gc_on_demand
06-12 09:55 AM
Ask your company to fire you asap. The HR should anyways fire you and hire the US citizen.
You should find another job asap.
If you cannot, then leave the country. If you overstay you will be illegal.
And if you are an anti-immigrant posting on this site to provoke people to tell you how to break the law. Then sorry bad luck. I have seen your websites with such posts. Stop coming to this site and try to malign law abiding people. Got it.
If there is a counter american available for your job then you shoul leave that company and find another job if you cannot find then leave counrty. Bset of luck in your job search.
You should find another job asap.
If you cannot, then leave the country. If you overstay you will be illegal.
And if you are an anti-immigrant posting on this site to provoke people to tell you how to break the law. Then sorry bad luck. I have seen your websites with such posts. Stop coming to this site and try to malign law abiding people. Got it.
If there is a counter american available for your job then you shoul leave that company and find another job if you cannot find then leave counrty. Bset of luck in your job search.
wallpaper conan wallpaper
GCcomesoon
08-25 04:38 PM
Hi
My approval happened on April 24th , 2008 . I got the physical card on 08/03/08.
Here are the case details
Thanks
GCcomesoon
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
my case - I131 - approved - 7/24/07
spouse case - I131- approved- 09/12/07
EAD approved for spouse - 08/20/07
EAD approved - 10/25/2007 - for me
LUD in my case - 485, - 7/11/07, 11/02/2007,11/28/2007,11/29/2007
LUD in 485 case for spouse - 10/04/2007 ( after FP ), LUD - 11/14/2007,11/28/2007,11/29/2007
FP for spouse - 08/08/07 , I rescheduled it.
FP scheduled - 10/03/07 - Done
FP scheduled - 12/12/2007 -
Case approval for me (email ) - 04/24/08
FP( for 485 ) -05/17/08
Physical card- 08/03/08
Wife 's case is still pending & no updates.. ( raised a SR , would follow up next month )
My approval happened on April 24th , 2008 . I got the physical card on 08/03/08.
Here are the case details
Thanks
GCcomesoon
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
my case - I131 - approved - 7/24/07
spouse case - I131- approved- 09/12/07
EAD approved for spouse - 08/20/07
EAD approved - 10/25/2007 - for me
LUD in my case - 485, - 7/11/07, 11/02/2007,11/28/2007,11/29/2007
LUD in 485 case for spouse - 10/04/2007 ( after FP ), LUD - 11/14/2007,11/28/2007,11/29/2007
FP for spouse - 08/08/07 , I rescheduled it.
FP scheduled - 10/03/07 - Done
FP scheduled - 12/12/2007 -
Case approval for me (email ) - 04/24/08
FP( for 485 ) -05/17/08
Physical card- 08/03/08
Wife 's case is still pending & no updates.. ( raised a SR , would follow up next month )
retropain
09-01 11:08 AM
What's particularly interesting is the number of 'scare words' used in this selected testimony on aspects of the CIR bill. Its a lot like Loo Dobbs "War" on the middle class. Its clear CIS, Nusa, FAIR provide the script to him on immigration matters. I knew Loo wasn't that creative in the first place
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
2011 wallpaper age of conan
Green.Tech
08-05 10:42 PM
HR policy says this....
"An employee who resigns before completing one year with G Inc from the date of obtaining the Green Card or during the application process will have to pay USD 7500 towards reimbursement of processing costs"
I am leaving them using AC21.... but I am paying this money...
I suppose its valid contract....
why mess-up you Labor......
Thanks for your comments. In your case, they are asking you to stay for at least a year after they begin your GC or else reimburse unlike other companies that say that you will have to reimburse no matter when you decide to leave the company.
I do understand the fact that there are contracts out there but my points are:
1) Can the company ask us to reimburse them for the labor cert fee (via a contract) - application and legal, especially since DOL requires the company to pay those dues?
2) Can the company ask us to reimburse them for ALL fee including application fee, which again is something that they are responsible for?
"An employee who resigns before completing one year with G Inc from the date of obtaining the Green Card or during the application process will have to pay USD 7500 towards reimbursement of processing costs"
I am leaving them using AC21.... but I am paying this money...
I suppose its valid contract....
why mess-up you Labor......
Thanks for your comments. In your case, they are asking you to stay for at least a year after they begin your GC or else reimburse unlike other companies that say that you will have to reimburse no matter when you decide to leave the company.
I do understand the fact that there are contracts out there but my points are:
1) Can the company ask us to reimburse them for the labor cert fee (via a contract) - application and legal, especially since DOL requires the company to pay those dues?
2) Can the company ask us to reimburse them for ALL fee including application fee, which again is something that they are responsible for?
more...
abhijitp
02-14 07:02 PM
A friendly bump from NORCAL;)
santb1975
02-14 05:12 PM
and we can.
Great to see this thread... gotta keep it on top!
TOGETHER, WE SHALL BRING HOME THE TROPHY!
Great to see this thread... gotta keep it on top!
TOGETHER, WE SHALL BRING HOME THE TROPHY!
more...
rnvd
10-30 03:48 PM
Hi all,
Here is my story. In December 2004 i went to India and i came back on the same month. At the PortOfEntry(POE), the Officer given I-94 based on the my the Visa of my previous company which is valid upto Jan 1, 2006.
But i had already have approved H1B which is valid upto Jan 21, 2007. At that time, i didn't know it is a problem based on LastActionRule. When the time to file for my H1B extension(basically 7th Year) in the month of November 2006, my attorney find that i am technically out of status because of my I-94 is overriden by PortOfEntry eventhough i had H1B Approval with I-94. My Attorney explained about mistake by POE to USCIS when we filed my H1B extension and the USCIS approved my extension for 1 year from Jan22, 2007 to Mar30, 2008 because my Labor is pending. Recently this march my H1B extended to 3 more years based on I-140 approval.
My question is if i will to India for vacation this November is there any problem in the port of entry. I haven't travelled since Dec,2004. I am going to use AdvanceParole(AP) on this vacation. Eventhough my attorney says there is no problem to go to India because we got two H1B approvals after the I-94 problem, but i am not 100% confident because at the POE they may create a problem. Can anybody please tell if u had same or similar problem and successfully travelled in and out of USA.
Here is my story. In December 2004 i went to India and i came back on the same month. At the PortOfEntry(POE), the Officer given I-94 based on the my the Visa of my previous company which is valid upto Jan 1, 2006.
But i had already have approved H1B which is valid upto Jan 21, 2007. At that time, i didn't know it is a problem based on LastActionRule. When the time to file for my H1B extension(basically 7th Year) in the month of November 2006, my attorney find that i am technically out of status because of my I-94 is overriden by PortOfEntry eventhough i had H1B Approval with I-94. My Attorney explained about mistake by POE to USCIS when we filed my H1B extension and the USCIS approved my extension for 1 year from Jan22, 2007 to Mar30, 2008 because my Labor is pending. Recently this march my H1B extended to 3 more years based on I-140 approval.
My question is if i will to India for vacation this November is there any problem in the port of entry. I haven't travelled since Dec,2004. I am going to use AdvanceParole(AP) on this vacation. Eventhough my attorney says there is no problem to go to India because we got two H1B approvals after the I-94 problem, but i am not 100% confident because at the POE they may create a problem. Can anybody please tell if u had same or similar problem and successfully travelled in and out of USA.
2010 Detective Conan
Widget
04-18 03:28 PM
Yesterday, there was a problem with the uscis web site. I tried to use the web site several times. Did you try to use the web site yesterday? or before?
I received a receipt confirmation for my I-140 petition. It shows that they received on March 24, 2006. I tried to check on the status on USCIS website in case status. I could not find my case so far. Does it take so long to be updated. I am worried if my petition is misplaced somewhere...
Please give me your advice.
I received a receipt confirmation for my I-140 petition. It shows that they received on March 24, 2006. I tried to check on the status on USCIS website in case status. I could not find my case so far. Does it take so long to be updated. I am worried if my petition is misplaced somewhere...
Please give me your advice.
more...
BMS1
08-21 09:23 AM
It is my turn to receive the "Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident" today. My depenedents are yet to receive this mail. This forum, Immigration-law, Immigration portal by Rajiv Khanna and many other immigration lawyers' websites like Murthy's etc were very useful to understand the immigration laws.
I did everything myself (EB2-NIW - India) - I140, I485, AP and EAD and my PD (I140 RD) and I485 RD are 09-29-2005.
I did make a one time conribution of $100.00 to IV.
Thanks a lot. All the best to all.
I did everything myself (EB2-NIW - India) - I140, I485, AP and EAD and my PD (I140 RD) and I485 RD are 09-29-2005.
I did make a one time conribution of $100.00 to IV.
Thanks a lot. All the best to all.
hair detective conan wallpaper
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
atlfp
04-17 09:50 AM
I think you are confusing it with administrative laws. Legislator makes laws, but they also give power to different government agencies to make laws within their administrative authority. Laws made by legislator go into effect as soon as the president signs it; Laws made by administrative agencies need to go into the whole federal register and other procedures.
I just cannot recollect where I had read that the law has to be published somewhere and there is 90 days delay (when someone can comment if necessary) and only then it becomes a law. I could be absolutely wrong though
Also, Sessions was able to get an amendment passed last time since SJC was in a tearing hurry. That might not be the case this time and they might want to implement this bill soon to 'stem the flow across the borders'. Personally I cannot wait for some new bill to take effect.
I really wish that you are right about the first point and I am right about the second ;-)
I just cannot recollect where I had read that the law has to be published somewhere and there is 90 days delay (when someone can comment if necessary) and only then it becomes a law. I could be absolutely wrong though
Also, Sessions was able to get an amendment passed last time since SJC was in a tearing hurry. That might not be the case this time and they might want to implement this bill soon to 'stem the flow across the borders'. Personally I cannot wait for some new bill to take effect.
I really wish that you are right about the first point and I am right about the second ;-)
hot age of conan wallpaper. age of
santb1975
02-14 12:22 AM
We really need it
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
more...
house Age of Conan: Hyborian
galacticman
03-06 07:30 PM
Thanks coopheal. Seems like they are still working on the 1st week itself. Hopefully I should see mine come around soon for preadjudication!
***************
EB3/India/PD-Jan '06/140 Approved Apr '07/485 Pending- July '07/EAD Oct '07
***************
EB3/India/PD-Jan '06/140 Approved Apr '07/485 Pending- July '07/EAD Oct '07
tattoo Conan With Axe
virens
12-12 02:36 PM
No questions asked about visa or 485. Just had to show my passport and AP document :)
more...
pictures Detective Conan Wallpapers
simple1
09-13 12:25 PM
Let's not fool ourselves with these petty differences.
Cheers!
Healthcare debate is a good indicator of what is coming next... fasten your seat belts and be ready!
I agree, health care reform discussion is a good indicator of the intensity of CIR discussion. We need to be ready.
Cheers!
Healthcare debate is a good indicator of what is coming next... fasten your seat belts and be ready!
I agree, health care reform discussion is a good indicator of the intensity of CIR discussion. We need to be ready.
dresses Kudo - conan wallpaper
raysaikat
04-21 01:17 PM
... it is essential that one be in H1-B status.
This is patently wrong. There are many people who are on EAD at the time of I-485 adjudication.
The only legal requirement is that the person has a valid offer from the I-140 sponsoring company (or some other one, if AC21 is used) for a same or similar job (similar to what was mentioned in the LC). In practice, the petitioner should have the job at the time of adjudication.
This is patently wrong. There are many people who are on EAD at the time of I-485 adjudication.
The only legal requirement is that the person has a valid offer from the I-140 sponsoring company (or some other one, if AC21 is used) for a same or similar job (similar to what was mentioned in the LC). In practice, the petitioner should have the job at the time of adjudication.
more...
makeup Detective Conan PSP Wallpaper
txh1b
04-20 02:25 PM
Thanks for the reply.
We are not in Chicago. Their POE is in Chicago. I may have to go to the local USCIS office and clarify it.
I am also checking with the Attorney.
You can go to the closest international airport's CBP. USCIS local office cannot do anything about it. Only CBP can.
We are not in Chicago. Their POE is in Chicago. I may have to go to the local USCIS office and clarify it.
I am also checking with the Attorney.
You can go to the closest international airport's CBP. USCIS local office cannot do anything about it. Only CBP can.
girlfriend Age of Conan
Saralayar
07-29 09:56 AM
My son is an U.S citizen (4 years old) and my Attorney successfully filed a petion on behalf of me and mywife.
But that petion is based on EB2 :p
Another funny and time pass thread...
But that petion is based on EB2 :p
Another funny and time pass thread...
hairstyles Detective Conan Wallpapers
ilikekilo
03-03 09:30 AM
Hello forum gurus
I am planning on moving from Company A to Company B. I have an approved I-140 from Company A which was approved in Sept 2007 and also applied for 485 on July 2nd 2007. It has been almost 1.5 yrs since I applied for 485 and I-140 approval.
Planning to move from Company A to Company B. Company A will not revoke my I-140 that is for sure. I am moving to a good company with 1000+ workforce and in an upcoming industry. It is not a consulting firm. It is a product based company. My wife is currently on EAD and is relying on it to work.
What are the odds that my AC21 may be wrongfully denied. I am having a hard time sleeping while thinking about this. I am on my H1. Can she still use her EAD while we file a petition for Motion to Reopen in the event that the 485 is wrongfully denied or does she have to change to H4 immediatly.
Can some one share your thoughts.
thanks in advance
I hear you...however the probability of success predicting the odds with USCIS are zero to none.. be +ve and move on.. Listen, iam not being philosophical here but I did move on from a so called "secure" and great company using AC21....to a smaller one....
was I concerned when I was planning to move : yes
do i loose sleep over this? no
did i file for ac 21? yes
Am I really worried : heck no
Am i ready for anything that comes my way from USCIS: heck yes and I will deal with it..easy to say..yes..but doesnt mean it will stop my life..
ps: btw Iam not single and yes I do have a family with a kid and ofcourse commitments like most poeple... so relax ..take it easy..
reg your question i am sure somone in teh forum is more knowledgeable than Iam..
I am planning on moving from Company A to Company B. I have an approved I-140 from Company A which was approved in Sept 2007 and also applied for 485 on July 2nd 2007. It has been almost 1.5 yrs since I applied for 485 and I-140 approval.
Planning to move from Company A to Company B. Company A will not revoke my I-140 that is for sure. I am moving to a good company with 1000+ workforce and in an upcoming industry. It is not a consulting firm. It is a product based company. My wife is currently on EAD and is relying on it to work.
What are the odds that my AC21 may be wrongfully denied. I am having a hard time sleeping while thinking about this. I am on my H1. Can she still use her EAD while we file a petition for Motion to Reopen in the event that the 485 is wrongfully denied or does she have to change to H4 immediatly.
Can some one share your thoughts.
thanks in advance
I hear you...however the probability of success predicting the odds with USCIS are zero to none.. be +ve and move on.. Listen, iam not being philosophical here but I did move on from a so called "secure" and great company using AC21....to a smaller one....
was I concerned when I was planning to move : yes
do i loose sleep over this? no
did i file for ac 21? yes
Am I really worried : heck no
Am i ready for anything that comes my way from USCIS: heck yes and I will deal with it..easy to say..yes..but doesnt mean it will stop my life..
ps: btw Iam not single and yes I do have a family with a kid and ofcourse commitments like most poeple... so relax ..take it easy..
reg your question i am sure somone in teh forum is more knowledgeable than Iam..
laborchic
10-12 04:17 PM
I filed on 8th August and havent yet received my notices in mail.. I contacted my lawyer today and he sent copies of my receipts and then he also found out that they had received my FP notice .. I am supposed to go on 27th Oct to Newark USCIS... Anyone coming on same day ..
My application is being processed at Texas..
Not many people who have filed with me has recieved any notices as of yet..
So dont worry guys we all should be fine..
My application is being processed at Texas..
Not many people who have filed with me has recieved any notices as of yet..
So dont worry guys we all should be fine..
Humhongekamyab
09-16 02:19 PM
Same thing you used your Cingular minutes for :)
This will be your second round of calls.
Not Cingular but the new AT&T. :D
This will be your second round of calls.
Not Cingular but the new AT&T. :D
No comments:
Post a Comment