admin
04-12 04:43 PM
To Submit Comments on the Regulation
The DOL allows people to submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB42, by any of the following methods:
* Federal eRulemaking Portal : Follow the WebSite instructions for submitting comments.
eMail : Comments may be submitted by eMail to (fraud.comments@dol.gov). Include "RIN 1205-AB42" in the subject line of the message.
Mail : Submit written comments to:
Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Room C-4312
Washington, DC 20210
Attention: John R. Beverly, Interim Chief, Division of Foreign Labor Certification
(Note : Because of security measures, mail directed to Washington, DC is sometimes delayed.)
The DOL will consider only those comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or with proof of delivery from a service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Instructions : All submissions received must include the RIN 1205-AB42 for this rulemaking. Receipt of submissions, whether by U.S. Mail or eMail, will not be acknowledged. Because DOL continues to experience occasional delays in receiving postal mail in the Washington D.C. area, DOL recommends that those wishing to submit their comments do so via eMail.
The DOL allows people to submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB42, by any of the following methods:
* Federal eRulemaking Portal : Follow the WebSite instructions for submitting comments.
eMail : Comments may be submitted by eMail to (fraud.comments@dol.gov). Include "RIN 1205-AB42" in the subject line of the message.
Mail : Submit written comments to:
Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Room C-4312
Washington, DC 20210
Attention: John R. Beverly, Interim Chief, Division of Foreign Labor Certification
(Note : Because of security measures, mail directed to Washington, DC is sometimes delayed.)
The DOL will consider only those comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or with proof of delivery from a service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Instructions : All submissions received must include the RIN 1205-AB42 for this rulemaking. Receipt of submissions, whether by U.S. Mail or eMail, will not be acknowledged. Because DOL continues to experience occasional delays in receiving postal mail in the Washington D.C. area, DOL recommends that those wishing to submit their comments do so via eMail.
wallpaper harry potter and the deathly
go_guy123
04-21 02:04 PM
Actually GC on L1 can be really much faster because GC processing on L1 comes under special EB1 category. So if you are willing to take risk of loosing job on L1. I will recommend to go for GC under L1.
No not all L1 fall into EB1...only multinational executives fall into that
category.
No not all L1 fall into EB1...only multinational executives fall into that
category.
shutterbabe
11-19 09:41 AM
Thanx everyone for the helpful advice. I will schedule an infopass appointment. Can can I see an I/O at a location that doesn't service my area?
2011 harry potter and the deathly
gconmymind
09-29 03:35 PM
I also have soft LUD on 09/26 and 09/29...But i dont know what to read into it.
Hope there are a few more approvals today and tomorrow before dates retrogress...
Hope there are a few more approvals today and tomorrow before dates retrogress...
more...
starscream
09-16 04:24 PM
There is a separate original thread for calls in support of HR5882
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21393
people who are calling please post replies on that thread....so that we can get a good count..instead of having 2 separate threads
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21393
people who are calling please post replies on that thread....so that we can get a good count..instead of having 2 separate threads
nmdial
04-21 01:49 PM
We moved from NYC to Houston back in September 2009. If you want to talk, please send me a private message.
Where r u moving from?
Central PA
Where r u moving from?
Central PA
more...
h1techSlave
04-27 10:32 PM
This one is from Mathew Oh:
After all, we should just focus on the upcoming CIR process rather than these piecemeal legislative bills.
After watching all these dramas in the Senate/House, I feel the law makers are testing the waters with various types of immigration bills. Like the IV core team has always suggested, our only real chance is the CIR, whether we like it or not.
Cheers,
h1techSlave
After all, we should just focus on the upcoming CIR process rather than these piecemeal legislative bills.
After watching all these dramas in the Senate/House, I feel the law makers are testing the waters with various types of immigration bills. Like the IV core team has always suggested, our only real chance is the CIR, whether we like it or not.
