Raj Iyer
09-22 04:38 PM
Go for premium processing.
smuggymba
06-02 08:09 AM
Liaison International
(Comprehensive Coverage Plan)
All insurance or in same boat.
consider filing a claims suit. The business model of insurance companies is to deny claim and if you persist, they might budge.
I also got liason for my mother but never used it. This time we used icicilombard and didn't use it also. But how can high fever be considered pre-existing condition.........file a lawsuit and let them prove that fever is pre-existing. Don't go down easily with such cheats.
Did you buy liason from or ? Try contacting their super mod Murali, let's see if can help.
(Comprehensive Coverage Plan)
All insurance or in same boat.
consider filing a claims suit. The business model of insurance companies is to deny claim and if you persist, they might budge.
I also got liason for my mother but never used it. This time we used icicilombard and didn't use it also. But how can high fever be considered pre-existing condition.........file a lawsuit and let them prove that fever is pre-existing. Don't go down easily with such cheats.
Did you buy liason from or ? Try contacting their super mod Murali, let's see if can help.
carbon
05-21 05:41 PM
Immigration Voice has taken a position against the bill in its current form. .
And that is the position of everyone in this country except 20 insider deal senators.
You offer amendments after you take position on the bill - for or against. Everyone does it. There are people who would oppose the bill both before entering the amendments and after their own amendments are passed.
In the current position, the bill is unacceptable to us and it would be foolish to say "Thanks for screwing us with 90K, we accept it and support your screwing us".
Have some dignity man...
But what if some amendment convert 90K to 190K ? Will IV support the bill then? I think the entire bill is not that bad we can swing it into our favor by changing few details :)
And that is the position of everyone in this country except 20 insider deal senators.
You offer amendments after you take position on the bill - for or against. Everyone does it. There are people who would oppose the bill both before entering the amendments and after their own amendments are passed.
In the current position, the bill is unacceptable to us and it would be foolish to say "Thanks for screwing us with 90K, we accept it and support your screwing us".
Have some dignity man...
But what if some amendment convert 90K to 190K ? Will IV support the bill then? I think the entire bill is not that bad we can swing it into our favor by changing few details :)
spouse485
01-10 05:18 PM
Thanks so much for all the replies.
I'm going to follow the links provided.
Should your bank statements reflect specific minimun balance ?
Thank you.
does anyone have an answer
I'm going to follow the links provided.
Should your bank statements reflect specific minimun balance ?
Thank you.
does anyone have an answer
more...
gondalguru
09-29 11:43 AM
09/27/2008: Senate Passed Consolidated Continuing Appropriation Bill, H.R. 2638
* Today, the Senate also passed this bill by agreeing to the House H.R. 2638 which the House paased earlier. Here is the vote count. This bill now goes to the President for his signature. The President is expected to sign all of these bills, including Consolidated Continuing Appropriation, Reauthorizations of Non-Miniter Religious Worker Special Immigration, and Conrad 30 International Medical Graduates National Interest Waiver bills before October 1, Wednesday. Otherwise, the federal government is destined to shut down and the immigration reauthorization laws will sunset and gone. The President is anticipated to sign these bills by September 30, 2008.
* Sad part is that the immigration reauthorization is valid only until March 6, 2009 just as the continuing appropriation act. Still, it is a good news in that most of the pending I-360 non-minister religious worker immigration petitions, Conrad-30 based I-140 petitions, and EB-485 applications related to these petitions are likely taken care of before March 6, 2009. The USCIS is currently holding in abeyance these petitions and related EB-485 applications pending the Congressional action. Since the Congress has now cleared the path, as soon as the President signs the bills, the USCIS is likely to pick up these petitions and 485 applications swiftly. Unfortunately, the Conrad 30 based EB-485 for Indians and Chinese may still have to deal with the visa number retrogressions in October 2008 Visa Bulletin. The non-religious workers do not have visa number problem as the visa number for these categories will remain current in October.
What does it mean -- conrad 30 related I-140 and related I-485 will be taken care of prior to March 2009??? What is he trying to say there? Where can I find some more details on that bill.
