mirage
03-06 03:03 PM
How's Asking for temperory Lifting Country Cap or Exemption of Long pending case from Country limits going against her own bills ? Nothing 'Immigration' is flying right now, we already saw the fate of those bills...I have heard this several times from various lawmakers offices they don't want to lift the country caps... So what do we do then ?
So your strategy is to go against her own bill to recapture greencards that she introduced for us last year.
I think this is wrong.
Recapture is a good option if you want to do it right. Otherwise all ROW will oppose you. How are you different than the guys who open threads against Telgus or EB3 vs EB2 or against Muslims.
What you are doing is only dividng the community. My collegues who are also IV members are mad reading that someone in IV is pursuing a one point agenda against ROW. We need to stop such threads. A lot of ROW are quiet members on IV forum and they will be upset.
Country caps can only be supported if there is recapture or increase in visa numbers.
So your strategy is to go against her own bill to recapture greencards that she introduced for us last year.
I think this is wrong.
Recapture is a good option if you want to do it right. Otherwise all ROW will oppose you. How are you different than the guys who open threads against Telgus or EB3 vs EB2 or against Muslims.
What you are doing is only dividng the community. My collegues who are also IV members are mad reading that someone in IV is pursuing a one point agenda against ROW. We need to stop such threads. A lot of ROW are quiet members on IV forum and they will be upset.
Country caps can only be supported if there is recapture or increase in visa numbers.
wallpaper Coloring Greeting Cards
bfadlia
02-13 05:27 PM
You need to say "MY priority date is current in March"
The current thread title had me thinking there was another July fiasco..
Thanks.
Folks,
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
The current thread title had me thinking there was another July fiasco..
Thanks.
Folks,
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
yabadaba
12-21 08:22 AM
ok that makes sense.
2011 irthday-glitter
sheela
08-22 11:26 AM
I applied on June 12 (paper file) at TSC , Notice date June 18th , RD June 13th and received EAD cards on Aug 18th (CPO mail on Aug 15th).
Hope this info helps.
e-filed EAD renewal on 5/27 TSC
FP:6/21
still waiting....
EB2 i
PD:10/05, I140 approved 2/06
Hope this info helps.
e-filed EAD renewal on 5/27 TSC
FP:6/21
still waiting....
EB2 i
PD:10/05, I140 approved 2/06
more...
SEP03NY
08-15 02:57 PM
one of my friend file I485 on 30th July, he got receipt notice. They
have mention received on 2nd July.
have mention received on 2nd July.
sk.aggarwal
11-11 08:03 PM
I have never heard about this before, but if I were you I would:
1. Immediately request transcripts from college in sealed envelope, exactly as requested.
2. I dont think sending notarized copies will work, because notaries normally dont attest document, owner of the document does that and they just say that it is your signature. As per my understanding you will need to send the originals as requested. But with it you can safely send a letter asking them to send the documents back. Include a prepaid fedex envelop.
Worst case, they will loose these documents but you can get them reissued from university. But if you dont send documents as requested your application could be denied.
Its amazing the extent USCIS will go to make our lives tough
1. Immediately request transcripts from college in sealed envelope, exactly as requested.
2. I dont think sending notarized copies will work, because notaries normally dont attest document, owner of the document does that and they just say that it is your signature. As per my understanding you will need to send the originals as requested. But with it you can safely send a letter asking them to send the documents back. Include a prepaid fedex envelop.
Worst case, they will loose these documents but you can get them reissued from university. But if you dont send documents as requested your application could be denied.
Its amazing the extent USCIS will go to make our lives tough
more...
H1B-GC
05-27 08:30 AM
As long as a person is meek and weak, that's what we get - Nothing. With AOS pending, every person in most states are bound to get 1 year renewal..Period. Be forceful but polite in expressing it. Take it to the next level - Supervisor.Ask what they mean or definition of "old I-485". Tell them you are Paying all Taxes (Federal, state, Social, Medicare.... ).
By the time you come hear, mostly probably, the agent might have approved a 1 year Renewal.
Seems FAIR is slowly creeping into DMV also.
By the time you come hear, mostly probably, the agent might have approved a 1 year Renewal.
Seems FAIR is slowly creeping into DMV also.
2010 And yep, it is a irthday card
sumant18
07-17 10:05 PM
How did you open Expedite SR, I opened SR nearly five times, took two InfoPass, yet not FP ?
I just got lucky..it was the second time I called on the same day. First time I jiust got one more SR (4th one). the next time I called about 2hrs later I asked her the status of my 2nd SR and told her the whole saga of how long I have been waiting and about my PD becoming current blah blah....
I have told the same sob story many times but this lady seemed to go the extra mile and put in an "expedite" request. She herself volunteered for that and told me that I would hear back in 5 days which I did. I opened the SR last Friday and I had this letter in my mail today.
Just keeping fingers crossed and hoping the notice comes thru.
I will keep you guys posted on what happens.
I just got lucky..it was the second time I called on the same day. First time I jiust got one more SR (4th one). the next time I called about 2hrs later I asked her the status of my 2nd SR and told her the whole saga of how long I have been waiting and about my PD becoming current blah blah....
I have told the same sob story many times but this lady seemed to go the extra mile and put in an "expedite" request. She herself volunteered for that and told me that I would hear back in 5 days which I did. I opened the SR last Friday and I had this letter in my mail today.
Just keeping fingers crossed and hoping the notice comes thru.
I will keep you guys posted on what happens.
more...
Green_Always
09-22 10:18 PM
Any News about how is Real Estate Prices / Home Prices in Indian Metros now ?
Will we see problems over there ? or Problem is already there ? Look forward to hear some views in this regard.
Will we see problems over there ? or Problem is already there ? Look forward to hear some views in this regard.
hair greetings cards gif
perm2gc
07-08 10:00 PM
Wonderful support. Thank you. So far we have over 850 viewings and have been rated 76 times and 23 comments. That has managed to push us to #6 in the News and Politics stories of the day. This morning we overtook a Ron Paul story. If you have not had a chance to check the video out, please rate it by clicking on the stars or leave a comment as that will push our position even further.
Thank you once again. My son is beginning to get quite optimistic that CNN might just pick this one :-)
This video has either been removed or has a malformed URL
Thank you once again. My son is beginning to get quite optimistic that CNN might just pick this one :-)
This video has either been removed or has a malformed URL
more...
number30
04-21 12:50 PM
Hello Everyone!
I need opinion on whether one can change location after labor is approved for one area.
Let�s assume one is working for company X in city A. Labor is approved (I-140 is filed) and company wants you to relocate to city B.
How does this impact GC process?
Do you have to start again?
Or one can carry PD from prior Labor?
Your inputs will be greatly appreciated. My husband and I are trying to decide the best strategy going forward since our latest fiasco with labor due to negligence on lawyer's part.
Best
In future(i.e. after getting green card) if your company has an intent to bring to back to same location and you are intending to original location you are fine.
Also AC-21 allows you to change the job and location.
I need opinion on whether one can change location after labor is approved for one area.
Let�s assume one is working for company X in city A. Labor is approved (I-140 is filed) and company wants you to relocate to city B.
How does this impact GC process?
Do you have to start again?
Or one can carry PD from prior Labor?
Your inputs will be greatly appreciated. My husband and I are trying to decide the best strategy going forward since our latest fiasco with labor due to negligence on lawyer's part.
Best
In future(i.e. after getting green card) if your company has an intent to bring to back to same location and you are intending to original location you are fine.
Also AC-21 allows you to change the job and location.
hot irthday greeting cards e
jfredr
07-27 09:00 AM
can someone please throw some light if any idea
more...
house greeting cards animated
logiclife
02-27 11:51 AM
This decision is too important for you, it seems, and I would consult a lawyer for best course of action because the users on forums are not lawyers and they can give you options, but it may not be the best option.
Since you are planning next 2-3 years of your life, you should seek paid consultation from a good lawyer.
Since you are planning next 2-3 years of your life, you should seek paid consultation from a good lawyer.
tattoo Birthday card from Max
eagerr2i
12-07 09:28 AM
Chang from Cap Exempt to Cap Number H1B requires that you file the change when the visa is available during the FY which in H1B case is April 1st. The years spent on Cap Exempt status like not for profits is counted towards the 6 Yr limit.
more...
pictures funny irthday card.
lacrossegc
09-06 05:34 PM
bkarnik , I agree ...but ABC USA and ABC Canada are two totally seperate companies for immigration/H1/GC purposes.
When working in US --- ABC USA will have to pay US wages per H1B LCA, ABC Canada doesnt pay
When working in Canada -- ABC USA pays nothing, ABC Canada pays
Tax implications are complex :) but as far as I know, If taxes are being filed in US, Worldwide Income will have to be reported on the 1040 OR else file 1040 Non-Resident in which you can report only the US wages.
!!! Ask a lawyer and a tax advisor !!!!! better be safe than sorry .... but I believe that the scenario described is justifiable and legal
I believe that could be a problem. If your Company is paying you in Canada, but asking you to work in the US I am not sure if your H1 would be valid. Per my limited knowledge, H1 can be sponsored by an employer having a business in the US. I am sure this is an issue that is a clash between the tax laws and the immigration laws. I would request you to submit your question for the next attorney call and hopefully we get an clear answer.
When working in US --- ABC USA will have to pay US wages per H1B LCA, ABC Canada doesnt pay
When working in Canada -- ABC USA pays nothing, ABC Canada pays
Tax implications are complex :) but as far as I know, If taxes are being filed in US, Worldwide Income will have to be reported on the 1040 OR else file 1040 Non-Resident in which you can report only the US wages.
!!! Ask a lawyer and a tax advisor !!!!! better be safe than sorry .... but I believe that the scenario described is justifiable and legal
I believe that could be a problem. If your Company is paying you in Canada, but asking you to work in the US I am not sure if your H1 would be valid. Per my limited knowledge, H1 can be sponsored by an employer having a business in the US. I am sure this is an issue that is a clash between the tax laws and the immigration laws. I would request you to submit your question for the next attorney call and hopefully we get an clear answer.
dresses season greeting cards jpg gif
what_now
06-14 03:08 PM
CPO mail today......
more...
makeup eCards, Greeting Cards
gc_maine2
05-24 08:36 AM
Good job Salil. Keep up the good work.
girlfriend top new year greeting cards
h4visa
07-27 12:24 PM
Can someone go fr 2 jobs after EAD approval( i will use my EAD). Is is required that the job description of these jobs has to be same as filed in the application ? appreciate your help
hairstyles year greeting cards gif
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
xu1
08-08 09:56 PM
...of meaningless "predictions."
:).. Just like I tune to Bloomberg radio everyday, listening to all those economists, money managers, bond traders pondering how every other month the Fed makes its move on the interest rate... I'm sick and tired of them predicting what's about to happen must happen by the rule of economics. But I tune in nonetheless every day when I drive to work.:D
It's probably fun, and meaningless.
:).. Just like I tune to Bloomberg radio everyday, listening to all those economists, money managers, bond traders pondering how every other month the Fed makes its move on the interest rate... I'm sick and tired of them predicting what's about to happen must happen by the rule of economics. But I tune in nonetheless every day when I drive to work.:D
It's probably fun, and meaningless.
whiteStallion
03-12 03:00 PM
Congrats on being greened !
We continue to wait :(
We continue to wait :(
No comments:
Post a Comment