Cheers,
h1techSlave
2010 Harry Potter And The Deathly
akhilmahajan
11-15 02:34 PM
Is there any possibility of organizing a statewide charity drive sponsored by IV state chapters during the holiday season. This is the season of giving. Why not organize it through IV state chapters. Proceeds can be donated to charities as suggested by donors. We can target
employers, congressmen, senators, relatives, friends....even anti immigrants will donate.
Anybody with prior experience of such fund raising, please comment. We also need to come up with a slogan for this campaign (It may be better if the slogan in itself is not related to immigration) . IV will just do a soft sell in this propaganda. This will increase IV name & also push respective state members to be active in their state chapters.
Comments?
The whole idea is to get people understand and above all accept the problem.
If people can accept the problem and come out willing to find out a solution, then anything can be done.
This is a good time to meet eh lawmakers as they will be coming back for the thanksgiving break. we can highlight our issue.
We can also help in setting up law maker meetings. Folks please contact your state chapters. People are waiting top help you, but if you dont decide to help yourself, then no one can help you.
Think about it.
GO IV GO. TOGTHER WE CAN.
employers, congressmen, senators, relatives, friends....even anti immigrants will donate.
Anybody with prior experience of such fund raising, please comment. We also need to come up with a slogan for this campaign (It may be better if the slogan in itself is not related to immigration) . IV will just do a soft sell in this propaganda. This will increase IV name & also push respective state members to be active in their state chapters.
Comments?
The whole idea is to get people understand and above all accept the problem.
If people can accept the problem and come out willing to find out a solution, then anything can be done.
This is a good time to meet eh lawmakers as they will be coming back for the thanksgiving break. we can highlight our issue.
We can also help in setting up law maker meetings. Folks please contact your state chapters. People are waiting top help you, but if you dont decide to help yourself, then no one can help you.
Think about it.
GO IV GO. TOGTHER WE CAN.
more...
hoolahoous
03-18 10:51 AM
i am switching job using ac21. my current employer trusts immigration attorneys. and as expected attorneys suggested (since they get paid) that company should withdraws both H1 and I-140 after I leave. I know I am safe, however USCIS will definitly send me an RFE at time of processing my application and I will have to answer that. So I am trying to put my side to them saying that if it is optional, they should not.
So my question is, does the Law say that an employer has to withdraw all (or some) immigration petitions after employee leaves ? I was trying to search but I couldn't find anywhere where it said that it is mandated.
Also as far I could tell from forum posts, there is no set form which needs to be filled by employeers to withdraw the application. That would seem to suggest that it is not mandated.
On flip side, if it is mandated, then why most of the employers do not withdraw the application ?
So my question is, does the Law say that an employer has to withdraw all (or some) immigration petitions after employee leaves ? I was trying to search but I couldn't find anywhere where it said that it is mandated.
Also as far I could tell from forum posts, there is no set form which needs to be filled by employeers to withdraw the application. That would seem to suggest that it is not mandated.
On flip side, if it is mandated, then why most of the employers do not withdraw the application ?
hair The latest in of the Harry
GCBy3000
04-15 07:35 PM
I agree as long as you have filed your 485 and 180 days is passed. But in my case, I have not even crossed the labor stage. It was pending with BEC when my company asked me to move. I tried a lot to convince my attorney thinking that I might miss the boat of 485 if at all it becomes current, but it did not help.
THe LPR clearly states that it will become void if any of the below changes.
1. Job description
2. Location
3. Something else, I dont remeber.
The above will not come into effect, if you had crossed 180 days of 485.
Also my attorney told that USCIS will not be able to find from where I file from 485, but it is risk on my part when I go for naturalization. Also if for some reaosn a RFE is issued, any company will tell the truth and the beneficiary will be in trouble. So it is always better to file a new labor unless the beneficiary is intened to move back to original location during the adjucation process and stays at that location for 6+ months.
I dont understand how you got away with this one after changing the location. With your example, the locational requirement of LPR does not make sense at all. Anybody can file LPR anywhere and move anywhere as long as 485 takes more than 180 days. One can deliberately file 485 with improper documentst to delay the approval and getaway. Double check with your attorney on this one and playing safe is not bad idea at all with the current USCIS mess and immigration laws.
