newbie2020
05-18 08:01 PM
We should note that this bill was introduced in mid march and we didn't have any clue (including IV) sometimes chances of such bills may be easier to pass if the bill author chooses to include the provisions into another bill. Sometimes it better to stay low and get the provisions passed..;) ..... Overall i feel the provisions of this bill may get included into another one like 6039 or so
Contacting the authors and seeking their support will surely benefit us,
What do u guys think?
Contacting the authors and seeking their support will surely benefit us,
What do u guys think?
wallpaper 2009 Seat Leon – Interior View
nareshg
10-05 01:11 AM
Hi,
what is your online status after RFE. Does online status change to "RFE" from "Received and pending" once we get RFE. My employer dont tell me much about my I140 status or RFE but I have receipt number. I can check online
Thanks.
When I spoke to my lawyer 2 weeks back or so they said that it at times takes 1 month to get the RFE by mail....sounds strange I got my EAD a week or so after the status changes online....to approved..
I have to ask them again as to what is happening, have not heard back from them....
my current status as of 10/4/2007 says...
Current Status: We mailed you a notice requesting additional evidence.
On August 29, 2007, we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence and/or information in this case. Please follow the instructions on the notice to submit the evidence and/or information requested. This case will be held in suspense until we either receive the evidence or the opportunity to submit it expires. Once you submit the information and/or evidence requested, you will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something further from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service.
Hoping that as it is 140 it is something to do with the company and the lawyers will take care of it, hopefully it is not to do something with my case individually....
what is your online status after RFE. Does online status change to "RFE" from "Received and pending" once we get RFE. My employer dont tell me much about my I140 status or RFE but I have receipt number. I can check online
Thanks.
When I spoke to my lawyer 2 weeks back or so they said that it at times takes 1 month to get the RFE by mail....sounds strange I got my EAD a week or so after the status changes online....to approved..
I have to ask them again as to what is happening, have not heard back from them....
my current status as of 10/4/2007 says...
Current Status: We mailed you a notice requesting additional evidence.
On August 29, 2007, we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence and/or information in this case. Please follow the instructions on the notice to submit the evidence and/or information requested. This case will be held in suspense until we either receive the evidence or the opportunity to submit it expires. Once you submit the information and/or evidence requested, you will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something further from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service.
Hoping that as it is 140 it is something to do with the company and the lawyers will take care of it, hopefully it is not to do something with my case individually....
va_dude
03-09 01:21 PM
To port from EB3 to EB2, you will need an approved EB2 labor.
You can't just randomly convert your EB3 to EB2 just because you are more qualified, etc. Besides the category, Eb1,2,3 is determined by the job requirements, not your qualification. So you could be a PhD from MIT, but if the job requires only a Bachelor's for example, you can't do an Eb2.
So in your case, your new employer C would need to file for a new labor in EB2 and then do the 140 after labor approval.
I'm not a 100% sure if you can do the porting while filing the new 140 or only after its approval. For that you might need to confirm with an attorney consult.
My advice - spend the 100/200 bucks and get a 1 hour consult with a reputed attorney or the attorney that employer C works with.
You can't just randomly convert your EB3 to EB2 just because you are more qualified, etc. Besides the category, Eb1,2,3 is determined by the job requirements, not your qualification. So you could be a PhD from MIT, but if the job requires only a Bachelor's for example, you can't do an Eb2.
So in your case, your new employer C would need to file for a new labor in EB2 and then do the 140 after labor approval.
I'm not a 100% sure if you can do the porting while filing the new 140 or only after its approval. For that you might need to confirm with an attorney consult.
My advice - spend the 100/200 bucks and get a 1 hour consult with a reputed attorney or the attorney that employer C works with.
2011 2011 SEAT Leon Ecomotive
paskal
12-26 01:27 AM
so that it's seen in the morning :)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
more...
coolngood4u80
01-25 08:38 PM
Is this only for phds or for master graduates too?
slowwin
04-25 11:30 AM
hello folks,
I am switching jobs after an approved I140 and over 180 days from 485 receipt.
I am expecting no problems when leaving my current company. but just incase they decide to revoke my 140,
- is it ok to file AC21 after i receive the NOID if some thing happens or is it better to file AC21 now?
one other complication is i will be changing address too. how long does it take for USCIS to update my new address in their records? the reason i am asking is if they send me RFE or NOID, i will totally miss the boat if they send it to the wrong address. i am sure they will send a copy to my attorney, but he works form my current employer and I will assume he is less likely to help. Does it help if i file G28 with my own name and my new address?
I need to join my new job in 10 days and i hev give my crrent company a notice so it is a bit urgent. Please help.
Thank you
Rex
Rex,
1) It is better to send in an AC21 letter, when in doubt i.e, in case your employer revokes I-140., even though you have crossed 180 days threshold after filing for I-485/AOS.
2) Retain your own lawyer and change G-28 to him/her. For changing G-28 to self is done by sending in a letter to USCIS saying that you are withdrawing the representation rights (for you) of the the previous lawyer.
3) First Change address. Use AR-11 form. send it to the address shown on that form. secondly, Call the number on your I-485 and other receipts to update your new address.
The proper sequence to follow is 3, 2, 1.
Thanks,
----------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Not a legal advise. This is my personal opinion. Consult an attorney to proceed.
I am switching jobs after an approved I140 and over 180 days from 485 receipt.
I am expecting no problems when leaving my current company. but just incase they decide to revoke my 140,
- is it ok to file AC21 after i receive the NOID if some thing happens or is it better to file AC21 now?
one other complication is i will be changing address too. how long does it take for USCIS to update my new address in their records? the reason i am asking is if they send me RFE or NOID, i will totally miss the boat if they send it to the wrong address. i am sure they will send a copy to my attorney, but he works form my current employer and I will assume he is less likely to help. Does it help if i file G28 with my own name and my new address?
I need to join my new job in 10 days and i hev give my crrent company a notice so it is a bit urgent. Please help.
Thank you
Rex
Rex,
1) It is better to send in an AC21 letter, when in doubt i.e, in case your employer revokes I-140., even though you have crossed 180 days threshold after filing for I-485/AOS.
2) Retain your own lawyer and change G-28 to him/her. For changing G-28 to self is done by sending in a letter to USCIS saying that you are withdrawing the representation rights (for you) of the the previous lawyer.
3) First Change address. Use AR-11 form. send it to the address shown on that form. secondly, Call the number on your I-485 and other receipts to update your new address.
The proper sequence to follow is 3, 2, 1.
Thanks,
----------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Not a legal advise. This is my personal opinion. Consult an attorney to proceed.
more...
desi3933
02-18 06:21 PM
Are guys nut? Don't you want to watch your child grow?! :confused:
Given your situation, you guys will be staying away from kid for a decade or more. Once your wife delivers the baby in India, file for a baby's green card. For tentative dates on family reunion, please refer family based 2nd preferences at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4428.html - lighter note these dates or tentative only not written in stone :D
If I were you, I would not allow your wife to give birth in India and miss watching the child grow.
wandmaker -
Child will be GC holder by birth, if both parents are GC holders. Child must make a trip to US before he/she turns two and trip must be with mother.
Child will, of course, need passport. But no visa.
This is one of the few exceptions when person does not need visa to travel.
Hope it helps.
_________________
Not a legal advise.
Given your situation, you guys will be staying away from kid for a decade or more. Once your wife delivers the baby in India, file for a baby's green card. For tentative dates on family reunion, please refer family based 2nd preferences at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4428.html - lighter note these dates or tentative only not written in stone :D
If I were you, I would not allow your wife to give birth in India and miss watching the child grow.
wandmaker -
Child will be GC holder by birth, if both parents are GC holders. Child must make a trip to US before he/she turns two and trip must be with mother.
Child will, of course, need passport. But no visa.
This is one of the few exceptions when person does not need visa to travel.
Hope it helps.
_________________
Not a legal advise.
2010 New Seat Leon at the IAA 2011
agc2005
11-05 05:22 PM
I got EADs for me and my wife, but photos got swaped.
Pineapple,ncgc2005, saro28:
I sopke to customer service rep and she told me to send applications with EAD cards ,photos,a note explaining the problem and no need to send the fees.
Did you guys filed to get corrected the EADs, and did you send new application with EAD and with the Fee or without fees.
Pineapple,ncgc2005, saro28:
I sopke to customer service rep and she told me to send applications with EAD cards ,photos,a note explaining the problem and no need to send the fees.
Did you guys filed to get corrected the EADs, and did you send new application with EAD and with the Fee or without fees.
more...
monkeyman
02-26 11:28 PM
You are all set if you have gone through your FP.
hair Seat Leon 2011 White
amsgc
12-11 12:50 AM
In a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee back in Apr/May 08, the USCIS clearly stated that it had changed its policy regarding which applications would be adjudicated first.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
more...
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.
hot The SEAT León CUPRA R offers a
panky72
08-13 02:07 AM
oye chappan... ever been to indore?
there is a small shops complex there called chappan dukaan... very famous hangout place for all indorians... just remembered :)
I have been to chappan dukaan in indore. nice place to hangout in college days:)
there is a small shops complex there called chappan dukaan... very famous hangout place for all indorians... just remembered :)
I have been to chappan dukaan in indore. nice place to hangout in college days:)
more...
house Seat Ibiza Ecomotive 2009
nashim
07-15 03:42 PM
Hi Gurus,
1) Is it possible to have 2 different I-485 with 2 different employers at the same time?
I already have an EB3 I-485 pending through my current employer. I have EB2, I-140 approval with future employer,
2) Is it possible to file second EB2 I-485 through my future employer?
3) If file second 485, what will be affect on pending I-485?
Thanks
1) Is it possible to have 2 different I-485 with 2 different employers at the same time?
I already have an EB3 I-485 pending through my current employer. I have EB2, I-140 approval with future employer,
2) Is it possible to file second EB2 I-485 through my future employer?
3) If file second 485, what will be affect on pending I-485?
Thanks
tattoo Seat Leon 2011 White.
Hermione
09-27 08:49 AM
Law abiding? I beg to differ. Application for asylum goes to court only if the petitioner spent more than one year illegally in the US.
That does not change the fact that the immigration system is broken, I just want to point out that what is considered to be "law abiding" or "law breaker" is aften very-very relative. We are all in the same boat.
That does not change the fact that the immigration system is broken, I just want to point out that what is considered to be "law abiding" or "law breaker" is aften very-very relative. We are all in the same boat.
more...
pictures Seat-Leon-Interior
gsc999
04-30 01:20 PM
"Entrepreneurs" doesn't mean to start a new company. they can just start a new business unit inside a big corporate. For example the google-maps is a new venture inside google. The guy who initiated the google-map idea is an entrepreneur.
Sometime 2 or 3 people join together and venture into one thing.
And there is a saying "95% of the businesses fail". So one cannot see all the companies started.
---
Thriving economy lures NRIs back to India - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/nri/returning-to-india/thriving-economy-lures-nris-back-to-india/articleshow/8112599.cms)
Sometime 2 or 3 people join together and venture into one thing.
And there is a saying "95% of the businesses fail". So one cannot see all the companies started.
---
Thriving economy lures NRIs back to India - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/nri/returning-to-india/thriving-economy-lures-nris-back-to-india/articleshow/8112599.cms)
dresses Seat+leon+2011+interior
theperm
07-13 02:29 PM
Guys....suits will have ppl swooning over coz of the heat....pure white won`t look as crisp. Business casual outfits (Crisp shirts & pants with formal shoes)for both guys & gals will beat the summer heat look professional will send the message across. & a Big bottle of water for sure !!!
-my 2 cents
-my 2 cents
more...
makeup 2011 Seat Leon Cupra R - Web
thomachan72
09-04 03:44 PM
Man...in what category they gave you the GC. Is it for your good Gelf english or for your analytical skill. Did you consider the new borns before concluding 'In 1-2 years every one wil be finished.' Come with more ammo (means more Ammunition and dont come with more girls) :eek:
Not good words to use and not good way to react while in mourning and praying for lost souls brother:D;)
Not good words to use and not good way to react while in mourning and praying for lost souls brother:D;)
girlfriend Galería de fotos - Seat León
pd_recapturing
02-09 08:39 AM
NCR Region
Sr Developer / Lead Developer (7-15yrs exp) - 8 - 15 lakhs
Project Manager (10-15yrs exp) - 10-20 lakhs
Above this level, the jobs are far and few, but some are
Principal Consultant / Program Manager (in cos like Wipro, Infy, HP) (12- 18 yrs exp) - 18-28 lakhs
Also note, just because someone has worked in US for a few years does not get any advantage above Project Manager level.
Information based on many well placed contacts at these levels.
This is absolutely correct. I also was told the same from a few of my friends who are working in NCR.
Sr Developer / Lead Developer (7-15yrs exp) - 8 - 15 lakhs
Project Manager (10-15yrs exp) - 10-20 lakhs
Above this level, the jobs are far and few, but some are
Principal Consultant / Program Manager (in cos like Wipro, Infy, HP) (12- 18 yrs exp) - 18-28 lakhs
Also note, just because someone has worked in US for a few years does not get any advantage above Project Manager level.
Information based on many well placed contacts at these levels.
This is absolutely correct. I also was told the same from a few of my friends who are working in NCR.
hairstyles seat leon 2011 interior,
harryom
01-18 11:31 AM
I,m July filer for I140/I485 and have not received my EAD yet so I visited local office and lady officer gave me Ticket number and ask me you can use this number to see the activity on my case regarding this latest request on the uscis website.
I have no clue where to put in this number...Anyone with suggestion or similar situation..
Thanks
Harry
PD" Sept-04
Filed in July 15th
EAD: none for self, received for spouse
AP: Received for both
I140 Pending
I485 pending
I have no clue where to put in this number...Anyone with suggestion or similar situation..
Thanks
Harry
PD" Sept-04
Filed in July 15th
EAD: none for self, received for spouse
AP: Received for both
I140 Pending
I485 pending
hazishak
08-01 11:12 AM
Thanks for your quick reply :)
simplistik
06-06 03:33 PM
LoL... lots of good entries. Looks like all the ones I chose were popular ones anyway... aside from one of em. The Guidlines one and the Family Guy monkey are my favorites cause they make me laugh.
That particular episode of Family Guy was on last night :P :D
That particular episode of Family Guy was on last night :P :D
No comments:
Post a Comment