mhb
07-06 06:24 PM
tommorow what time (provide Time Zone also)
same time 5.30 pm central NBC weekend news. this would be pathetic if they do not air the interview!!!:mad:
same time 5.30 pm central NBC weekend news. this would be pathetic if they do not air the interview!!!:mad:
wallpaper funny letter boxes. funny letter boxes.
raysaikat
07-19 10:11 PM
This may not be true. This is the problem being faced by many singles. Ofcourse those singles are postponing their plans just because of USCIS policies which in the case of singles is ridiculous. There is no meaning to make a person wait for 5-10 years to get one's spouse just because he applied for a Green Card. I see various kinds of visas for the spouses in other categories like H1 has H4
L1 has L2/L4 ( I dont know what that is)
and so on so forth..
but for a spouse of AOS? nothing.
All the crap of going on H1 are ridiculous. At the first place one has to get a sponsor for H1 and then there are all those issues out of being H1 with the employer and USCIS. There is no benefit of being on AOS. They cannot use EAD. They cannot start companies freely, etc because they are supposed to be on H1 or L1 etc.
Even then the title is misplaced; USCIS does not make laws.
L1 has L2/L4 ( I dont know what that is)
and so on so forth..
but for a spouse of AOS? nothing.
All the crap of going on H1 are ridiculous. At the first place one has to get a sponsor for H1 and then there are all those issues out of being H1 with the employer and USCIS. There is no benefit of being on AOS. They cannot use EAD. They cannot start companies freely, etc because they are supposed to be on H1 or L1 etc.
Even then the title is misplaced; USCIS does not make laws.
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
2011 funny letter boxes.
mirage
07-27 03:59 PM
Why the hell are you guys calling USCIS, calling them won�t expedite your process. You are just showing the person on the other side of the phone what kind of crappy people we are.
more...
jgh_res
08-11 09:14 AM
U have such a big signature but nothing abt contribution to IV. Have u contributed anything to IV? If not, how do u thinkIV can fight for whatever it is fighting?
I had a friend who came here after me, say I think in 2001, he got laid off and had gaps in his employment, he married this girl who joined a company head quartered in IOWA, the payroll stubs used to be in excel sheets. He was probably in the point where if we went to India, they would not have let him come back on H1. They paid 10K to get LS (adjusted through employment for 1 year) and when I-140 and 485 were being allowed for consecutive filing I believe Dec2004, filed it. He called me a month back saying they got their physical card. His PD date somewhere 2004 EB3. My PD March 21 2003, am I frustrated of course, but I am frustrated with the system that has loop holes, as pointed out there are hundred of people who have legitimately used LS.. there is no point losing sleep over it.
The need of the hour is this, to be together and fight together, not among each other. IV does not differentiate between LS and non LS, or degrees or anyone's individual cases or scenarios. IV's goal is very simple, GC process should not take more that 2 years and anything that reduces the total time frame, that is what IV stands for. Time is key, lost time cannot be regained, what is in for is now and the future, lets stick together and think about how we can help IV meet this goal, that none of us should be waiting many many more years to come. Can we all agree on this and go forward please?
Thanks and appreciate everyone's understanding.
I had a friend who came here after me, say I think in 2001, he got laid off and had gaps in his employment, he married this girl who joined a company head quartered in IOWA, the payroll stubs used to be in excel sheets. He was probably in the point where if we went to India, they would not have let him come back on H1. They paid 10K to get LS (adjusted through employment for 1 year) and when I-140 and 485 were being allowed for consecutive filing I believe Dec2004, filed it. He called me a month back saying they got their physical card. His PD date somewhere 2004 EB3. My PD March 21 2003, am I frustrated of course, but I am frustrated with the system that has loop holes, as pointed out there are hundred of people who have legitimately used LS.. there is no point losing sleep over it.
The need of the hour is this, to be together and fight together, not among each other. IV does not differentiate between LS and non LS, or degrees or anyone's individual cases or scenarios. IV's goal is very simple, GC process should not take more that 2 years and anything that reduces the total time frame, that is what IV stands for. Time is key, lost time cannot be regained, what is in for is now and the future, lets stick together and think about how we can help IV meet this goal, that none of us should be waiting many many more years to come. Can we all agree on this and go forward please?
Thanks and appreciate everyone's understanding.
software7
05-12 08:43 PM
If case is denied due to USCIS error, MTR can be filed with out fee. when filing MTR it should clearly mention that " Service request for MTR" which implies that denails s due to erroneous decison. (Attorney filed this MTR with Subj: Service request for MTR, enclosed all documents which supports that decision is taken by error and to reconsider).
more...
fcres
07-19 02:44 PM
Note sure what you're looking for. The memo I cited went into effect on June 16th. If that's not what you're looking for, you can try "press room" at USCIS's website where all memos are listed by date.
I tried CIS press room, but couldn't find it. And i'm sure that about couple of weeks back i saw that memo (which states if initial evidences are not present, they might reject/deny a case without RFE). It was posted on this board and now its very hard to search with few words.
I tried CIS press room, but couldn't find it. And i'm sure that about couple of weeks back i saw that memo (which states if initial evidences are not present, they might reject/deny a case without RFE). It was posted on this board and now its very hard to search with few words.
2010 images by red letter boxes.
Almond
07-17 10:11 AM
September 14, 2006
Will you please tell me what date the I 765 "Based on a pending I-485 adjustment application [(c)(9)]" they're on? Thanks
Will you please tell me what date the I 765 "Based on a pending I-485 adjustment application [(c)(9)]" they're on? Thanks
more...
ChainReaction
06-24 06:56 PM
Once this Mela of accepting 485 is over ...looks like dates will retrogress to somewhere in 2003 or 2004 .. hopefully it is 2004
I hope for the same,lets see in October VB :D :D :D
I hope for the same,lets see in October VB :D :D :D
hair wigglebox letterboxes
Jimi_Hendrix
12-13 12:51 PM
Hey brother,
I am not trying to question your intent just trying to get some knowledge of facts. However your reasoning suggests that there are numbers available to overflow from EB2 World to EB2 India. What if there are just enough numbers to keep EB2 World rolling. I will be interesting in learning more about how these allocations work. Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.
I am not trying to question your intent just trying to get some knowledge of facts. However your reasoning suggests that there are numbers available to overflow from EB2 World to EB2 India. What if there are just enough numbers to keep EB2 World rolling. I will be interesting in learning more about how these allocations work. Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.
more...
realizeit
02-11 04:27 PM
Still I disagree my friend. I know, law is the law! What I am disagreeing is your interpretation and conclusion.
In reality, towards the end of the Fiscal year, if USCIS/State Dept finds that visas will go unused in one category, they can use the spill over rules. So, if there are some potential unused visas in Family category they can add it to Employment category and vice versa. This will all work in the same year. It will not work or get transferred to a following year. In your initial argument, you said, because all the family visas for 2008 are completely used, we won't get anything from that category as spill over during this year (2009).
If your argument is correct, there won't be any need for recapture laws that we all are working for. If the unused can be given to the next year, no visa will get wasted. USCIS/DOS can just give the unused in family category to Employment category in the following year and vice versa.
In reality that is not the case. Visa number in one year will not flow to the next. So, your original argument is completely wrong. If there is nothing left in family category for the year 2008, that has nothing to do with the expected spill over to Employment category from family category in 2009.
In my opinion, law is complex and snippets of the law from here and there won't will not clarify anything. So, if anyone would like to be optimistic, stay there, to be pessimistic, stay there - this whole argument by MPADAPA is not enough to change your state of mind :) Just my observation!
Thanks for the comments. Its not my assumptions, it is the law.
Please checkout how the spillovers between EB and FB are arrived. Here is the link
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001151----000-.html
In reality, towards the end of the Fiscal year, if USCIS/State Dept finds that visas will go unused in one category, they can use the spill over rules. So, if there are some potential unused visas in Family category they can add it to Employment category and vice versa. This will all work in the same year. It will not work or get transferred to a following year. In your initial argument, you said, because all the family visas for 2008 are completely used, we won't get anything from that category as spill over during this year (2009).
If your argument is correct, there won't be any need for recapture laws that we all are working for. If the unused can be given to the next year, no visa will get wasted. USCIS/DOS can just give the unused in family category to Employment category in the following year and vice versa.
In reality that is not the case. Visa number in one year will not flow to the next. So, your original argument is completely wrong. If there is nothing left in family category for the year 2008, that has nothing to do with the expected spill over to Employment category from family category in 2009.
In my opinion, law is complex and snippets of the law from here and there won't will not clarify anything. So, if anyone would like to be optimistic, stay there, to be pessimistic, stay there - this whole argument by MPADAPA is not enough to change your state of mind :) Just my observation!
Thanks for the comments. Its not my assumptions, it is the law.
Please checkout how the spillovers between EB and FB are arrived. Here is the link
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001151----000-.html
hot Letter Box
smuggymba
05-12 03:28 PM
DREAM Act Loses Republican Cosponsor Richard Lugar
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats reintroduced the DREAM Act on Wednesday without the co-sponsorship of Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who had previously been one of the bill's strongest backers.