AGAIN, I THINK WHEN YOU FILE YOUR 485 you have to be working in the location as stated in your LPR AS PER THE LAW, eventhough USCIS will not be able to find it. Before PERM, there was a column to state the beneficiary will work anywhere in US. But this not available anymore with PERM. The bottom line is the strongest part of LPR, "THE LOCATION", does not make sense at all.
By making you file for new labor, your attorney has played it too safe. In your case, filing a new labor was not neccesary. Please read below and check with an immigration lawyer for advice. I AM NOT A LAWYER but this advice is based on 2 different lawyers I have talked to regarding my own case where I moved from Phoenix, to Reno after my labor was filed.
Here is the deal when changing the location while GC is pending:
1. You can change location during your pending GC. But your job description must not change. Also, you have to move back to the location where your GC was filed, ONLY IF your 485 is processed and approved in less than 180 days from filing (I dont think USCIS will ever be that efficient and process 485 petitions in less than 180 days). That's because your option of AC21 of changing employers and locations (within the same job description, you cant work at a gas station or McDonalds) kicks in after 180 days of filing 485. If your 485 is approved in less than 180 days, then yes, you have to go back to the original location where your Greencard was filed because you dont have the AC21 options of switching employers and locations during your 485 stage ... which is available ONLY AFTER 180 days have passed in the processing of your 485 file.
So as long as your 485 takes longer than 180 days, you can continue to work at your new location even though you GC and labor was filed at a previous location.
2. After 180 days of filing 485, you can change employers using your EAD and change locations. No limit. But it has to be the same job description. You cannot start working as a manager if your Greencard was filed for the position of a programmer.
THe LPR clearly states that it will become void if any of the below changes.
1. Job description
2. Location
3. Something else, I dont remeber.
The above will not come into effect, if you had crossed 180 days of 485.
Also my attorney told that USCIS will not be able to find from where I file from 485, but it is risk on my part when I go for naturalization. Also if for some reaosn a RFE is issued, any company will tell the truth and the beneficiary will be in trouble. So it is always better to file a new labor unless the beneficiary is intened to move back to original location during the adjucation process and stays at that location for 6+ months.
I dont understand how you got away with this one after changing the location. With your example, the locational requirement of LPR does not make sense at all. Anybody can file LPR anywhere and move anywhere as long as 485 takes more than 180 days. One can deliberately file 485 with improper documentst to delay the approval and getaway. Double check with your attorney on this one and playing safe is not bad idea at all with the current USCIS mess and immigration laws.
AGAIN, I THINK WHEN YOU FILE YOUR 485 you have to be working in the location as stated in your LPR AS PER THE LAW, eventhough USCIS will not be able to find it. Before PERM, there was a column to state the beneficiary will work anywhere in US. But this not available anymore with PERM. The bottom line is the strongest part of LPR, "THE LOCATION", does not make sense at all.
By making you file for new labor, your attorney has played it too safe. In your case, filing a new labor was not neccesary. Please read below and check with an immigration lawyer for advice. I AM NOT A LAWYER but this advice is based on 2 different lawyers I have talked to regarding my own case where I moved from Phoenix, to Reno after my labor was filed.
Here is the deal when changing the location while GC is pending:
1. You can change location during your pending GC. But your job description must not change. Also, you have to move back to the location where your GC was filed, ONLY IF your 485 is processed and approved in less than 180 days from filing (I dont think USCIS will ever be that efficient and process 485 petitions in less than 180 days). That's because your option of AC21 of changing employers and locations (within the same job description, you cant work at a gas station or McDonalds) kicks in after 180 days of filing 485. If your 485 is approved in less than 180 days, then yes, you have to go back to the original location where your Greencard was filed because you dont have the AC21 options of switching employers and locations during your 485 stage ... which is available ONLY AFTER 180 days have passed in the processing of your 485 file.
So as long as your 485 takes longer than 180 days, you can continue to work at your new location even though you GC and labor was filed at a previous location.
2. After 180 days of filing 485, you can change employers using your EAD and change locations. No limit. But it has to be the same job description. You cannot start working as a manager if your Greencard was filed for the position of a programmer.
more...
BharatPremi
03-17 10:26 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW, assuming equal number of each country category applied during july though in reality max. applicants should have been from China and India) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW, assuming equal number of each country category applied during july though in reality max. applicants should have been from China and India) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
hot Harry Potter And The Deathly
spicy_guy
04-25 01:18 PM
we live in Chicagoland. PM me if you would like to talk.
Sent a PM. Can you pls check?
Sent a PM. Can you pls check?
more...
house of the Harry Potter: The
Lasantha
02-26 10:38 AM
If they still pre-adjudicated they might not need to move the date backwards, but if they pre-adjudicated we are more likely to loss GC. For example if they adjudicate 180,000 applications per year, but that included 80,000 pre-adjudications then we would loss 40,000 visas that year. So now they adjudicate what they can issue visas for.
I really did not get that one. Is it possible to explain that please?
I really did not get that one. Is it possible to explain that please?
tattoo DVD and Blu-ray release of
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
pictures Related Products. Harry Potter
iad2ead
02-10 05:56 PM
Weigh in with % raise and take decision. If its around 15%-20% raise with
good benefits etc then move..
cheers
Iad
good benefits etc then move..
cheers
Iad
dresses Harry Potter And The Deathly
arnab221
04-27 09:23 PM
Most points are for joining the US Armed forces . I see where this is going .
more...
makeup harry potter and the deathly
gcadream
03-04 08:24 AM
Thanks a lot Rakson for updating the forum with valuable question and answers with the lawyer. Really appreciate it !!
It cleared lot of my doubts as well but regarding point 'C'
[C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?]
I have heard lawyers saying in this forum itself that it can be a problem if the previous employer revokes the approved I-140, irrespective whether it was fraud or not. I don't have the links saved for that discussion, otherwise I would have pasted it.
But are you very sure about point 'C' that what ever ur lawyer said is correct and final ?
It cleared lot of my doubts as well but regarding point 'C'
[C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?]
I have heard lawyers saying in this forum itself that it can be a problem if the previous employer revokes the approved I-140, irrespective whether it was fraud or not. I don't have the links saved for that discussion, otherwise I would have pasted it.
But are you very sure about point 'C' that what ever ur lawyer said is correct and final ?
girlfriend Harry Potter And The Deathly
reddymjm
05-01 09:47 AM
Cool down and complete your story. Hopefully You did not file ur case like this. Just kidding.
hairstyles harry potter and the deathly
SivaMayam
07-17 07:35 PM
Dear Nachi,
I was listening to Rajiv's recent/previous conference call recordins(mp3 foramat can be found on main page) in which he said some of his clients were in similar situations and did not have any issues.
http://www.immigration.com/improving_immigration/conference_calls.html
Please listen to one of those(recent 2 recordings) you will get some answer. Also consult with your lawyer if you filed through an attorney. Keep all the papers ready just in case you need to refile...
Good luck
~S
I was listening to Rajiv's recent/previous conference call recordins(mp3 foramat can be found on main page) in which he said some of his clients were in similar situations and did not have any issues.
http://www.immigration.com/improving_immigration/conference_calls.html
Please listen to one of those(recent 2 recordings) you will get some answer. Also consult with your lawyer if you filed through an attorney. Keep all the papers ready just in case you need to refile...
Good luck
~S
zephyrr
07-16 11:51 PM
my attorney did not ask for w2 or tax return, my company uses berry, appleman and leiden, usabal.com
wonder why different attorneys have different requirements
wonder why different attorneys have different requirements
belmontboy
07-31 01:04 PM
I would like to know what are the primary reasons why employers revokes approved I-140 after invoking AC21 after 180 days.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
Wipro doesnot sponsor GC's that much.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
Wipro doesnot sponsor GC's that much.
No comments:
Post a Comment