* Today, the Senate also passed this bill by agreeing to the House H.R. 2638 which the House paased earlier. Here is the vote count. This bill now goes to the President for his signature. The President is expected to sign all of these bills, including Consolidated Continuing Appropriation, Reauthorizations of Non-Miniter Religious Worker Special Immigration, and Conrad 30 International Medical Graduates National Interest Waiver bills before October 1, Wednesday. Otherwise, the federal government is destined to shut down and the immigration reauthorization laws will sunset and gone. The President is anticipated to sign these bills by September 30, 2008.
* Sad part is that the immigration reauthorization is valid only until March 6, 2009 just as the continuing appropriation act. Still, it is a good news in that most of the pending I-360 non-minister religious worker immigration petitions, Conrad-30 based I-140 petitions, and EB-485 applications related to these petitions are likely taken care of before March 6, 2009. The USCIS is currently holding in abeyance these petitions and related EB-485 applications pending the Congressional action. Since the Congress has now cleared the path, as soon as the President signs the bills, the USCIS is likely to pick up these petitions and 485 applications swiftly. Unfortunately, the Conrad 30 based EB-485 for Indians and Chinese may still have to deal with the visa number retrogressions in October 2008 Visa Bulletin. The non-religious workers do not have visa number problem as the visa number for these categories will remain current in October.
What does it mean -- conrad 30 related I-140 and related I-485 will be taken care of prior to March 2009??? What is he trying to say there? Where can I find some more details on that bill.
ras
07-05 03:52 PM
Guys,
I am proposing a "IV Annual Meet", Not all of IV need to meet in one place, but all the state chapters can meet in their local states on this one day. We should make this a annual affair. ATLEAST, we should meet once a year. It should be for a whole day, 10 - 5. Every one who wants to visit can RSVP, we can do it in a grand way with lunch etc...we can cover the expenses with a donation of $25 per person .
When ?
First Saturday of the first week of November ? This way we do not disturb people's summer time vacations.
How does this help ?
First, it will help to meet State members face to face.
We can invite distinguished people to our meeting to give a speech, so we get press coverage.
We can decide our next steps.
Basically we can do a lot.
We can do some voting too. I (lot of other IVans too) have always wanted to change our groups name to "LegalImmigrationVoice", (no offense to the people who coined this name, they have started a organisation that all Legal Immigrants are benefited, they should find a place in US history books ! :) ) so we do not give the benefit of doubt to anyone that we represent ill-legal immigrants also.
Every one please share your thoughts as what we can do in this annual meet.
I strongly agree with this proposal. Even if it doesn't yield too much, it definitely keeps the tempo and momentum in the community. I kind of propose two days:
1st day for meeting at the state level chapters in respective states
2nd day national meet. In the national meet, few representatives from the states take the messages from the previous state meet and discuss them at the national level. or some workable model, where we get the message from state meeting to the national meeting.
I am proposing a "IV Annual Meet", Not all of IV need to meet in one place, but all the state chapters can meet in their local states on this one day. We should make this a annual affair. ATLEAST, we should meet once a year. It should be for a whole day, 10 - 5. Every one who wants to visit can RSVP, we can do it in a grand way with lunch etc...we can cover the expenses with a donation of $25 per person .
When ?
First Saturday of the first week of November ? This way we do not disturb people's summer time vacations.
How does this help ?
First, it will help to meet State members face to face.
We can invite distinguished people to our meeting to give a speech, so we get press coverage.
We can decide our next steps.
Basically we can do a lot.
We can do some voting too. I (lot of other IVans too) have always wanted to change our groups name to "LegalImmigrationVoice", (no offense to the people who coined this name, they have started a organisation that all Legal Immigrants are benefited, they should find a place in US history books ! :) ) so we do not give the benefit of doubt to anyone that we represent ill-legal immigrants also.
Every one please share your thoughts as what we can do in this annual meet.
I strongly agree with this proposal. Even if it doesn't yield too much, it definitely keeps the tempo and momentum in the community. I kind of propose two days:
1st day for meeting at the state level chapters in respective states
2nd day national meet. In the national meet, few representatives from the states take the messages from the previous state meet and discuss them at the national level. or some workable model, where we get the message from state meeting to the national meeting.
more...
frostrated
07-02 09:17 AM
I have recently spent 2 weeks in Chennai and my overall taxi experience has been very good being non Tamil speaking. All Taxis charge more when the starting point is Airport. That is inevitable. If it is just to drop them at the nearest hotel, ask them to approach the Govt Prepaid Taxi booth.
