abcdefgh
01-03 11:19 AM
just paid: 22.XX
Receipt ID: 07M99091AL872601P
Mytotal:122.xx
Receipt ID: 07M99091AL872601P
Mytotal:122.xx
wallpaper love yourself quotes. love
satya1234
03-29 02:21 PM
Thanks for the Reply.I did send.
.jpg "being yourself. quotes and")
kumar1
07-11 12:02 PM
Well, I disagree - I am sure they have certain number of work force dedicated to work on I-485 cases. They will not accept any I-485 till October....so tell me one more time what are they going to do till October?
I agree with rest of your points about family based AP, EAD etc.
I agree with rest of your points about family based AP, EAD etc.
2011 quotes for yourself. love
LostInGCProcess
09-01 08:25 PM
Folks,
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
Oh man!!!! Why are you so worried? As long as you did the right thing thats all it matters. Since you also have a confirmation number, why worry?
You are freaking out UNNECESSARILY.
This reminds ne of the hindi saying " aa bail mujhe maar"
Literal translation: Hey bull, come and hit me.
:D:D:D:D:D
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
Oh man!!!! Why are you so worried? As long as you did the right thing thats all it matters. Since you also have a confirmation number, why worry?
You are freaking out UNNECESSARILY.
This reminds ne of the hindi saying " aa bail mujhe maar"
Literal translation: Hey bull, come and hit me.
:D:D:D:D:D
more...
sriswam
06-28 08:42 PM
Is it worth to file premium processing on friday?
Thats a good question. Would it still be considered valid if we mailed the documents on Friday so that it reaches them Saturday. They'd still be opening the mail on Monday July 2nd. I have a feeling that would be too late. Any others in the same boat ?
Thats a good question. Would it still be considered valid if we mailed the documents on Friday so that it reaches them Saturday. They'd still be opening the mail on Monday July 2nd. I have a feeling that would be too late. Any others in the same boat ?
mbartosik
09-12 07:34 PM
If you are on bench, not getting paid, your employer normally asks you to send him a letter stating that you are on vacation. This needs to be done every month. For the period you are on vacation, there may not be any pay stubs. Once you get any project, you will send your employer another letter saying that you are back and ready to work for them.
With this approach, you WILL NOT get any trouble from USCIS or anyone. If any RFP comes, then, employer will show these documents and clear the issues. I did this in the past and all my friends who were in different stages (like Labor filed, I-140 filed, 485 filed) also did and had no problems.
But as always it is advised that to talk to the lawyer who is working on your case is best suited to answer as that person is to submit the paper work.
If you are "on the bench" the employer is obligated to pay you.
If you state that you are on vacation when in fact your are "on bench", and later misrepresent being on the bench as vacation to USCIS you and your employer either committing fraud or conspiring to commit fraud.
The employer must allow for "on the bench" time in the salary quoted in the LCA that accompanies the I-129 for H1B. If "on the bench" time is not allowed for it probably invalidates the prevailing wage comparison.
If your employer does not allow for 'on the bench' time in the wage rates quoted, then there is a reasonable argument that you are not meeting prevailing wage, and are infact undercutting US wages (and then some of what Lou Dobbs says is right).
If you are a consultant you could drop the quoted salary on LCA (but must remain above prevailing wage) to allow for risk of "on the bench" or any other circumstances. That way there is money to cover any gap. However, that requires more trust in the middle man - employer.
I'm not sure if I've read it right, but it looks to me like you have made a public confession here.
Of course the period between projects is an ideal time for vacation, as there is no project schedule to deal with. So whether the law is being broken I guess depends on what the motivation is for the vacation, something that is hard to prove. If the employer says you are going to tell him that you are on vacation until he finds more work then that sounds illegal. If on the other hand if you say, "how about I take this opportunity for some vacation?", it is okay.
One would hope that USCIS expercise common sense. However, common sense could mean being suspicious of gaps because the system is clearly open to abuse.
With this approach, you WILL NOT get any trouble from USCIS or anyone. If any RFP comes, then, employer will show these documents and clear the issues. I did this in the past and all my friends who were in different stages (like Labor filed, I-140 filed, 485 filed) also did and had no problems.
But as always it is advised that to talk to the lawyer who is working on your case is best suited to answer as that person is to submit the paper work.
If you are "on the bench" the employer is obligated to pay you.
If you state that you are on vacation when in fact your are "on bench", and later misrepresent being on the bench as vacation to USCIS you and your employer either committing fraud or conspiring to commit fraud.
The employer must allow for "on the bench" time in the salary quoted in the LCA that accompanies the I-129 for H1B. If "on the bench" time is not allowed for it probably invalidates the prevailing wage comparison.
If your employer does not allow for 'on the bench' time in the wage rates quoted, then there is a reasonable argument that you are not meeting prevailing wage, and are infact undercutting US wages (and then some of what Lou Dobbs says is right).
If you are a consultant you could drop the quoted salary on LCA (but must remain above prevailing wage) to allow for risk of "on the bench" or any other circumstances. That way there is money to cover any gap. However, that requires more trust in the middle man - employer.
I'm not sure if I've read it right, but it looks to me like you have made a public confession here.
Of course the period between projects is an ideal time for vacation, as there is no project schedule to deal with. So whether the law is being broken I guess depends on what the motivation is for the vacation, something that is hard to prove. If the employer says you are going to tell him that you are on vacation until he finds more work then that sounds illegal. If on the other hand if you say, "how about I take this opportunity for some vacation?", it is okay.
One would hope that USCIS expercise common sense. However, common sense could mean being suspicious of gaps because the system is clearly open to abuse.
more...
Wish_Good
10-14 03:04 PM
Hi All,
Right now Iam working with company A.
My old pending labor got approved with my
previous employer. Can I file I-140 from my previous
employer.
Looking into the present situation. Senior's
please give your valuable advice.
Thanks,
Right now Iam working with company A.
My old pending labor got approved with my
previous employer. Can I file I-140 from my previous
employer.
Looking into the present situation. Senior's
please give your valuable advice.
Thanks,
2010 being yourself. quotes and
yibornindia
12-19 03:36 PM
AC21: if my new employer is open to do either EAD or H1, what should I prefer? I want to take the least risky route.
more...
rajenk
08-12 12:46 PM
Thank you all for your response.
The reason for my opening a new thread is to get attention from other members to get my question answered. I did not want to bury my question in to those lengthy threads, and the chance of getting such question answered is highly improbable. OK now to my additional questions on this subject.
Questions:
1. Did you guys receive all the receipts (yours and dependents) together in a single postal mail?
2. If that is the case then in my situation should I safely assume my wife's application was rejected?
Please respond I have only 5 days to re-submit a new application for my wife. If I miss it then our whole GC dream will become a nightmare:(
My PD is 11/30/05 EB3
Thanks
Raj
The reason for my opening a new thread is to get attention from other members to get my question answered. I did not want to bury my question in to those lengthy threads, and the chance of getting such question answered is highly improbable. OK now to my additional questions on this subject.
Questions:
1. Did you guys receive all the receipts (yours and dependents) together in a single postal mail?
2. If that is the case then in my situation should I safely assume my wife's application was rejected?
Please respond I have only 5 days to re-submit a new application for my wife. If I miss it then our whole GC dream will become a nightmare:(
My PD is 11/30/05 EB3
Thanks
Raj
hair quotes about yourself.
northstar
11-25 05:56 PM
You should be ok, just send them the papers again
more...
satyakb
03-21 09:32 PM
We would like to Thank every onefor providing detailed advices - considering various aspects of life.
Will surely update the thread when we make a final decision.
Will surely update the thread when we make a final decision.
hot quotes and sayings about being yourself. suretry to eing yourself
americandesi
12-12 06:27 PM
Now that dates for EB2 have moved to Jan 2000 PD, it might be interesting to see if we have folks in here with EB2 PD in or before Jan 2000.
I know a friend whose EB2-PD was in 2000. Guess what? He's a US citizen now :)
I know a friend whose EB2-PD was in 2000. Guess what? He's a US citizen now :)
more...
house picnik quotes for yourself.
waitingmygc
08-27 10:55 PM
If employer or attorney are not helpful then there are high chances that they are hiding something, may have communicated to you I-140 approved in EB-2 whereas in real EB-3. One of my friend already have experinced same problem, EB-3 instead of EB-2. His company is in Jersey and the name starts with N.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
tattoo Always be Yourself.
shahsahil
04-17 05:36 PM
No audit information from DOL on my PERM case.
10 months of silience from DOL.
I keep asking Lawyer about the staus. And seems like they didn't recieve any information.
Somebody suggested that some sort of sub account with read only permission can be generated if I want to see my case related information by myself.
Is this true?
-Sahil
10 months of silience from DOL.
I keep asking Lawyer about the staus. And seems like they didn't recieve any information.
Somebody suggested that some sort of sub account with read only permission can be generated if I want to see my case related information by myself.
Is this true?
-Sahil
more...
pictures love yourself quotes. love
gc2
09-22 05:24 PM
Do the following job descriptions qualify for AC21 provided all other factors such as salary and 485 pending for 180+ days have been met
Job A: Techincal Consultant
- Configures and implements risk management solutions using ASP.NET, VB.NET, XML, XSLT/XPATH.
- Basic working understanding of SQL Server, Oracle and related query language and tools
- Consulting development experience in IT or Systems Integration
- Excellent communication skills; written and verbal.
Job B: Project Manager
- Accomplishes project objectives by planning and evaluating project activities.
- Creates and executes project work plans and revises as appropriate to meet changing needs and requirements
- Identifies resources needed and assigns individual responsibilities.
- Manages day-to-day operational aspects of a project and scope.
- Reviews deliverables prepared by team before passing to client.
etc etc.
On promotion with the same employer, i will have responsibilities for job B but i am looking to change employers. can i join new employer with job B and use AC21 ?
Job A: Techincal Consultant
- Configures and implements risk management solutions using ASP.NET, VB.NET, XML, XSLT/XPATH.
- Basic working understanding of SQL Server, Oracle and related query language and tools
- Consulting development experience in IT or Systems Integration
- Excellent communication skills; written and verbal.
Job B: Project Manager
- Accomplishes project objectives by planning and evaluating project activities.
- Creates and executes project work plans and revises as appropriate to meet changing needs and requirements
- Identifies resources needed and assigns individual responsibilities.
- Manages day-to-day operational aspects of a project and scope.
- Reviews deliverables prepared by team before passing to client.
etc etc.
On promotion with the same employer, i will have responsibilities for job B but i am looking to change employers. can i join new employer with job B and use AC21 ?
dresses and quotes about yourself.
InTheMoment
07-17 08:45 PM
What ?? Why do you even have any such doubts :confused:! Once you have US GC all rules about maintaining it apply. Nothing changes if you visit Canada and return to US if you are well within those rules!!
more...
makeup love yourself quotes. quotes
vivache
10-05 05:41 PM
Hi
Is there any webpage that has details on an EAD and what jobs a person can do, cannot do, whether new job it needs to tie in 50% to current job etc ..
I'm looking for the official page that has some detail on this.
Looked online did not find anything. A little surprised.
Let me know if any of you have any relevant links to this info.
Not looking for hearsay ... something official.
Thanks
V
Is there any webpage that has details on an EAD and what jobs a person can do, cannot do, whether new job it needs to tie in 50% to current job etc ..
I'm looking for the official page that has some detail on this.
Looked online did not find anything. A little surprised.
Let me know if any of you have any relevant links to this info.
Not looking for hearsay ... something official.
Thanks
V
girlfriend quotes about yourself for
waitin_toolong
08-14 06:11 AM
Thanks Jayant,
I will call USCIS with my receipt number to find out my wife's. I will post what they have to say.
Regards
Raj
if you sent separate checks then the checks cashed will give you a clue and receipt numbers. If a common check then if that was cashed (must have been you got the receipts) then hers would have been accepted as well otherwise all filings would have been rejected.
You get Receipts for each applicant/application in separate envelops.
I will call USCIS with my receipt number to find out my wife's. I will post what they have to say.
Regards
Raj
if you sent separate checks then the checks cashed will give you a clue and receipt numbers. If a common check then if that was cashed (must have been you got the receipts) then hers would have been accepted as well otherwise all filings would have been rejected.
You get Receipts for each applicant/application in separate envelops.
hairstyles love yourself first quotes.
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
DashingMax
01-04 11:52 PM
Already sent an email to my state Senators.
"Indentured Servitude" seems to be the motto by the current administration. H1B's afterall are smart, educated, English-speaking, honest & tax-paying bunch. By delaying their Greencard, they can get the most out of these hardworking folks, for as long as they can.
Worker Productivity is, afterall, an important gauge of US Economy.
"Indentured Servitude" seems to be the motto by the current administration. H1B's afterall are smart, educated, English-speaking, honest & tax-paying bunch. By delaying their Greencard, they can get the most out of these hardworking folks, for as long as they can.
Worker Productivity is, afterall, an important gauge of US Economy.
pandu_hawaldar
09-09 01:04 PM
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
No comments:
Post a Comment