, all cases with RD = July 2 should have been processed by now. Is that true? I doubt.
True Receipt Date (what service centers make reference to) perhaps is the date when they enter data in the system. In normal circumstances it should be same or close to RD printed on receipts. However, in July/Aug '07 filings several cases (including mine) were shuffled around for months, before they were entered in the system. I am a July2 filer, but my online status says "...case was received on Oct 11, 2007...". My ND is a few days later. Most likley, dates you see in your online status is what they refer to as Receive Date when publishing processing dates.
If I check my case online I see following
On July 24, 2007, 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 ...
On Receipt Notice I-797C -Notice of Action I see following
Received Date : June 25, 2007
Notice Date : July 25, 2007
I dont know why online case status says that "On July 24, 2007, we received ...."
Do anyone of you see such date mismatch.
Thanks,
True Receipt Date (what service centers make reference to) perhaps is the date when they enter data in the system. In normal circumstances it should be same or close to RD printed on receipts. However, in July/Aug '07 filings several cases (including mine) were shuffled around for months, before they were entered in the system. I am a July2 filer, but my online status says "...case was received on Oct 11, 2007...". My ND is a few days later. Most likley, dates you see in your online status is what they refer to as Receive Date when publishing processing dates.
If I check my case online I see following
On July 24, 2007, 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 ...
On Receipt Notice I-797C -Notice of Action I see following
Received Date : June 25, 2007
Notice Date : July 25, 2007
I dont know why online case status says that "On July 24, 2007, we received ...."
Do anyone of you see such date mismatch.
Thanks,
more...
gc03
05-24 08:16 AM
Wonderful Job!
navyug
10-13 10:22 PM
Hi,
My first NIW/I140 was concurrent filed with I485 for both my wife and me. When they denied I140, the USCIS also denied I485s for both of us. I have a pending MTR for that I140.
While the MTR was pending, I filed another NIW/I140, which was approved. I noticed that the approval notice has the A# that was on the I485 of the first petition.
So, should I assume that my the USCIS has interfiled my I485 automatically and my old PD is active?
Thanks.
Yes. It happened in my case as well. My I-140 was denied from NSC after having filed I-485. It was refiled (yes refiled in TSC, not MTR and got a different case number). After the I-140 denial my I-485 was also denied. Upon approval on my new I-140 the I-485 was reopened automatically. The online status had not changed from 'Denied". I was surprised when I got my second round of FP notices in August 09. Now the status says "Case has resumed processing". I would however suggest that you ask your attorney to send a letter to USCIS.
My first NIW/I140 was concurrent filed with I485 for both my wife and me. When they denied I140, the USCIS also denied I485s for both of us. I have a pending MTR for that I140.
While the MTR was pending, I filed another NIW/I140, which was approved. I noticed that the approval notice has the A# that was on the I485 of the first petition.
So, should I assume that my the USCIS has interfiled my I485 automatically and my old PD is active?
Thanks.
Yes. It happened in my case as well. My I-140 was denied from NSC after having filed I-485. It was refiled (yes refiled in TSC, not MTR and got a different case number). After the I-140 denial my I-485 was also denied. Upon approval on my new I-140 the I-485 was reopened automatically. The online status had not changed from 'Denied". I was surprised when I got my second round of FP notices in August 09. Now the status says "Case has resumed processing". I would however suggest that you ask your attorney to send a letter to USCIS.
more...
calboy78
01-09 12:47 PM
which service center? You can ask your employer to ask USCIS as 140 is employer's application.
EB3June03
06-25 06:47 PM
So after going through the medical and knowing that i will have a positive PPD (due to my history of positive PPD), and having clear X Ray results - the civil surgeon said you need to treatment for TB. I was surprised to hear it and as I had read from the CDC website and read the instructions - I saw the Treatment is Recommended - NOT Required and it also mentioned that the doctor should sign Part 5 and the applicant is clear for USCIS purposes and explain to the applicant the implications and recommend going for Evaluation to the health department.
I showed the points to the doctor but he did NOT want to sign it without any entry in the part 3 and part 4 - which from what i read is for those that are going to REQUIRE treatment.
Reference :- 2008 Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons | CDC DGMQ (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/civil_tb_ti_2008.htm)
View Page 6 of FAQ booklet: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/pdf/civil_surgeons_faq.pdf
17. Should Part 3 of Form I-693 be completed when the civil surgeon is referring the applicant for evaluation for treatment of Latent TB Infection (LTBI)?
