CoolStrom1
04-16 03:22 PM
I thought as soon as I-140 is denied your spouse has to stop working on EAD and go out of the country to renew H4. ?
wallpaper Justin Bieber Kiss And Tell
kumar07
09-12 12:05 PM
Hi Friends,
Here is my Situation;
me and my wife,both residents of singapore, have h1b approved this year through the same consultancy firm and the company has already received the approval notice. We are planning to appear for visa interview sometime end of this month with Singapore Embassy and the company is going to send all the documents by next week.
Since we both are going for visa interview, I have few concerns regarding our cases:
1 We both are planning to go for visa interview on the same day. So, who should go first so that it would not interfere others interview? Or does it really make any difference?
2 Will visa officer ask any of us that since you are married why you haven't bring your spouse together? Can we say that the other also has h1b interview on the same day?
3 I am not sure whether my wife would face any questions regarding that she is married and does she have any spouse issues or what if mine H1b is not going to approved? would she still be interested to pursue her h1b or like that?
4 My h1b was denied last year because of company project document issue with same singapore embassy. So I am not sure does it going to make any impact this time or not? Any help appreciated.
I would appreciate if anyone could help me to find any of the answers.
Thanks.
Here is my Situation;
me and my wife,both residents of singapore, have h1b approved this year through the same consultancy firm and the company has already received the approval notice. We are planning to appear for visa interview sometime end of this month with Singapore Embassy and the company is going to send all the documents by next week.
Since we both are going for visa interview, I have few concerns regarding our cases:
1 We both are planning to go for visa interview on the same day. So, who should go first so that it would not interfere others interview? Or does it really make any difference?
2 Will visa officer ask any of us that since you are married why you haven't bring your spouse together? Can we say that the other also has h1b interview on the same day?
3 I am not sure whether my wife would face any questions regarding that she is married and does she have any spouse issues or what if mine H1b is not going to approved? would she still be interested to pursue her h1b or like that?
4 My h1b was denied last year because of company project document issue with same singapore embassy. So I am not sure does it going to make any impact this time or not? Any help appreciated.
I would appreciate if anyone could help me to find any of the answers.
Thanks.
thomachan72
09-15 03:59 PM
CIR will defenitely not help EB applicants. It will introduce a point system which eventually will screw up the whole system. One reason we have limited applicants to EB based GC now is that we have to be sponsored by an employer. Imagine if anybody could apply the sytem will be flooded and also there will be millions of ilegals to accomodate in some way. CIR is better dead than alive.
2011 justin bieber kissing a guy.
kumarc123
06-18 03:00 PM
Guys,
you all re jumping to conclusions based on opinions, have you forgoteen what OBAMA had been saying about immigration?
1. Address legal immigration first
2. Illegals will have to stand behind the ones who came in this country legally.
Do you really think, that they will totoaly ignore legal immigrants and work on illegal. Obama has been talking about this process since his days of presidentail campaign,
We all need to have faith and work towards making IV and its goal attainable.
you all re jumping to conclusions based on opinions, have you forgoteen what OBAMA had been saying about immigration?
1. Address legal immigration first
2. Illegals will have to stand behind the ones who came in this country legally.
Do you really think, that they will totoaly ignore legal immigrants and work on illegal. Obama has been talking about this process since his days of presidentail campaign,
We all need to have faith and work towards making IV and its goal attainable.
more...
Ann Ruben
06-22 12:10 PM
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
wandmaker
11-21 04:10 PM
You ask your Ex-coworker to draft a letter with detailed duties and responsibilities and print it on his current companies letterhead. You dont have to get it notarized. I did issue a similar letter for one of my friend, it was long long ago, don't have the format yet. btw, i did not notarized, I just printed, signed and mailed.
more...
Jim
January 5th, 2005, 08:27 PM
Very nice, Freddy. I like what you have done with this image. The red is perfect.
2010 justin bieber kissing a boy
gcnirvana
11-14 07:44 PM
My RIR is rejected. My LC is still pending.
My lawyer says it is moved to TR queue
If My case is moved to TR queue, does it mean very significant delay in getting my LC? Because in such a case this is my breaking point.Ready to quit and give up after these years and years if pain
It happened to me 3 years ago. They moved a bunch of LCs (from my company and also other companies in that region) from RIR to TR stating "unstable market" reasons. If your company has a freeze on hiring or a lot of lay-offs then it might happen. As USCIS claim to process all LCs by Sep 2007, you might want to wait till that and then decide on a future course of action. Or if you don't have a lot of wiggle room in your H1 then you can try the PERM route and atleast get your I-140 cleared.