Govt's is cheaper compared to the private Taxis. Ofcourse the Govt only has Ambassadors as the Taxis. Do not expect the Taxis to be neat and clean like here. Expect broken handles.....There are 3 other private Taxi booths, of the private taxis Fasttrack seemed a little lesser compared to others, almost all private taxi rates are closer.
If they need the Taxi from hotel check out Fasttrack website and get teh phone no for Chennai. They have been pretty good an picking me on time, but make sure you reserve it well in advance (4-5 hrs). Whenever I called in the last minute, they were not on time.
I did stay at a hotel far from Airport - clsoer to work. So might not be useful to u.
My experience with Taxis at Chennai airport have always been bad. They quote you a rate at the taxi counter and when you go to board the car, they will add on other charges saying that there is a lot of luggage. Anything more than two large suitcases, they charge at least 150 to 200. You have to haggle with them to not pay. Even the people at the counters side with the Taxi drivers.
Of late, I am having a call taxi service come to the airport to pick me up. You can talk to the hotel people to arrange for the taxi. it comes close to the actual fare quoted initially, but you wont have to pay those exhorbitant charges for luggage.
Govt's is cheaper compared to the private Taxis. Ofcourse the Govt only has Ambassadors as the Taxis. Do not expect the Taxis to be neat and clean like here. Expect broken handles.....There are 3 other private Taxi booths, of the private taxis Fasttrack seemed a little lesser compared to others, almost all private taxi rates are closer.
If they need the Taxi from hotel check out Fasttrack website and get teh phone no for Chennai. They have been pretty good an picking me on time, but make sure you reserve it well in advance (4-5 hrs). Whenever I called in the last minute, they were not on time.
I did stay at a hotel far from Airport - clsoer to work. So might not be useful to u.
My experience with Taxis at Chennai airport have always been bad. They quote you a rate at the taxi counter and when you go to board the car, they will add on other charges saying that there is a lot of luggage. Anything more than two large suitcases, they charge at least 150 to 200. You have to haggle with them to not pay. Even the people at the counters side with the Taxi drivers.
Of late, I am having a call taxi service come to the airport to pick me up. You can talk to the hotel people to arrange for the taxi. it comes close to the actual fare quoted initially, but you wont have to pay those exhorbitant charges for luggage.
InMess
02-22 09:34 AM
Hi Guys i need some advice/help on my I-140 denial.
I have US masters and 4+years of US job experience and My I-140 was filed in EB2 using a Substitution labor which as the education/experience requirements of (14) Masters+1years experience or (15) Bachelors + 3Years Experience and it was denied without RFE saying the Labor certfication used is not suitable for EB2 as they say EB2 labor should be requiring "Masters or BS+5Years Exp", which makes sense.
So what are my options now
1. Can my attorney file an MTR and request the USCIS to consider mine as a EB3 case, if requested what are the chances of USCIS approving my I-140.
2. Once the MTR is filed to convert from EB2 to EB3, what is the present status of my 485/EAD/AP/FP
3. If the USCIS is okay converting from EB2 to EB3, will the same application's applied ealier for 485/EAD/AP/FP are valid or not?
4. My wife has used her EAD and she is doing a full time job, so now as my I-140 is denied and if an MTR is filed in next few days can she still continue the same job until the decision is made on the I-140 and 485.
5. My wife has an H1 also, so as she used her EAD(which came as my dependent) not with the company which hold's her H1, in this case what would be the status of her H1, can she quit her present job and do another job using her H1, is that H1 still valid.
Thank you all for your advices and help.
I have US masters and 4+years of US job experience and My I-140 was filed in EB2 using a Substitution labor which as the education/experience requirements of (14) Masters+1years experience or (15) Bachelors + 3Years Experience and it was denied without RFE saying the Labor certfication used is not suitable for EB2 as they say EB2 labor should be requiring "Masters or BS+5Years Exp", which makes sense.
So what are my options now
1. Can my attorney file an MTR and request the USCIS to consider mine as a EB3 case, if requested what are the chances of USCIS approving my I-140.
2. Once the MTR is filed to convert from EB2 to EB3, what is the present status of my 485/EAD/AP/FP
3. If the USCIS is okay converting from EB2 to EB3, will the same application's applied ealier for 485/EAD/AP/FP are valid or not?
4. My wife has used her EAD and she is doing a full time job, so now as my I-140 is denied and if an MTR is filed in next few days can she still continue the same job until the decision is made on the I-140 and 485.
5. My wife has an H1 also, so as she used her EAD(which came as my dependent) not with the company which hold's her H1, in this case what would be the status of her H1, can she quit her present job and do another job using her H1, is that H1 still valid.
Thank you all for your advices and help.
more...
thomachan72
11-05 03:00 PM
Dude, if you find it difficult to digest, then don't do it with your kid. Its that simple.
A debate on this is probably not warranted, as its subjective to every individual's situation.
And btw, both my kids live with me, but they travelled with someone else to spend their vacation at grand-parent's house, so I am not trying to oppose your viewpoint.
This is an infant we are talking about (less than 2 years!).....:o:o:o
A debate on this is probably not warranted, as its subjective to every individual's situation.
And btw, both my kids live with me, but they travelled with someone else to spend their vacation at grand-parent's house, so I am not trying to oppose your viewpoint.
This is an infant we are talking about (less than 2 years!).....:o:o:o
pappu
10-02 11:58 AM
This article is old (Dt:06-Sep-06) but has correctly predicted about SKILL bill going to lame-duck session.
It would be great if our core members get in touch with the executive editors of Information week (All contact information listed in informationweek.com) and send a document representing our issues. There is a good chance that it gets printed.
Information week magazine has a nationwide audience including CEO's who can push our case for lobbying. They have printed various articles in the past about HIB and Greencard issues.
http://www.informationweek.com/outsourcing/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192503648
Regards,
Sreekanth
thanks. I have written to the magazine today and will followup in a few days. However I urge sreekanth and IV members to write to
mmcgee@cmp.com
Marianne Kolbasuk McGee
and copy
rpreston@cmp.com
Rob Preston
jpfoley@cmp.com
John Foley
cjmurphy@cmp.com
Chris Murphy
tasmith@cmp.com
Tom Smith
several emails from IV members will surely help our cause. Pls. post on this forum once you have written so that we all know how many people took action.
It would be great if our core members get in touch with the executive editors of Information week (All contact information listed in informationweek.com) and send a document representing our issues. There is a good chance that it gets printed.
Information week magazine has a nationwide audience including CEO's who can push our case for lobbying. They have printed various articles in the past about HIB and Greencard issues.
http://www.informationweek.com/outsourcing/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192503648
Regards,
Sreekanth
thanks. I have written to the magazine today and will followup in a few days. However I urge sreekanth and IV members to write to
mmcgee@cmp.com
Marianne Kolbasuk McGee
and copy
rpreston@cmp.com
Rob Preston
jpfoley@cmp.com
John Foley
cjmurphy@cmp.com
Chris Murphy
tasmith@cmp.com
Tom Smith
several emails from IV members will surely help our cause. Pls. post on this forum once you have written so that we all know how many people took action.
more...
sreedhar
10-26 11:10 AM
July 2nd filer, checks cashed on 10/16, still online status not available.
My Checks Cashed on 10/10...Still Not available on USCIS online System.
My Checks Cashed on 10/10...Still Not available on USCIS online System.
amoljak
03-24 09:30 AM
Read this thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=346
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=346
more...
jamsumfarray
11-17 06:34 PM
i just got a letter from teh backlog center stating that i need to send advertisement from my company?
any one has any idea about this non rir case how does it move etc any information is really needful ..
thanks
hence i cant change from non rir to rir .
any one has any idea about this non rir case how does it move etc any information is really needful ..
thanks
hence i cant change from non rir to rir .
glus
02-16 08:56 AM
hello,
I had a very similar situation when i applied for a load a year ago. The loan officer was puzzled with my immigration status. He initially pre-approved the load and then he called and said that the bank can't approved due to my immigration status. However, the deny letter did not say that and said that the reason for denial was a completely different one. I spoke to a lawyer regarding this and he said that as long as I don't have immigration status / or origin of mine as the reason of denial in writing, I don't have a case. And, he said, immigration status can be taken into consideration when applying for a loan. As such, I re-aplied in a different bank and had no issues whatsoever.