The 2008 TB TIs recommend that civil surgeons refer applicants with “Class B—Latent TB Infection Needing Evaluation for Treatment (LTBI)” to the TB Control Program of the local health department. The referral for evaluation for treatment of LTBI is recommended, not required. Part 3 of Form I-693 should be used only for required referrals, therefore the civil surgeon should not complete Part 3 of Form I-693 when making this referral. It follows that the health department is not required to complete Part 4 of Form I-693 after evaluation for treatment of LTBI is completed or after treatment for LTBI is completed. Please see question 18 for related information
Did any of you folks run into similar situation?
I showed the points to the doctor but he did NOT want to sign it without any entry in the part 3 and part 4 - which from what i read is for those that are going to REQUIRE treatment.
Reference :- 2008 Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons | CDC DGMQ (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/civil_tb_ti_2008.htm)
View Page 6 of FAQ booklet: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/pdf/civil_surgeons_faq.pdf
17. Should Part 3 of Form I-693 be completed when the civil surgeon is referring the applicant for evaluation for treatment of Latent TB Infection (LTBI)?
The 2008 TB TIs recommend that civil surgeons refer applicants with “Class B—Latent TB Infection Needing Evaluation for Treatment (LTBI)” to the TB Control Program of the local health department. The referral for evaluation for treatment of LTBI is recommended, not required. Part 3 of Form I-693 should be used only for required referrals, therefore the civil surgeon should not complete Part 3 of Form I-693 when making this referral. It follows that the health department is not required to complete Part 4 of Form I-693 after evaluation for treatment of LTBI is completed or after treatment for LTBI is completed. Please see question 18 for related information
Did any of you folks run into similar situation?
more...
transpass
07-16 10:19 AM
I checked with the lawyer's office regarding levels I, II, II and IV on labor certification...The thing that determines EB2 and EB3 is what is written on the approved I-140.
For example, if it says 'Mem of Profession w/Adv Deg, or Exceptional ability Sec 203 (b) (2)' it is EB2. So it's what's checked in when u file your 140, and what it is approved for.
As far as levels I, II, III and IV are concerned, it does not matter regarding adjudication. The thing that only matters is either EB2 or EB3 (which is based on 140 approval as mentioned above) for Indians and Chinese in this case...
For example, if it says 'Mem of Profession w/Adv Deg, or Exceptional ability Sec 203 (b) (2)' it is EB2. So it's what's checked in when u file your 140, and what it is approved for.
As far as levels I, II, III and IV are concerned, it does not matter regarding adjudication. The thing that only matters is either EB2 or EB3 (which is based on 140 approval as mentioned above) for Indians and Chinese in this case...
bheemi
03-28 03:55 PM
Thanks Man..Good to hear that..
more...
frostrated
09-10 03:10 PM
I agree.
I have also heard that it can be picked up from a consulate. How does that work?
you would have to specify that when you apply for the AP. Look at part 7 item 2 in the application.
I have also heard that it can be picked up from a consulate. How does that work?
you would have to specify that when you apply for the AP. Look at part 7 item 2 in the application.
venky08
01-07 03:12 PM
there is a discussion about this elsewhere in the forum. please go thru the previous threads.
in those discussion threads, it was mentioned that after I-140 is revoked, the USCIS will send an RFE to you asking for evidence of future employment consistent with the labor certificate description. it will give you a few weeks time to respond back to the RFE.
Then you are to send a letter from your new employer that they are promising you a job in future where you would essentially do the same job functions as described in the labor...
if you inform the USCIS using AC 21 provision to change the job upfront, you may not get this RFE.
hi Munna,
thanks for your reply. you said no effect on your GC. but once I-140 with drawn then how can USCIS process 485? can you please eloborate.
in those discussion threads, it was mentioned that after I-140 is revoked, the USCIS will send an RFE to you asking for evidence of future employment consistent with the labor certificate description. it will give you a few weeks time to respond back to the RFE.
Then you are to send a letter from your new employer that they are promising you a job in future where you would essentially do the same job functions as described in the labor...
if you inform the USCIS using AC 21 provision to change the job upfront, you may not get this RFE.
hi Munna,
thanks for your reply. you said no effect on your GC. but once I-140 with drawn then how can USCIS process 485? can you please eloborate.
more...
dealsnet
09-09 04:53 PM
You are talking about this company.?