As for me, I did just that and am in a much better position in my new company (in both, what I do and how much I earn). I am not suggesting you do the same thing but am just letting you know that there is always a way around this misery. Just dont get dejected; do a lot of thinking; talk to your friends/well wishers/family and then decide.
Just my 2 cents...
Good Luck!
My lawyer says it is moved to TR queue
If My case is moved to TR queue, does it mean very significant delay in getting my LC? Because in such a case this is my breaking point.Ready to quit and give up after these years and years if pain
It happened to me 3 years ago. They moved a bunch of LCs (from my company and also other companies in that region) from RIR to TR stating "unstable market" reasons. If your company has a freeze on hiring or a lot of lay-offs then it might happen. As USCIS claim to process all LCs by Sep 2007, you might want to wait till that and then decide on a future course of action. Or if you don't have a lot of wiggle room in your H1 then you can try the PERM route and atleast get your I-140 cleared.
As for me, I did just that and am in a much better position in my new company (in both, what I do and how much I earn). I am not suggesting you do the same thing but am just letting you know that there is always a way around this misery. Just dont get dejected; do a lot of thinking; talk to your friends/well wishers/family and then decide.
Just my 2 cents...
Good Luck!
more...
arunmohan
04-06 12:44 PM
Friends ,
Count me in,I live in Tucson.
Count me in,I live in Tucson.
hair justin bieber kissing a
pd052009
09-08 12:32 PM
How far are we from hearing that H1/L1 is banned for Govt/Pvt projects?
Good atleast we can have jobs, fr..ing last couple of years tired of loosing jobs because of Outsourcing companies. Waiting for GC from 9 years and now struggling to keep the job because of Outsourcing. Big F for OS
Good atleast we can have jobs, fr..ing last couple of years tired of loosing jobs because of Outsourcing companies. Waiting for GC from 9 years and now struggling to keep the job because of Outsourcing. Big F for OS
more...
himu73
04-09 03:19 PM
I have observed senior members constantly heckling anyone trying put their views asking "Have you given any contribution ?" "How have you contributed to any work?" This is a democratic cause and i think we not heckle people. It will erode the support base. We need to understand that out of all the members only few percent will contribute. Constant repsonses to people expresssing their view will either drive people away or will not allow more creative ideas to come out. Take this case. It is a very good idea to go to Indian channels. I would expect a response like "Lets approach them and try to convince about our cause" (I know when i am writing this, next post will be why dont you try clling. I am ready but such a responce will dampen anyones spirit. Consider our activity like a profit center. More people and ideas is the driving force.Money is important but people who understnad the cause wont wait to contribute anyway.
Hope this make sense and we have more positive posts !!!
Hope this make sense and we have more positive posts !!!
hot justin bieber kissing selena
a_yaja
07-20 10:47 AM
I am a July fiasco survivor. My 485 has been filed through AOS, so no worries there. I was supposed to get married in a few months, but my fiancee has rushed down to the US on her tourist visa. The plan was to get a civil marriage certificate done and have her atach her AOS with mine. Lawyer has now informed me that she needs to stay here till she gets AP otherwise the application is considered 'abandoned'. She has a life in her home country that she needs to get back to, She can't just drop everything and park herself here for the 4-6 months that AP is likelt to take for July applicants. Does anyone have any advice, or a similar situation? As I see it, my options are -
1. File AOS for her and let her leave, and take the chance that they will track her departure and cancel her application. If this happens, is she allowed to refile if the PD becomes current later?
2. Rush out of the US with her to get her back in on H4 visa. Challenge here is that it is near impossible to get an appointment at a US consulate before the 17th Aug window closes.
3. File her application through CP. She doesn't get interim benefits that way. Given my PD of EB3-June 2006, I'm not expecting a GC for at least 3 years, so this option really sucks.
Any suggestions from the community out there?
Did you ask your lawyer about "rushing back to India, getting married and she comes here on tourist visa. She can file for AOS and EAD/ AP"?