I had a very similar situation when i applied for a load a year ago. The loan officer was puzzled with my immigration status. He initially pre-approved the load and then he called and said that the bank can't approved due to my immigration status. However, the deny letter did not say that and said that the reason for denial was a completely different one. I spoke to a lawyer regarding this and he said that as long as I don't have immigration status / or origin of mine as the reason of denial in writing, I don't have a case. And, he said, immigration status can be taken into consideration when applying for a loan. As such, I re-aplied in a different bank and had no issues whatsoever.
more...
swaraj
11-12 01:07 PM
Thanks all for your replies.
Is it correct to assume that immigration officer at port of entry will be able to grant a stay for upto 6 months in I-94 even if the visa is expiring in a few days?
Is it correct to assume that immigration officer at port of entry will be able to grant a stay for upto 6 months in I-94 even if the visa is expiring in a few days?
waitingonlc
02-13 03:50 PM
Immigration plan looms in Congress
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
more...
raaki
11-06 01:38 PM
I am July 3rd filer and just checked my status online.Parole document mailed today
bkarnik
03-04 06:58 PM
It could be because there are no lnger any cases left with namechecks pending more than 180 days. See link http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/Namecheck_4Mar09.pdf
radhay
01-08 11:44 AM
Hi, we applied to transfer my wife's out of state driving license to CT state but the application was denied.
The reasoning was that DMV's immigration check came back stating that her status is H4 but the documents we are carrying are EAD, I 485 receipt etc. She is using her EAD so we didn't renew her H4 along with my H1B.
At infopass we were told there is not much USCIS can do since we are still waiting for adjustment (I 485 pending) to Permanent residence status. DMV doesn't buy this argument as they insist her status should be 'pending application' .
We (immigrant community) will probably face more and more of these issues as long as we have retrogression.
Any one faced similar situation.? I have contacted Senators office regarding this bureaucracy and still waiting for response.
The reasoning was that DMV's immigration check came back stating that her status is H4 but the documents we are carrying are EAD, I 485 receipt etc. She is using her EAD so we didn't renew her H4 along with my H1B.
At infopass we were told there is not much USCIS can do since we are still waiting for adjustment (I 485 pending) to Permanent residence status. DMV doesn't buy this argument as they insist her status should be 'pending application' .
We (immigrant community) will probably face more and more of these issues as long as we have retrogression.
Any one faced similar situation.? I have contacted Senators office regarding this bureaucracy and still waiting for response.
santosh_3000
07-18 01:27 PM
Friends .. Please reply/suggest as its very urgent to take decision. Thanks!!
Hi,
I applied I-140 using substituted labor(13th July 2007, receipt no yet to come) on future employment basis ..
Since, USCIS has allowed filing for I-485, I wanted to file my I485, with my future employer but he is not ready to file I485 until I come to his payroll.
I need your valuable suggestions to make my decision, my questions are:
1. If I want to join on his payroll, I have to leave my existing company/Client, so that I485 can be filed ... Should I agree for this? what's your opinion???
2.How safe do you think, idea of leaving my current established long term client and finding new client through him , for filing i485 purpose ?
3. Also, I am not sure about how/when my labor substitution will be approved? And in worst case, if it gets rejected, where I am going to be( I completed 3.5 years on my H1 visa which means I have 2.5 years remaining in my 6 year)???
5.What are the benefits (and in what timeframe) I can expect if I decide to file I485 now ?
Many Thanks in Advance!!
Hi,
I applied I-140 using substituted labor(13th July 2007, receipt no yet to come) on future employment basis ..
Since, USCIS has allowed filing for I-485, I wanted to file my I485, with my future employer but he is not ready to file I485 until I come to his payroll.
I need your valuable suggestions to make my decision, my questions are:
1. If I want to join on his payroll, I have to leave my existing company/Client, so that I485 can be filed ... Should I agree for this? what's your opinion???
2.How safe do you think, idea of leaving my current established long term client and finding new client through him , for filing i485 purpose ?
3. Also, I am not sure about how/when my labor substitution will be approved? And in worst case, if it gets rejected, where I am going to be( I completed 3.5 years on my H1 visa which means I have 2.5 years remaining in my 6 year)???
5.What are the benefits (and in what timeframe) I can expect if I decide to file I485 now ?
Many Thanks in Advance!!
ns33
06-10 04:22 PM
Thank you all for helping out. Just sent the packet through UPS to TSC.
Keeping my fingers crossed now.
Thanks again.
NS
Keeping my fingers crossed now.
Thanks again.
NS
No comments:
Post a Comment