The legislation would allow some undocumented young people to become U.S. citizens and has been introduced repeatedly over the years with Lugar and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) as the cosponsors. The most recent vote on the DREAM Act was in December, when it fell five votes short of bypassing a filibuster. Lugar was one of just three Republicans to vote for the measure.
In a statement, Lugar spokesman Mark Helmke blamed Democrats for turning immigration into a partisan issue.
"President Obama's appearance in Texas framed immigration as a divisive election issue instead of attempting a legitimate debate on comprehensive reform," wrote Helmke. "Ridiculing Republicans was clearly a partisan push that effectively stops a productive discussion about comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act before the 2012 election."
In his Tuesday speech at the Mexico-U.S. border, Obama pointed the finger at Republicans for moving the goal posts on immigration reform. The president argued that his administration has gone out of its way to accommodate their requests.
"Maybe they'll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat," Obama joked, referring to the GOP. "They'll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That's politics."
Helmke said Lugar's staff told Democrats that the Indiana senator supported the initiative, but he wanted them to work on getting more Republican support. Lugar's spokesman claims that not only did Democrats not do that, but they set up a press conference to announce the reintroduction of the DREAM Act before the Lugar had made his final decision not to cosponsor. Democrats, however, said that it was clear for months that Indiana Republican wasn't going to cosponsor the bill at this time.
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats reintroduced the DREAM Act on Wednesday without the co-sponsorship of Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who had previously been one of the bill's strongest backers.
The legislation would allow some undocumented young people to become U.S. citizens and has been introduced repeatedly over the years with Lugar and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) as the cosponsors. The most recent vote on the DREAM Act was in December, when it fell five votes short of bypassing a filibuster. Lugar was one of just three Republicans to vote for the measure.
In a statement, Lugar spokesman Mark Helmke blamed Democrats for turning immigration into a partisan issue.
"President Obama's appearance in Texas framed immigration as a divisive election issue instead of attempting a legitimate debate on comprehensive reform," wrote Helmke. "Ridiculing Republicans was clearly a partisan push that effectively stops a productive discussion about comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act before the 2012 election."
In his Tuesday speech at the Mexico-U.S. border, Obama pointed the finger at Republicans for moving the goal posts on immigration reform. The president argued that his administration has gone out of its way to accommodate their requests.
"Maybe they'll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat," Obama joked, referring to the GOP. "They'll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That's politics."
Helmke said Lugar's staff told Democrats that the Indiana senator supported the initiative, but he wanted them to work on getting more Republican support. Lugar's spokesman claims that not only did Democrats not do that, but they set up a press conference to announce the reintroduction of the DREAM Act before the Lugar had made his final decision not to cosponsor. Democrats, however, said that it was clear for months that Indiana Republican wasn't going to cosponsor the bill at this time.
more...
house funny letter boxes. Your daily Letter to the
qualified_trash
12-12 01:51 PM
QT:
You mean Feb of 07, right?
I meant the bulletin released in Jan of 2007 which would be for the following month which would mean Feb of 07.
nitpicking are we ?? :-))
You mean Feb of 07, right?
I meant the bulletin released in Jan of 2007 which would be for the following month which would mean Feb of 07.
nitpicking are we ?? :-))
tattoo funny letter boxes.
sukhyani
04-18 04:43 PM
I will take it :D
In that case, at least you will have your EAD and AP and can change your blood sucking deshi consulting company after 180 days and can peruse better employment opportunities.
I dont know how to do it therefore asking, can someone start a poll to see how many of our members became eligible for file for I485 after this movement in Visa numbers?
In that case, at least you will have your EAD and AP and can change your blood sucking deshi consulting company after 180 days and can peruse better employment opportunities.
I dont know how to do it therefore asking, can someone start a poll to see how many of our members became eligible for file for I485 after this movement in Visa numbers?
more...
pictures FWD: Funny Signs To Bring A
ars01
07-10 10:19 AM
How about boycotting CNN. The immigration community should boycott CNN. That will send a strong message to CNN with there current trouble with there rattings.
How would you do that? and how would media know about the boycott? What benefits would it bring?
How would you do that? and how would media know about the boycott? What benefits would it bring?
dresses Post box
gc4arun
08-05 10:45 PM
Opened 2 SR' no response from either and Infopass tomorrow morning.
more...
makeup funny letter boxes. Letter Box
RajForGC
06-07 12:10 PM
EB3 140 is already approved on Jan 2006, we re-applied 140 again on EB2 but got the Priority date of EB3 for EB2 of Sep 2005. But I Think priority date is only for Labor not 140, so my 140 for EB2 is still May 21 isn't it?
girlfriend tattoo Post box fossil funny letter boxes. funny letter boxes.
greensignal
06-19 02:02 PM
Akhil,
Can you pls send me a copy too? thanks in advance!
a copy for me also please.
Can you pls send me a copy too? thanks in advance!
a copy for me also please.
hairstyles funny letter boxes.
sangmami
07-27 12:44 PM
Talked to an io at neb sc.within 5 sec of me starting to talk the ffice interuppted and she apologosed for doing that and said because of huge vol of appli there is a delay in the receipt notice.i SAID I AM july 2 nd filer and she said it might be in the first week of aug..(i had said the same thing in my earlier post too after i spoke toa diff officer)..She asked to keep checking the check clearnace.
Hope this helps
Thanks
Hope this helps
Thanks
dpp
07-19 02:05 PM
Q : Must an H-1B alien be working at all times?
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Check this.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
I think desi3933 is correct. It is the employees responsibility to maintain the status and all the employee can do is to sue the employer for the pay. Even I am not sure about 30 day rule, but employee should be getting payed on H1B. Also it may only be necessary to prove the legal status since the last entry.
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Check this.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
I think desi3933 is correct. It is the employees responsibility to maintain the status and all the employee can do is to sue the employer for the pay. Even I am not sure about 30 day rule, but employee should be getting payed on H1B. Also it may only be necessary to prove the legal status since the last entry.
mihird
05-26 01:47 AM
I spent 5 full years in Canada from 1995 2 of which I did my MS (in Montreal - Quebec) and 3, I worked for one of Canada's largest software companies in Ottawa - Ontario. Over the course of these 5 years, I acquired both my Canadian green card and Canadian Citizenship..
From 2000 onwards, I have been in the US languishing in this stupid EB Green Card queue...
I originally hail from India, so can give some clear opinons on how life is comparatively in all three places.
I will firstly agree with someone who mentioned that rather than considering Canada as an option 2 after the US, one should consider our home country..honestly, I believe our home country should be the no. 1 priority on our list. The real solution to all immigration problems lies in the balancing of economies on a global scale...and we as the H1-B skilled workforce are the best people for making the Indian/Chinese economies move forward....reduce unemployment there and improve the wage standards...
As for Canada, except for the cold, almost everything about Canada is better than the US in my opinion - better quality of life, better social security, better health care, safer neighborhoods, better education, better immigration system etc. etc..if you hail from a tropical place like India, the cold WILL bother you, though....
Montreal is 50% English/50% French, and I had no problems living in Montreal although, I know nothing about French at all..
From a pure money stand point of view, it is true, that you will somewhat make more money in US, but most of that will be offset by the higher healthcare costs and higher housing costs...
Frankly, if this 6+ year wait on the US Green Card doesn't go anywhere, I will definitely consider moving back to India, rather than Canada...in 2007 or so...because, I feel, I have spent enough years away from India, accrued enough wealth and owe my time and energy to building the Indian economy....rather than giving my years to any of the western countries....that already are well developed...
My .02 cents..
From 2000 onwards, I have been in the US languishing in this stupid EB Green Card queue...
I originally hail from India, so can give some clear opinons on how life is comparatively in all three places.
I will firstly agree with someone who mentioned that rather than considering Canada as an option 2 after the US, one should consider our home country..honestly, I believe our home country should be the no. 1 priority on our list. The real solution to all immigration problems lies in the balancing of economies on a global scale...and we as the H1-B skilled workforce are the best people for making the Indian/Chinese economies move forward....reduce unemployment there and improve the wage standards...
As for Canada, except for the cold, almost everything about Canada is better than the US in my opinion - better quality of life, better social security, better health care, safer neighborhoods, better education, better immigration system etc. etc..if you hail from a tropical place like India, the cold WILL bother you, though....
Montreal is 50% English/50% French, and I had no problems living in Montreal although, I know nothing about French at all..
From a pure money stand point of view, it is true, that you will somewhat make more money in US, but most of that will be offset by the higher healthcare costs and higher housing costs...
Frankly, if this 6+ year wait on the US Green Card doesn't go anywhere, I will definitely consider moving back to India, rather than Canada...in 2007 or so...because, I feel, I have spent enough years away from India, accrued enough wealth and owe my time and energy to building the Indian economy....rather than giving my years to any of the western countries....that already are well developed...
My .02 cents..
No comments:
Post a Comment