One more thing about getting married here on B1/ B2 and filing for AOS. I have heard of a case where the AOS was denied for a similar case. A person came the US on a visitor's visa and married a US citizen and applied for AOS. USCIS denied her AOS because they claimed that she falisified her visa application for B1/ B2 by stating that she had no immigrant intent but she did infact have an immigrant intent by coming over here and marrying a US citizen and filing for AOS.
While your case is not exactly the same, USCIS could use the same reason if you get married here. But getting married in India will not have the same effect because getting married in India does not show immigrant intent on her part.
Best to ask your lawyer.
1. File AOS for her and let her leave, and take the chance that they will track her departure and cancel her application. If this happens, is she allowed to refile if the PD becomes current later?
2. Rush out of the US with her to get her back in on H4 visa. Challenge here is that it is near impossible to get an appointment at a US consulate before the 17th Aug window closes.
3. File her application through CP. She doesn't get interim benefits that way. Given my PD of EB3-June 2006, I'm not expecting a GC for at least 3 years, so this option really sucks.
Any suggestions from the community out there?
Did you ask your lawyer about "rushing back to India, getting married and she comes here on tourist visa. She can file for AOS and EAD/ AP"?
One more thing about getting married here on B1/ B2 and filing for AOS. I have heard of a case where the AOS was denied for a similar case. A person came the US on a visitor's visa and married a US citizen and applied for AOS. USCIS denied her AOS because they claimed that she falisified her visa application for B1/ B2 by stating that she had no immigrant intent but she did infact have an immigrant intent by coming over here and marrying a US citizen and filing for AOS.
While your case is not exactly the same, USCIS could use the same reason if you get married here. But getting married in India will not have the same effect because getting married in India does not show immigrant intent on her part.
Best to ask your lawyer.
more...
house was Justin+ieber+kissing+
greensignal
08-22 11:06 AM
You applied at the right service center TSC. I also live in NC and applied on July 25th at TSC and got the Receipt notices.
Did you check the processing dates for TSC for I765? I think currently they are processing applications applied before April 16, 2008.
So dont worry.. But you may call TSC Service center for any status
Did you check the processing dates for TSC for I765? I think currently they are processing applications applied before April 16, 2008.
So dont worry.. But you may call TSC Service center for any status
tattoo justin bieber kiss.
chandra140
10-13 01:48 PM
I got the 140 denial notice.
The USCIS did not mentioned any reason like my valid labour is expired.Not sure is the denial is because of 180 day rule or not.
Here is the reason...
The petitioner did not submit an individual labour certification for the beneficiary or evidence of schedule A designation.As such, the beneficiary is ineligible for classification as a member of the preofessions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability.
The USCIS did not mentioned any reason like my valid labour is expired.Not sure is the denial is because of 180 day rule or not.
Here is the reason...
The petitioner did not submit an individual labour certification for the beneficiary or evidence of schedule A designation.As such, the beneficiary is ineligible for classification as a member of the preofessions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability.
more...
pictures justin bieber rihanna kiss.
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
dresses selena gomez and justin bieber
mikrupee
07-27 03:26 PM
What happen to a person with H1B and then EAD. Main job he continues with original employer who file GC and take a partime like working in a store. What will be the interpretation and Can he do that?
Senior pl give advice.
O.K. Once you get EAD being a H4 Visa holder you can do multiple jobs in multiple field as you were having H4 status. But now if you are having H1 status then you can do multiple jobs with all jobs having similar description to the job description for what your original employer filed your green card (485).
Now real question should be "Should I use EAD or Should I be on H1/H4?"
If U choose to use your EAD than from that moment your H status expires. In normal circumstances you would not care. But in reality your 485 process will still continue for years and say unfortunately something bad happen to your 485 process and get denied then you will have one choice that is to leave USA. But if you have maintained your H status not using EAD then in that kind of scenario you still keep working and staying in USA.
Senior pl give advice.
O.K. Once you get EAD being a H4 Visa holder you can do multiple jobs in multiple field as you were having H4 status. But now if you are having H1 status then you can do multiple jobs with all jobs having similar description to the job description for what your original employer filed your green card (485).
Now real question should be "Should I use EAD or Should I be on H1/H4?"