Telecall - Company Profile on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/companies/telecall)
web address.
http://www.telecallnet.com/
The access number is shown below by http://www.switchboard.com
(631) 763-1059
Type: Land Line
Location: Cold Spring Harbor, NY
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
Telecall - Company Profile on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/companies/telecall)
web address.
http://www.telecallnet.com/
The access number is shown below by http://www.switchboard.com
(631) 763-1059
Type: Land Line
Location: Cold Spring Harbor, NY
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
needGCcool
08-29 07:53 PM
Its very ambiguous.....on one hand they say:
and then they also say:
So we cannot call the USCIS even if the RD is July 2. :confused::confused::confused:
Yes, we cannot call them till processing date > received date + 30 days!
and then they also say:
So we cannot call the USCIS even if the RD is July 2. :confused::confused::confused:
Yes, we cannot call them till processing date > received date + 30 days!
more...
Eb3_frustrated
07-31 11:09 AM
Your wife can work as along the date on EAD is valid, EAD is employee authorization, it not a visa status unlike H4. She can have a EAD and be on H4 at the same time. It does not matter if you filed an extension for H4 but she can work if the EAD is valid ie end date on EAD has not passed.
This is just my thought based on my experience, remember I am not an attorney, consult one if you need dependable answer.
This is just my thought based on my experience, remember I am not an attorney, consult one if you need dependable answer.
Beemar
04-02 12:56 AM
Babu Moshay, control your temper. As it is we dont have many non-indians in our group. You are putting off stray non-indians who come here to seek advice. (This guy is from Romania).
If you cannot f***ing write that you are visiting your parents then you better not live in a country like thatt...are you a fool or what??
If you cannot f***ing write that you are visiting your parents then you better not live in a country like thatt...are you a fool or what??
more...
jthomas
03-25 10:56 AM
Give us some relief during the period of recession and make some rules for H1B guys to stay legal and claim unemployment benifits
1. Allow H1B holders to stay unemployed but legal during this time of recession. They should be allowed unemployment insurance for the amount of money they contributed during the years of their work.
2. Don't send RFE to those in EAD during the this time of recession.
1. Allow H1B holders to stay unemployed but legal during this time of recession. They should be allowed unemployment insurance for the amount of money they contributed during the years of their work.
2. Don't send RFE to those in EAD during the this time of recession.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
SR2610
04-13 04:19 PM
apart from all above there is a risk in going to Canada or Mexico for stamping. If you dont get visa in Mexico, you need to go back to home country to get visa.
I just entered 7th year, applied for H1 extension, not sure to go to Canada or wait for trip to Home country :(
I just entered 7th year, applied for H1 extension, not sure to go to Canada or wait for trip to Home country :(
jasmin45
08-08 04:27 PM
You are correct. There shuld be a job offer from sponsoring company at the time of applying for AOS. I guess the question is what if the person is not working at all ( No pay stubs from any company ). In this case the candidate will be out of status? There might be cases where people might come on bench or not having a project etc...
You are correct! Question is not about 180 days limit.. it was about paystubs and job itself. If there is no paystub for extended period, its more than "in status" issue. From employer perspective, Its a voilation, not paying a sponsored Ailen. From employee perspective, this may generate hickups when IO ask to produce proof of salary and taxes during adjudication of 485 if total pay does not add up to statutory minimum for H1B.
You are correct! Question is not about 180 days limit.. it was about paystubs and job itself. If there is no paystub for extended period, its more than "in status" issue. From employer perspective, Its a voilation, not paying a sponsored Ailen. From employee perspective, this may generate hickups when IO ask to produce proof of salary and taxes during adjudication of 485 if total pay does not add up to statutory minimum for H1B.
DSLStart
07-28 02:54 PM
Same thing happened to me. I had posted it last week. My VSC approved 140 got transferred to TSC last week and today got email that the case is now pending. 485 was orignally filed at VSC that got transfered to TSC in March 2007.
Do you think something is cooking? ;)
Hi Everyone,
My I140 which has been approved for more than 4 years now was transferred from Texas to Nebraska.
Trying to find the method in USCIS madness - has this happened to anyone else also and any reason why they might suddenly have decided to do this?
One reason I can think of is my 485s are in NE so maybe they are trying to consolidate all information in one file??
Appreciate peoples inputs.
Do you think something is cooking? ;)
Hi Everyone,
My I140 which has been approved for more than 4 years now was transferred from Texas to Nebraska.
Trying to find the method in USCIS madness - has this happened to anyone else also and any reason why they might suddenly have decided to do this?
One reason I can think of is my 485s are in NE so maybe they are trying to consolidate all information in one file??
Appreciate peoples inputs.
No comments:
Post a Comment