jonty_11
08-15 12:47 PM
Thre is a lot of hurt on these forums related to substituted labor..so help will be slow to come.
wallpaper selena gomez father. selena
bharad
09-21 04:01 PM
wanted to share my experience with anticompete
I have been a consultant with vendor V at client C for over 4 years now, wanted to change the vendor but this guy showed an anti compete I signed with him at previous client(no contract signed for current client though) mentioning anticompete for any future clients of Vendor.
The company is based off New York where anticompete is followed, so I had to forgo my plans of joining another vendor for the client.
I have been a consultant with vendor V at client C for over 4 years now, wanted to change the vendor but this guy showed an anti compete I signed with him at previous client(no contract signed for current client though) mentioning anticompete for any future clients of Vendor.
The company is based off New York where anticompete is followed, so I had to forgo my plans of joining another vendor for the client.
Beta_mle
09-10 07:23 AM
AFAIK, as long as the core duties mentioned in the LC don't change considerably (by more than 50%), the company can promote you anytime.
I just watched the video on the front page promoting the rally and it seemed to say that your salary must remain within 5% of the amount stated in the I-140. Is this correct? This appears to contradict your answer. It also does not make sense. I am in this situation, I-140 approved with PD in '06, I-485 filed in July. My company gives raises of a few percent every year, and I would suppose most companies do. Surely it is not realistic for a person to stay at the same salary for however long it takes to adjudicate the AOS?
Could someone please address this?
Thanks.
I just watched the video on the front page promoting the rally and it seemed to say that your salary must remain within 5% of the amount stated in the I-140. Is this correct? This appears to contradict your answer. It also does not make sense. I am in this situation, I-140 approved with PD in '06, I-485 filed in July. My company gives raises of a few percent every year, and I would suppose most companies do. Surely it is not realistic for a person to stay at the same salary for however long it takes to adjudicate the AOS?
Could someone please address this?
Thanks.
2011 However, Selena also mentioned
indio0617
05-02 03:43 PM
Well, good lawyer or bad lawyer, everyone here knows, that they never reveal the true story of what and where the company messed up.
I want to just find out that, if I transfer to a new company with 14 months left on that 6 year limit, do I have enough time to transfer H1, file brand new Perm, file a brand new I 140 , get approved, and get three year extention instead of on year? a small window for timing here. Should I stick with the same company?
Any input is appreciated.
thanks.....
Yes. You definitely have time to do all that. PERM should take max 4 months total time, I-140 via premium processing will not take more than 2 weeks. So, you need not worry about the timeline at all.
If you want to move to a new employer go for it.
I want to just find out that, if I transfer to a new company with 14 months left on that 6 year limit, do I have enough time to transfer H1, file brand new Perm, file a brand new I 140 , get approved, and get three year extention instead of on year? a small window for timing here. Should I stick with the same company?
Any input is appreciated.
thanks.....
Yes. You definitely have time to do all that. PERM should take max 4 months total time, I-140 via premium processing will not take more than 2 weeks. So, you need not worry about the timeline at all.
If you want to move to a new employer go for it.
more...
eb3stuck
05-08 01:52 AM
I would like to know, can I get my H-1B at 6.0 year of my H-4 with my spouse�s approved I-140 (affected by EB-3 retrogression)?
No only primary applicant can extend their H-1 spouses beyond six who are on H-1B are "forced" to convert to H-4 :mad: :mad:
No only primary applicant can extend their H-1 spouses beyond six who are on H-1B are "forced" to convert to H-4 :mad: :mad:
MahaBharatGC
10-23 05:21 PM
Hi,
My mother-in-law is coming to US on 2nd Dec on a one-way ticket, she will be going back around March 09 i.e. in almost 4 months.
As we dont know abt the dates as such of return so we have booked a one-way ticket from India to US.
Will there be any problem due to that at port of entry?
Do she also need to carry travel insurance along with her?
Thanks in advance.
Plz, this is common sense...don't ever buy one-way ticket if you want to be under the radar...
My mother-in-law is coming to US on 2nd Dec on a one-way ticket, she will be going back around March 09 i.e. in almost 4 months.
As we dont know abt the dates as such of return so we have booked a one-way ticket from India to US.
Will there be any problem due to that at port of entry?
Do she also need to carry travel insurance along with her?
Thanks in advance.
Plz, this is common sense...don't ever buy one-way ticket if you want to be under the radar...
more...
logiclife
01-02 09:09 PM
There is an analysis on the upcoming immigration bill in washingtonpost.com on the frontpage of online version of the paper. In BOLD.
(This article is also crossposted on immigrationportal.com. Eventually I am going to cease posting there and post exclusively here)
The article majorly deals with the politics of the immigration bill coming in Feb 2006 on both side of the aisle and people's opinion in general.
There is no mention of legal immigration. None. Nothing. NADA. ZIP.
Its all about illegal immigrants(mostly mexicans who jumped the fence on the southern border). And guess what?? Majority of America is against illegal immigration. And my fear is that the winds blowing against illegal kind of immigration will sweep us all in the same bundle and punish the LEGAL kind of immigration. Kind of like GUILT by association.
Here is a quote from washingtonpost.com(Most read inside Washington DC)
The Post-ABC News poll found that four in five Americans think the government is not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration, with three in five saying they strongly hold that view.
The same poll found that 56 percent of Americans believe that illegal immigrants have done more to hurt the country than to help it, with 37 percent saying they help the country. About three in five Republicans and a bare majority of Democrats agreed that illegal immigrants are detrimental to the country.
See the whole thing here : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010201376.html
My regtrogression brothers and sisters.....IF WE WANT TO END RETROGRESSION and end the H1B blackout WE HAVE GOT TO SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM THE ILLEGAL KIND and point out the congress and the general populace that there is another kind of immigration which is called ***TADA*** LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Its involves a process of granting permenant residence and citizenship to folks who are
1) Present Legally.
2) Entered LEgally.
3) Work legally.
4) Pay their income taxes.
5) Pay their social security and medicare taxes even when there is no guarantee of the benefits of either until they actually become citizens.
6) Play by the rules, file petitions for work permits and for permenant residency.
Our goal is not the hurt or help the cause of illegals but to make sure that we dont get punished due to wrath against them. After all, we played by the rules and we wait in line by the rules. We dont need amnesty. We need fair deal.
I once again urge you all to channel your energy to immigrationvoice.org This is a non-profit established with goal of ending retrogression using the next immigration bill as a vehicle. Its folks like you and me Losing sleep over retrogression. People like us wondering "What wrong did I do to deserve another 5-6 years of H1B extensions". I am not asking you to put money upfront. It does not cost anything to enroll or join or volunteer. But pooling ideas is invaluable. Stop sulking. Act now.
(This article is also crossposted on immigrationportal.com. Eventually I am going to cease posting there and post exclusively here)
The article majorly deals with the politics of the immigration bill coming in Feb 2006 on both side of the aisle and people's opinion in general.
There is no mention of legal immigration. None. Nothing. NADA. ZIP.
Its all about illegal immigrants(mostly mexicans who jumped the fence on the southern border). And guess what?? Majority of America is against illegal immigration. And my fear is that the winds blowing against illegal kind of immigration will sweep us all in the same bundle and punish the LEGAL kind of immigration. Kind of like GUILT by association.
Here is a quote from washingtonpost.com(Most read inside Washington DC)
The Post-ABC News poll found that four in five Americans think the government is not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration, with three in five saying they strongly hold that view.
The same poll found that 56 percent of Americans believe that illegal immigrants have done more to hurt the country than to help it, with 37 percent saying they help the country. About three in five Republicans and a bare majority of Democrats agreed that illegal immigrants are detrimental to the country.
See the whole thing here : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010201376.html
My regtrogression brothers and sisters.....IF WE WANT TO END RETROGRESSION and end the H1B blackout WE HAVE GOT TO SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM THE ILLEGAL KIND and point out the congress and the general populace that there is another kind of immigration which is called ***TADA*** LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Its involves a process of granting permenant residence and citizenship to folks who are
1) Present Legally.
2) Entered LEgally.
3) Work legally.
4) Pay their income taxes.
5) Pay their social security and medicare taxes even when there is no guarantee of the benefits of either until they actually become citizens.
6) Play by the rules, file petitions for work permits and for permenant residency.
Our goal is not the hurt or help the cause of illegals but to make sure that we dont get punished due to wrath against them. After all, we played by the rules and we wait in line by the rules. We dont need amnesty. We need fair deal.
I once again urge you all to channel your energy to immigrationvoice.org This is a non-profit established with goal of ending retrogression using the next immigration bill as a vehicle. Its folks like you and me Losing sleep over retrogression. People like us wondering "What wrong did I do to deserve another 5-6 years of H1B extensions". I am not asking you to put money upfront. It does not cost anything to enroll or join or volunteer. But pooling ideas is invaluable. Stop sulking. Act now.
2010 parents of Selena Gomez
Motivated
10-26 01:38 PM
Irrespective of political parties or the issues, I am proud of this Indian guy standing up against "fair and balanced fox news"
he must be a citizen (since he is chairman of Milwaukee, WI, Dem party) - wonder if IV members from the area could approach him to stand up for us too..........
Fox News Crew Gets Scolded At Democratic Meeting (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/fox-news-wisconsin-democrats_n_774164.html)
he must be a citizen (since he is chairman of Milwaukee, WI, Dem party) - wonder if IV members from the area could approach him to stand up for us too..........
Fox News Crew Gets Scolded At Democratic Meeting (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/fox-news-wisconsin-democrats_n_774164.html)
more...
mhathi
10-18 12:33 PM
My check that was sent in end of july got cashed on wednesday.. so hang in there. Core team members check the mail once a month or so for all checks.
Can i start a new thread for that :)
Yeah! another tracking thread for july - aug - sept - oct donators checks encashed or not :D
Can i start a new thread for that :)
Yeah! another tracking thread for july - aug - sept - oct donators checks encashed or not :D
hair Selena Gomez Talks Parents#39;
shreekhand
11-19 11:20 PM
Was just going back down memory lane...
In the 80's - most of 90's, traveling to the US (as a visitor) was so off limits; not because of visa issues or that there wasn't someone to visit here, but for the simple reason that middle class or even upper middle class in India just couldn't afford or justify the expense. Those were the days when highly educated people, having a very stable income source used to feel proud that they have booked a Bajaj scooter (delivery would take years!). Owning a color TV was remarkable, traveling to a foreign country was just unfathomable!
So much has changed in these past 10-15 years!
In the 80's - most of 90's, traveling to the US (as a visitor) was so off limits; not because of visa issues or that there wasn't someone to visit here, but for the simple reason that middle class or even upper middle class in India just couldn't afford or justify the expense. Those were the days when highly educated people, having a very stable income source used to feel proud that they have booked a Bajaj scooter (delivery would take years!). Owning a color TV was remarkable, traveling to a foreign country was just unfathomable!
So much has changed in these past 10-15 years!
more...
Aah_GC
07-21 11:16 AM
Hi there - thanks for posting this. Am in the same boat as you were. Do you by any chance have that fax number?
hot Selena Gomez Reunited With
texcan
07-29 09:53 PM
It is best that you never be out of job. If you lose job, try to get one ASAP. It normally takes a month or two to get one if you work hard and try
Chandu and Gurus
I am curious to know how long can one stay out of job on an EAD. My case being 485 applied in july 2007 , 140 is already approved and its been about a year since 485 application.
So does the law says that one has to stay in employment or one can relax and take it easy for a little bit.
thanks in advance
-d
Chandu and Gurus
I am curious to know how long can one stay out of job on an EAD. My case being 485 applied in july 2007 , 140 is already approved and its been about a year since 485 application.
So does the law says that one has to stay in employment or one can relax and take it easy for a little bit.
thanks in advance
-d
more...
house makeup selena gomez Pictures,
s_r_e_e
08-15 11:53 AM
instead of sending my application with fedex he went in person and filed it in person to be sure. (he filed 211 cases in all). I am asking him for the proof of filing and he is telling that since he handed applications in person, he didn't have any acknowledgment from USCIS.
Today is August 15th and Can I file my case myself today, so that it reaches before Aug. 17th. Basically since I had all papers with me except medical reports. What would happen if my first application is accepted before second application is opened for entry into system.
I wouldnt create a confusion with a second app, unless there is a solid reason to distrust the attorney.
Today is August 15th and Can I file my case myself today, so that it reaches before Aug. 17th. Basically since I had all papers with me except medical reports. What would happen if my first application is accepted before second application is opened for entry into system.
I wouldnt create a confusion with a second app, unless there is a solid reason to distrust the attorney.
tattoo SELENA Gomez stepped out for
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
more...
pictures images selena gomez dating.
perm2gc
07-08 10:00 PM
Wonderful support. Thank you. So far we have over 850 viewings and have been rated 76 times and 23 comments. That has managed to push us to #6 in the News and Politics stories of the day. This morning we overtook a Ron Paul story. If you have not had a chance to check the video out, please rate it by clicking on the stars or leave a comment as that will push our position even further.
Thank you once again. My son is beginning to get quite optimistic that CNN might just pick this one :-)
This video has either been removed or has a malformed URL
Thank you once again. My son is beginning to get quite optimistic that CNN might just pick this one :-)
This video has either been removed or has a malformed URL
dresses Selena Gomez: #39;Parents#39;
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.
more...
makeup Selena Gomez biography
perm2gc
07-27 03:11 PM
Hello Gurus,
I am a first timer posting in this fantastic forum.
I am in a very confusing situation wherein I need your help
EB2 priority date: April 2007
I 140 approved.
I 94 expired in August 2010
So, I applied for 7th year H-1B extension in February and I got a RFE with the query to prove that I am working at the client's place.
I submitted all the documents except for the client's letter. Yesterday, I got a denial mail for which I dont know the exact reason.
I am presuming its related to the client's letter.
My lawyer said that we can open a MTR within 30 days.
What are the options and todo list I have?
1. I have a very good rapport with the client and I can get the client's letter.
If I get it, how long will it take to approve my case?
2. I am still working. Is it legal if I work as long as the appication is being processed.
3. Once I get my EAD, will it matter if H-1B gets rejected?
Please help me!
1. MTR process takes one year.
2.If you have EAD you can work,otherwise you cannot work.
3.No unless your spouse also has no EAD.
I am a first timer posting in this fantastic forum.
I am in a very confusing situation wherein I need your help
EB2 priority date: April 2007
I 140 approved.
I 94 expired in August 2010
So, I applied for 7th year H-1B extension in February and I got a RFE with the query to prove that I am working at the client's place.
I submitted all the documents except for the client's letter. Yesterday, I got a denial mail for which I dont know the exact reason.
I am presuming its related to the client's letter.
My lawyer said that we can open a MTR within 30 days.
What are the options and todo list I have?
1. I have a very good rapport with the client and I can get the client's letter.
If I get it, how long will it take to approve my case?
2. I am still working. Is it legal if I work as long as the appication is being processed.
3. Once I get my EAD, will it matter if H-1B gets rejected?
Please help me!
1. MTR process takes one year.
2.If you have EAD you can work,otherwise you cannot work.
3.No unless your spouse also has no EAD.
girlfriend Selena Gomez#39;s parents fuming
h1bnogc
07-27 07:34 PM
I am in similar situation.wondering though..can somebody apply for I485 while his h1b extension denied and file for MTR and decision pending?
hairstyles 2011 who are selena gomez
prasadn
04-07 05:15 PM
I did extended for my in-laws when they entered last time to US. When they entered next time they entered without any issues.
Last time time also lot of my friends scared me (immigration people will stop them at the port of entry), my another friend (both husband and wife doctors), they bring there in - laws everytime they will extend it to 3 times approxmately they will stay in US 2 years, they left several times and entered into US without any issues.
From my understanding, you need to give USCIS a compelling reason (medical reasons etc.) for extending your stay on Visitor visa. If not, there is a good chance for the officer at POE to limit stay to a very short period on the next visit.
Last time time also lot of my friends scared me (immigration people will stop them at the port of entry), my another friend (both husband and wife doctors), they bring there in - laws everytime they will extend it to 3 times approxmately they will stay in US 2 years, they left several times and entered into US without any issues.
From my understanding, you need to give USCIS a compelling reason (medical reasons etc.) for extending your stay on Visitor visa. If not, there is a good chance for the officer at POE to limit stay to a very short period on the next visit.
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
raju6855
02-05 08:36 AM
Sorry for delay in responding.
The H4 for my wife was part yearly extension and I think its 7th year extension for which she went for stamping.
My wife has not got the passport back, she calls the Delhi Consulate every other day and they reply its still in admin processing. There is nothing that can be done, just wait wait and wait. My wife tried so much asking Consulate and the VFS agents of what dates of the interview the passports are being returned and they won't tell her, how lame of them!
I called up the National Customer service center and asked for using AP and below is what I was told, not only by them but also by lawyers.
AP has to be filed in before a person leaves the country and if they approval comes when the AP has been approved, that approved AP can be mailed to the applicant out of the country and he/she can use it to enter US.
The H4 for my wife was part yearly extension and I think its 7th year extension for which she went for stamping.
My wife has not got the passport back, she calls the Delhi Consulate every other day and they reply its still in admin processing. There is nothing that can be done, just wait wait and wait. My wife tried so much asking Consulate and the VFS agents of what dates of the interview the passports are being returned and they won't tell her, how lame of them!
I called up the National Customer service center and asked for using AP and below is what I was told, not only by them but also by lawyers.
AP has to be filed in before a person leaves the country and if they approval comes when the AP has been approved, that approved AP can be mailed to the applicant out of the country and he/she can use it to enter US.
No comments:
Post a Comment