If U choose to use your EAD than from that moment your H status expires. In normal circumstances you would not care. But in reality your 485 process will still continue for years and say unfortunately something bad happen to your 485 process and get denied then you will have one choice that is to leave USA. But if you have maintained your H status not using EAD then in that kind of scenario you still keep working and staying in USA.
more...
makeup justin bieber kiss. lips
steppenwolf
09-26 04:57 PM
that's interesting...
i got my checks cashed on 9/21 but no receipt yet. i sent my application on 8/8 to NSC.
online status says a notice has been mailed out - any clue how long this takes after the check has been cashed?
i got my checks cashed on 9/21 but no receipt yet. i sent my application on 8/8 to NSC.
online status says a notice has been mailed out - any clue how long this takes after the check has been cashed?
girlfriend selena gomez and justin bieber
varshadas
09-14 04:37 PM
I was really glad to hear the IV ad and also Jay's interview. Many people in New Jersey listen to this station so, lets hope that a lot of people got this message.
Thanks
Varsha
Thanks
Varsha
hairstyles justin bieber kissed selena
gc_chahiye
07-12 11:59 AM
you wont be subject to cap if you jump to H4 and jump back to H1 since you were on cap subject H1 within the past 365 days. However if your spouse jumps to H4, she can only jump back to a non-cap H1. If she wants to work for a for-profit, she has to go through teh H1 cap.
Basically the fact that your H4 was based off a non-cap H1 has no bearing on your own H1 status and cap limits and returning to H1 again.
If you are on 7th year and you get layed off, you can only get the H4->H1 done if you still have that I-140 approved. If in the process of laying you off your employer also cancels teh I-140 you cant come back to H1. You need to wait outside teh US a year and you'll be subject to cap again.
one more thing: I am not sure how long you can stay on H4 and come back to H1 without being subject to cap. (is it 1 year or 6 years)
Basically the fact that your H4 was based off a non-cap H1 has no bearing on your own H1 status and cap limits and returning to H1 again.
If you are on 7th year and you get layed off, you can only get the H4->H1 done if you still have that I-140 approved. If in the process of laying you off your employer also cancels teh I-140 you cant come back to H1. You need to wait outside teh US a year and you'll be subject to cap again.
one more thing: I am not sure how long you can stay on H4 and come back to H1 without being subject to cap. (is it 1 year or 6 years)
txh1b
08-25 02:33 PM
AC21 is complicated enough and you need to have a qualified lawyer (get a second opinion from one) if your company lawyer is the only one that is looking at it.
1. These seem different to me and I am sure the job descriptions under the ONET page would also be different for these SOC codes. This would mean your AC21 will be risky.
2. This sounds more like a same/similar position.
3. You could do that. Your employer should be ready to give you a letter that your profferred position upon approval of GC is an Engineer position. If there is any mention of a manager, USCIS may be wondering why anyone would take a demotion (sorta) after the GC is approved.
4. You can but employer tailoring the description to fit your needs might be bordering to fraud.
5. a. You will retain your old PD.
b. This is a gray area. You are technically not qualifying under AC21 however, it is possible as AC21 filing is not mandatory. If your case gets in audit, you will run the risk. Calculate the risk/reward and act.
6. This sounds repetitive as #3.
1. These seem different to me and I am sure the job descriptions under the ONET page would also be different for these SOC codes. This would mean your AC21 will be risky.
2. This sounds more like a same/similar position.
3. You could do that. Your employer should be ready to give you a letter that your profferred position upon approval of GC is an Engineer position. If there is any mention of a manager, USCIS may be wondering why anyone would take a demotion (sorta) after the GC is approved.
4. You can but employer tailoring the description to fit your needs might be bordering to fraud.
5. a. You will retain your old PD.
b. This is a gray area. You are technically not qualifying under AC21 however, it is possible as AC21 filing is not mandatory. If your case gets in audit, you will run the risk. Calculate the risk/reward and act.
6. This sounds repetitive as #3.
johnamit
07-27 03:49 PM
So if you run this query: select (current date - 26 days) + 180 days from sysibm.sysdummy1
you will get "12/28/2007"
So lets say Jan 1st to be on safe side, so this new year eve we can celebrate our independence from H1b employer. I marked on my calendar Independence day for me and lot of IV friends.
you will get "12/28/2007"
So lets say Jan 1st to be on safe side, so this new year eve we can celebrate our independence from H1b employer. I marked on my calendar Independence day for me and lot of IV friends.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق