wandmaker
02-11 08:01 AM
i lostmy legal in 2002 (b2). during 2003 i won gc lottery . we did al paper work till last step.my lawyer toll me dont go couse deportation. In 2005 my employer apply gc for me (em3) In April 2006 I-140 aproved.now we waiting for priority date..
My question to you .. my lottery case priority date can be use for my eb3 case?
IV and its members support only legal immigration. You violated the law by overstaying your visa, dont seek help/advise here, consult with your attorney.
My question to you .. my lottery case priority date can be use for my eb3 case?
IV and its members support only legal immigration. You violated the law by overstaying your visa, dont seek help/advise here, consult with your attorney.
wallpaper Taylor Swift#39;s elegant
pbuckeye
06-25 02:45 PM
If you can get the email from the client mentioning that they can't give a letter, then I feel that could be enough reason for MTR (but check with an attorney). Have you explored about filing again in premium with new or more documents (see below)?
Could you confirm if you already submitted:
1. MSA/SOW/PO (all or any of these). Does the SOW/PO have your name on it?
2. Contact info of your supervisor at client site. I think this is very important.
Was the denial solely based on the client letter?
Could you confirm if you already submitted:
1. MSA/SOW/PO (all or any of these). Does the SOW/PO have your name on it?
2. Contact info of your supervisor at client site. I think this is very important.
Was the denial solely based on the client letter?
Lasantha
01-18 11:47 AM
You can stay out side for 3 years in a 5 year period.
Friends,
How long can one stay out of Canada once landed as a permanent resident? Is it 2 years or 3 years???
I did my landing in July 06 and have received canadian PR but then moved back to US since then and have not visited Canada since.
Can somebody please provide some input on this? Friend of mine told me that i have to move before July, 08 in order to maintain canadian PR status. Is it true?
Many thanks for your input on this.
Friends,
How long can one stay out of Canada once landed as a permanent resident? Is it 2 years or 3 years???
I did my landing in July 06 and have received canadian PR but then moved back to US since then and have not visited Canada since.
Can somebody please provide some input on this? Friend of mine told me that i have to move before July, 08 in order to maintain canadian PR status. Is it true?
Many thanks for your input on this.
2011 Prom hairstyles,prom
anilsal
06-17 12:06 AM
You will need to take multiple appointments to actually get the answers you are looking for. It all depends on how friendly the person is.
I have had at least one appointment where the lady was so kind that she actually told me the date/time my files were touched by the processing officer at the NSC. Infopass officers have a lot of information on their screens.
Dress decently.
It helps to have a friendlier inquisitive tone rather than desperation.
Remember these USCIS employees (infopass) see 100s of people in a week. There is no requirement for the person to provide you more information that they actually want to share.
Some days are busy for them with lots of appointments.
Some days there are just few people - when you have better chances of getting friendlier information.
I have had at least one appointment where the lady was so kind that she actually told me the date/time my files were touched by the processing officer at the NSC. Infopass officers have a lot of information on their screens.
Dress decently.
It helps to have a friendlier inquisitive tone rather than desperation.
Remember these USCIS employees (infopass) see 100s of people in a week. There is no requirement for the person to provide you more information that they actually want to share.
Some days are busy for them with lots of appointments.
Some days there are just few people - when you have better chances of getting friendlier information.
more...
ramus
08-15 12:07 PM
Great.. please contribute to DC rally in anyway you can.
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
EB3_SEP04
07-01 07:37 PM
Hi All,
I had a previous empoyer A > Then a Prefered Vendor B > Then a Client C.
Now I have transferred my H1 to a Preferred Vendor X & Still working on same project with the Client C, but with a different contract all togeather.
Preferred Vendor X > the Client C
Now the issues is , my previous employeer A is harassing me ( Vendor B is having no problems) , asking for money or filing a legal case agaist me,as I have signed a non-compete agreement with them. Can he do so ?? what can be the worst consequences?
Let me tell you one thing, "You've got guts, buddy", Congrats on the bold move. not many people dare to do that.
Can he do so? - Theoratically yes, practically: highly unlikely.
if he is a typical consulting guy with less than 50 emps, he won't do it, because such employers almost always make "adjustments" that puts them in extremely weak spot during such law suits. here are some examples:
- a guy was laid off, his new employer sent him on a project even before filing for his H1 transfer
-many consulting companies do not pay salary while the guy is on "bench"
- they many times knowingly/unknowingly commit tax/accounting fraud or regulatory mistakes that can cause serius consequences
- a friend of mine was interrviewed by a client and when the result was positive, his new would be employer called him at a McDonalds and asked him to sign the contract right there (within 30 minute of meeting), and my friend did. Now most people won't see anything wrong in here. but a lawyer told me that my friend was not given enough time to read/understand a legal document and to talk to a lawyer ideally enough time is about 2 weeks. How many small consulting companies give 2 weeks when the interview at client is clear?
In your case, the end client is not your employer's client. Ask him to show the contract between him and the end client.
bottom line of the story is: there are many defenses that one can play and win the case and/or even put the employer in trouble. That's why most small employers don't do much beyond sending a lawyer's notice (just to scare you enough to write down a check). A real nasty guy can even go one step further and file a law suit only to withdraw it later if you decide to fiight it.
Good luck buddy!
I had a previous empoyer A > Then a Prefered Vendor B > Then a Client C.
Now I have transferred my H1 to a Preferred Vendor X & Still working on same project with the Client C, but with a different contract all togeather.
Preferred Vendor X > the Client C
Now the issues is , my previous employeer A is harassing me ( Vendor B is having no problems) , asking for money or filing a legal case agaist me,as I have signed a non-compete agreement with them. Can he do so ?? what can be the worst consequences?
Let me tell you one thing, "You've got guts, buddy", Congrats on the bold move. not many people dare to do that.
Can he do so? - Theoratically yes, practically: highly unlikely.
if he is a typical consulting guy with less than 50 emps, he won't do it, because such employers almost always make "adjustments" that puts them in extremely weak spot during such law suits. here are some examples:
- a guy was laid off, his new employer sent him on a project even before filing for his H1 transfer
-many consulting companies do not pay salary while the guy is on "bench"
- they many times knowingly/unknowingly commit tax/accounting fraud or regulatory mistakes that can cause serius consequences
- a friend of mine was interrviewed by a client and when the result was positive, his new would be employer called him at a McDonalds and asked him to sign the contract right there (within 30 minute of meeting), and my friend did. Now most people won't see anything wrong in here. but a lawyer told me that my friend was not given enough time to read/understand a legal document and to talk to a lawyer ideally enough time is about 2 weeks. How many small consulting companies give 2 weeks when the interview at client is clear?
In your case, the end client is not your employer's client. Ask him to show the contract between him and the end client.
bottom line of the story is: there are many defenses that one can play and win the case and/or even put the employer in trouble. That's why most small employers don't do much beyond sending a lawyer's notice (just to scare you enough to write down a check). A real nasty guy can even go one step further and file a law suit only to withdraw it later if you decide to fiight it.
Good luck buddy!
more...
bhasky25
10-11 02:31 PM
I do not wish to refile my GC.. I just wanted to know if I can get my HB1 renewed even after the underlying 140 is revoked...
2010 Taylor Swift Prom Hairstyle
nozerd
09-07 10:09 AM
For LI you need to have worked with foreign company for at least 1 yr. I have worked for ABC USA for 7 yrs but not ABC Canada yet. I think for L1 I should work for ABC Canada for more than 1 yr.
Also when is the next lawyers call ? The last one it says was scheduled for 9/1 and its transcript is not posted. I would like to put this question to the lawyer.
Also when is the next lawyers call ? The last one it says was scheduled for 9/1 and its transcript is not posted. I would like to put this question to the lawyer.
more...
joydiptac
08-11 06:35 PM
Democrats are losers. Socialist. They can only sponsor illegal immigrants. Republican party is pro legal immigration.
Hope this bill passes, but then again... The republican party is so pro legal immigrants that they had 8 years of power and never thought of this bill. And whenever someone brought up any similar STEM bill they would shoot it down.
I don't know what to make of it, but to think this is just a political maneuver.
Hope this bill passes, but then again... The republican party is so pro legal immigrants that they had 8 years of power and never thought of this bill. And whenever someone brought up any similar STEM bill they would shoot it down.
I don't know what to make of it, but to think this is just a political maneuver.
hair taylor swift updo prom. taylor swift hairstyles 2011
abandookwala63
10-26 04:50 PM
guys can someone please let me know what is meant by lud.
my fringerprinting was done 2 days ago and received ead no ap yet.
i have seen posts saying online status of i485 been adjusted to lud after
finger printing done.i donot see any changes online for i485 after finger printing.
i highly appreciate if someone let me know what is lud
Online computer message shows EAD oh me and my spouse was mailed on 24th september but till date as on 24th october i hace not received it. i call the USCIS and the second level officer told me cannot mail u another one til me get in returned mail or go and inquire with the postoffice. Post office doea not have any pending mail for our address. USCIS says cannot send a duplicate one. donot know what to do.???? any suggestions.
my fringerprinting was done 2 days ago and received ead no ap yet.
i have seen posts saying online status of i485 been adjusted to lud after
finger printing done.i donot see any changes online for i485 after finger printing.
i highly appreciate if someone let me know what is lud
Online computer message shows EAD oh me and my spouse was mailed on 24th september but till date as on 24th october i hace not received it. i call the USCIS and the second level officer told me cannot mail u another one til me get in returned mail or go and inquire with the postoffice. Post office doea not have any pending mail for our address. USCIS says cannot send a duplicate one. donot know what to do.???? any suggestions.
more...
ss777
12-01 07:35 PM
It sometimes take longer than few days. During my years of getting AP's every year there are times I had my AP in hand within 3 days to almost 20 days. I am confident you will get your AP document much before the end of the month. Good luck with your travel plans.
hot taylor swift hairstyles
TUnlimited
09-16 12:46 PM
I don't know what "UNKNOWN" means. My wife is on her F1 (OPT). Same is the case with my friend. Both of our's says unknown.
TUnlimited: is your wife also on F1? I am about to call USCIS customer service on Monday.
Guys, please update if you know any more details about this.
No. My wife is H4. Call them and let us know what they said...
TUnlimited: is your wife also on F1? I am about to call USCIS customer service on Monday.
Guys, please update if you know any more details about this.
No. My wife is H4. Call them and let us know what they said...
more...
house taylor swift updo prom. Updos Prom Hairstyles Pictures
EndlessWait
01-10 03:00 PM
Applied July 23rd NSC. Receipt notice July 23rd and again another receipt September once my case went to CSC and back to NSC.
Got AP and EAD issued from CA (laguna Niguel USCIS) though not without headaches (RFE on AP)
took infopass appointment last week and officer said FPs havent been issued because Background check still not cleared for me (wife cleared but she will not get FP notice until mine is cleared). This is possibly the same reason you have not received yours. looks like i am stuck for the long haul in name check clearance.
good luck to you!
even mine is 23rd july case..and is ur case status still showing "transferred to NSC blah blah..." ?
Got AP and EAD issued from CA (laguna Niguel USCIS) though not without headaches (RFE on AP)
took infopass appointment last week and officer said FPs havent been issued because Background check still not cleared for me (wife cleared but she will not get FP notice until mine is cleared). This is possibly the same reason you have not received yours. looks like i am stuck for the long haul in name check clearance.
good luck to you!
even mine is 23rd july case..and is ur case status still showing "transferred to NSC blah blah..." ?
tattoo The Best Taylor Swift Prom
harivenkat
05-11 01:11 PM
talking about backlogs
more...
pictures side updo hairstyles for prom.
desi3933
04-02 01:02 PM
.....
Both Labors/I-140s were in EB2. Now the RFE was due to 3 year degree , USCIS argued that they will not accept my NIIT diploma towards a 4 year degree althougth all other times they did. .....
Three things here -
1. For eb-2, bachelor degree must be "single degree" and not a combination.
2. NIIT is not a recognized diploma in India and therefore has no value.
3. For eb-3 also, your labor MUST be worded in a way to allow combination of degrees. In that case also, NIIT diploma can not be used.
Even if NIIT diploma was recognized, you would have issues since NNIT diploma is not "post bachelor" but done "along with" bachelor degree. So it can't be combined.
You should consider discussing with your attorney the option of filing labor for "eb3 skilled labor" with associate degree requirement.
________________
Not a legal advice.
Both Labors/I-140s were in EB2. Now the RFE was due to 3 year degree , USCIS argued that they will not accept my NIIT diploma towards a 4 year degree althougth all other times they did. .....
Three things here -
1. For eb-2, bachelor degree must be "single degree" and not a combination.
2. NIIT is not a recognized diploma in India and therefore has no value.
3. For eb-3 also, your labor MUST be worded in a way to allow combination of degrees. In that case also, NIIT diploma can not be used.
Even if NIIT diploma was recognized, you would have issues since NNIT diploma is not "post bachelor" but done "along with" bachelor degree. So it can't be combined.
You should consider discussing with your attorney the option of filing labor for "eb3 skilled labor" with associate degree requirement.
________________
Not a legal advice.
dresses Taylor Swift#39;s – 2009 CMT
logiclife
03-28 03:39 PM
Yes Bheemi.
I dont want this to be an an implied guarantee, but that is the plan for now. Things can change depending on whose bill is debated on Senate floor - SJC or Frist's S. 2454.
Jay.
I dont want this to be an an implied guarantee, but that is the plan for now. Things can change depending on whose bill is debated on Senate floor - SJC or Frist's S. 2454.
Jay.
more...
makeup updo like Taylor Swift#39;s.
pankajkakkar
09-14 03:59 PM
And several other anti-immigrant newsletters/blogs have been talking about this today.
This particular amendment should be brought up during lobby day. Those of us not making it to the rally should be calling Congressmen to ensure that this amendment passes!
This particular amendment should be brought up during lobby day. Those of us not making it to the rally should be calling Congressmen to ensure that this amendment passes!
girlfriend prom updo hairstyles for black
Munna Bhai
01-10 04:09 PM
munabhai
i filed my I-140 in may 07 and got RFE in NOV-07 and replied in dec07.
what that RFE was for?? education or pay??
i filed my I-140 in may 07 and got RFE in NOV-07 and replied in dec07.
what that RFE was for?? education or pay??
hairstyles Taylor Swift Prom Hair
san3297
06-29 05:34 PM
Hi Martin,
Thanks once again for your reply with in no time.I really admire your service.I went through your Faqs but the part i dint understood is..
If you don't show the extension approval notice (maybe because you didn't know the case was approved before you returned), you will get just the old expiration date on your new I-94. This will then be the operative end date, not the extension date. This is because CIS has a "last action" rule, whereby the last status they give you is what governs. In this situation, the last action would be your admission until the visa and date.
As i get a new I94 attached with expiration date as my new 797 approval date(Assuming i get approval after my travel when i am in USA) .So my old I94 is valid till My present visa date and after that i have my New I 94 which is valid till my Extension approval date.So iam unable to get what complication i may get into.Only problem i can think of is if i dont get I 94 attached to my I 797 Approval Notice.Do let me know if iam missing anything.Thanks again.
Thanks once again for your reply with in no time.I really admire your service.I went through your Faqs but the part i dint understood is..
If you don't show the extension approval notice (maybe because you didn't know the case was approved before you returned), you will get just the old expiration date on your new I-94. This will then be the operative end date, not the extension date. This is because CIS has a "last action" rule, whereby the last status they give you is what governs. In this situation, the last action would be your admission until the visa and date.
As i get a new I94 attached with expiration date as my new 797 approval date(Assuming i get approval after my travel when i am in USA) .So my old I94 is valid till My present visa date and after that i have my New I 94 which is valid till my Extension approval date.So iam unable to get what complication i may get into.Only problem i can think of is if i dont get I 94 attached to my I 797 Approval Notice.Do let me know if iam missing anything.Thanks again.
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
EndlessWait
01-10 04:45 PM
So, this would mean anyone stuck in name check should never receive FP--correct? I don't think that's the case...i know of a lot of people who get FP notices every 15 (or is it 18?) months or so and are stuck in name checks forever.
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
just exactly what ur case status says ...mine hasn't changed ever since it transferred to nebraska..it still says "the case has been transferred to NSC becoz they've jurisdiction over it etc. etc '
thanks
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
just exactly what ur case status says ...mine hasn't changed ever since it transferred to nebraska..it still says "the case has been transferred to NSC becoz they've jurisdiction over it etc. etc '
thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment