rodnyb
04-01 10:31 PM
If in Vegas, I will bet this total usage for EB2 I/C this year
EB1 20K (50% reduction from 40K)
EB2 ROW 10K (last year 9K, this year, some reduction)
EB5 8K (same as last year)
EB2 I/C 6K (5800 exact, regular supply)
Total 44K
Eb3 Porting 6K
New filing 2K (ppl who missed 07/2007 w/ PD before 07/2007, dependent)
Total usage 8K
EB2I/C demand before 07/31/2007
DOS, for having some buffer to counter (denial, RFEs, assuming little as most pre-adjudicated) will move PD for EB2/I
May 2011 12/2006
June 2011 2/2007
July 2011 6/2007
August 2011 8/2007
Remember, CIS can take in new applicants in August 2011 but don't have to approve it.
It will end between 06/2007 to 09/2007 almost 100%
Can we try and consolidate the predictions by Teddy, Rodnyb, GCwait2007 and others who did some major number crunching (not armchair predictors like me).
Teddy, based on what we know now especially the past few days, can you give your average, best, and worst case estimate for September 2011. Same for rodnyb and GCwait2007. Thanks!
Also importantly, if you could comment on the PD for EB3-I/C and EB-2 I/C in October 2011 once this year is over. Will we see it retrogress or current and what's your average case for the dates then.
EB1 20K (50% reduction from 40K)
EB2 ROW 10K (last year 9K, this year, some reduction)
EB5 8K (same as last year)
EB2 I/C 6K (5800 exact, regular supply)
Total 44K
Eb3 Porting 6K
New filing 2K (ppl who missed 07/2007 w/ PD before 07/2007, dependent)
Total usage 8K
EB2I/C demand before 07/31/2007
DOS, for having some buffer to counter (denial, RFEs, assuming little as most pre-adjudicated) will move PD for EB2/I
May 2011 12/2006
June 2011 2/2007
July 2011 6/2007
August 2011 8/2007
Remember, CIS can take in new applicants in August 2011 but don't have to approve it.
It will end between 06/2007 to 09/2007 almost 100%
Can we try and consolidate the predictions by Teddy, Rodnyb, GCwait2007 and others who did some major number crunching (not armchair predictors like me).
Teddy, based on what we know now especially the past few days, can you give your average, best, and worst case estimate for September 2011. Same for rodnyb and GCwait2007. Thanks!
Also importantly, if you could comment on the PD for EB3-I/C and EB-2 I/C in October 2011 once this year is over. Will we see it retrogress or current and what's your average case for the dates then.
wallpaper princess diana car crash
Saralayar
01-06 05:41 PM
Ahuja,
Why do you even need a GC, my friend. Stick with H1B visa. the only difference between GC and H1 is independence of employer and why do you even bother about it. You can always get a job where you want, buy a house now, sell it tomorrow, then after 6 years, go out for a year, come back on new H1.
As I said, people here are highly motivated and do want to follow the rules and achieve bigger things in lives, creating value in the process. But not many are willing to wait for 5 more precious years, after your greencard takes 10 years. Or 15 years on GC and 5 years for Citizenship. Once you work very hard, then you tend to ask for the right fruit, not just take anything.And whatever the Citizenship requirements are.. they will be met while waiting for theis damn GC..
I am just hitting at the attitude.. not person.. sorry...
Assume your school makes your 4 year course extended to 6 years and in the process makes you do a lot more..What do you ask at the end of it. 4 year degree or a 4+2 year degree.. .something similar..
Remember the lambi race ka goda.. He didnt pick the coin tossed at him.. anyone.. which movie.. ???
Very well analyzed response. Atleast now those 2 guys start thinking about it in a different way.
Why do you even need a GC, my friend. Stick with H1B visa. the only difference between GC and H1 is independence of employer and why do you even bother about it. You can always get a job where you want, buy a house now, sell it tomorrow, then after 6 years, go out for a year, come back on new H1.
As I said, people here are highly motivated and do want to follow the rules and achieve bigger things in lives, creating value in the process. But not many are willing to wait for 5 more precious years, after your greencard takes 10 years. Or 15 years on GC and 5 years for Citizenship. Once you work very hard, then you tend to ask for the right fruit, not just take anything.And whatever the Citizenship requirements are.. they will be met while waiting for theis damn GC..
I am just hitting at the attitude.. not person.. sorry...
Assume your school makes your 4 year course extended to 6 years and in the process makes you do a lot more..What do you ask at the end of it. 4 year degree or a 4+2 year degree.. .something similar..
Remember the lambi race ka goda.. He didnt pick the coin tossed at him.. anyone.. which movie.. ???
Very well analyzed response. Atleast now those 2 guys start thinking about it in a different way.
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
2011 princess diana car crash body.
like_watching_paint_dry
06-18 09:23 AM
Agreed on your point. But there are other discriminations at workplace such as , age, race, sex and sexual harrassment. Those who complain about it effectively terminate their careers. If you want to go , complain against this L1 misuse fine, but you are not going to get mileage, maybe some bad breath and bad publicity and eventual loss of reference & job. If your company / client has decided they do not want to persist with you, there are 101 ways they can get rid of you, legal or illegal, my suggestion is, if you were exposed,
can L1fraud hold his head high in front of his client and still ask for reference with no sense of guilt in future? If not, he has lost half the game but now wants to lose the other half in a self destructive manner.
I cannot believe you are saying this. Are you actually saying that you will let stuff like this happen just because you think your company might get rid of you if you complain? If your wife or daughter has a boss who is flashing her everyday, will you actually tell your wife or daughter to 'suck it up' and put up with it just because you fear she may not get a reference??
Laws are designed to prevent this exact kind of thing. I personally would, to quote a Hindi movie dialog, take a sledge-hammer and change the geography of the abuser's face. On a more practical note, I would lawyer up, collect evidence, spin up a multi-million dollar lawsuit, and use settlement money to sip MaiTai on some beach in Lanai, while the harasser gets to suck on cock-meat sandwiches in the nearest penitentiary.
Sense of guilt... the guy who is breaking the law should have that. Not the victim who wants a reference. C'mon grow a penis!
can L1fraud hold his head high in front of his client and still ask for reference with no sense of guilt in future? If not, he has lost half the game but now wants to lose the other half in a self destructive manner.
I cannot believe you are saying this. Are you actually saying that you will let stuff like this happen just because you think your company might get rid of you if you complain? If your wife or daughter has a boss who is flashing her everyday, will you actually tell your wife or daughter to 'suck it up' and put up with it just because you fear she may not get a reference??
Laws are designed to prevent this exact kind of thing. I personally would, to quote a Hindi movie dialog, take a sledge-hammer and change the geography of the abuser's face. On a more practical note, I would lawyer up, collect evidence, spin up a multi-million dollar lawsuit, and use settlement money to sip MaiTai on some beach in Lanai, while the harasser gets to suck on cock-meat sandwiches in the nearest penitentiary.
Sense of guilt... the guy who is breaking the law should have that. Not the victim who wants a reference. C'mon grow a penis!
more...
gcsomeday
08-22 03:28 PM
http://immigration-information.com/forums/blog.php?b=13
The second paragraph from the link says that the new spill-over policy is not a random, ad hoc decision by USCIS but rather a careful one after consulting congress etc.
"...after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first..."
I wonder what additional legislation he is talking about here. Was there anything new we know about? If consultation means finding the intent of congress I wonder how much of it is BS.
This whole thing does not look objective. Even if it is, in all likelihood we are getting screwed by something that can possibly be changed again under the right circumstances.
The second paragraph from the link says that the new spill-over policy is not a random, ad hoc decision by USCIS but rather a careful one after consulting congress etc.
"...after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first..."
I wonder what additional legislation he is talking about here. Was there anything new we know about? If consultation means finding the intent of congress I wonder how much of it is BS.
This whole thing does not look objective. Even if it is, in all likelihood we are getting screwed by something that can possibly be changed again under the right circumstances.
vinabath
07-10 10:13 AM
I still think, the USA is the best place for democracy loving people. Govt and its agencies try their best to be accountable to law. Now if you want our Immigration issue to be put before IRAQ in the Congress, I would think that is selfishness. I have colleagues whose sons are in IRAQ. For me their lives are more important than my GC. Now that does not mean we stop making our point to Congress.
PRECISELY My point. First it is IRAQ, then it will be the Presidential Elections then something else. The Government has NO time to question the USCIS and NO real motivation either.
PRECISELY My point. First it is IRAQ, then it will be the Presidential Elections then something else. The Government has NO time to question the USCIS and NO real motivation either.
more...
lotsofspace
01-10 02:05 PM
That is naive... AC21 is not an administrative decision of USCIS... It is a law... AC21 = American Competitiveness in the 21st Century act!! It was passed by congress and the only body that can revoke it is congress.
USCIS cannot revoke AC21.. only congress can. Please dont be paranoid. The most USCIS can do is refuse to change their current stance on same/similar job.
Gurus, correct me if I am wrong.
I know that is ACT. But USCIS can interpret the provisions and make adjustments like what we are requesting. Similarly it can , IF THEY WANT TO, include a provision saying the job not only need to be in similar field, but it shall be in the same labor market because that is where you got your labor. I am not saying this is going to happen just because IVs effort.
If the intent of the similar job requirement is not to hurt the local talent because that is that job that is advertised for, the restriction of the same labor market will serve the same purpose.
That is a legitimate doubt and concern for some.
IV has not done anything that could have a negative impact on your green card processing. IV is striving hard to change your lives.
Shame on those who are scared or pessimistic. All you people do is to gaze at the sky and wait for the stars to fall.
If you are so scared - how will u raise your children? What will u teach them? Cowardice? Will U teach them to run away from issues? Will u teach them how to not cooperate?
Chandu, I have great respect for your enthusiasm , but why do you have to be so hostile to a person that does not seem to think the way you are thinking. Different people react differently for the same news. I am not sure your rant has any back ground with any other post by the people you are pissed off about ;)
I thought pappu said these points have already been discussed with administration, and we are running this campaign because there have been positive signals.
Lets rest our fears and trust the fixes and do our parts in this.
And the above answers concerns some may have and shuts them up. Shouting at them definitely will not help any body's cause. What has getting a GC to do with how you raise your children ?
Since when this immigration is a BIG issue in USA...... remember the BIG Rally ?? Some of the efforts with positive intentions may have a negative consequences in the short term or a long term.
USCIS cannot revoke AC21.. only congress can. Please dont be paranoid. The most USCIS can do is refuse to change their current stance on same/similar job.
Gurus, correct me if I am wrong.
I know that is ACT. But USCIS can interpret the provisions and make adjustments like what we are requesting. Similarly it can , IF THEY WANT TO, include a provision saying the job not only need to be in similar field, but it shall be in the same labor market because that is where you got your labor. I am not saying this is going to happen just because IVs effort.
If the intent of the similar job requirement is not to hurt the local talent because that is that job that is advertised for, the restriction of the same labor market will serve the same purpose.
That is a legitimate doubt and concern for some.
IV has not done anything that could have a negative impact on your green card processing. IV is striving hard to change your lives.
Shame on those who are scared or pessimistic. All you people do is to gaze at the sky and wait for the stars to fall.
If you are so scared - how will u raise your children? What will u teach them? Cowardice? Will U teach them to run away from issues? Will u teach them how to not cooperate?
Chandu, I have great respect for your enthusiasm , but why do you have to be so hostile to a person that does not seem to think the way you are thinking. Different people react differently for the same news. I am not sure your rant has any back ground with any other post by the people you are pissed off about ;)
I thought pappu said these points have already been discussed with administration, and we are running this campaign because there have been positive signals.
Lets rest our fears and trust the fixes and do our parts in this.
And the above answers concerns some may have and shuts them up. Shouting at them definitely will not help any body's cause. What has getting a GC to do with how you raise your children ?
Since when this immigration is a BIG issue in USA...... remember the BIG Rally ?? Some of the efforts with positive intentions may have a negative consequences in the short term or a long term.
2010 Princess Diana
like_watching_paint_dry
01-27 10:56 AM
Last time I had travelled by British Airways in 2004 and I have made a resoultion for never tavelling with them again. We had a baby 2 years old and he was cranky and my wife asked airhostess to clean the feeder and she refused, saying that 'Mam we don't do this!'. Point is that they don't treat us well even though they get lot of income on routes to India. Also, look at those crappy old planes they deploy on these routes. As someone else said in this thread that it is time for Indian Govt. to wake up and be stiff on such lapses. I am sure they will listen, as they can't afford to lose big bucks coming from India anymore.
You are asking for too much. Any reason why you or your wife could not clean the feeder? They are air-hostesses and not your personal servants.
Jeez what's next? Shine my shoes?? :rolleyes:
You are asking for too much. Any reason why you or your wife could not clean the feeder? They are air-hostesses and not your personal servants.
Jeez what's next? Shine my shoes?? :rolleyes:
more...
snddlth
10-12 04:58 PM
It is not Holiday but they simply don't want us to call.
hair princess diana car crash body.
H1B-GC
02-02 04:03 PM
eb_retrogression,
Can you post the article here? I'm not able to get to it.
Admin,
Here you go ::p
President Takes Dual Tack on Immigration
White House Seeks Tougher Enforcement,
While Pushing Idea of Guest-Worker Program
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 2, 2006; Page A8
WASHINGTON -- President bush drew big applause during his State of the Union address with a renewed call for "a rational, humane guest-worker program" to keep the economy humming.
But that appeal came only after Mr. Bush issued a much sterner one first -- for tougher enforcement of immigration laws, more vigilance on the border and an immigration policy that "reflects our values."
The message Mr. Bush delivered to lawmakers is the same one an increasingly vocal anti-immigration chorus is sending to him: First get tough; then we'll talk.
Mr. Bush was cheered by an unlikely alliance of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, unions and immigrant groups when he called for a guest-worker program in his State of the Union address two years ago. But the idea has hit a wall of opposition from the party's cultural conservatives and security hawks who first want to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the U.S. (See related article.)
In December, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would, among other things, extend a short wall on the border with Mexico to 700 miles. The Senate, which had planned to overhaul immigration laws when it takes up its own bill in a few weeks, now also is under pressure from some Republicans to toughen border controls first.
As immigration soars to an all-time high, that get-tough argument is gaining political steam. With the 2006 elections still 10 months away, a half-dozen candidates are running for national office on pledges to stop illegal immigration. Bills on the issue, many denying benefits to illegal immigrants, have been introduced in 31 state legislatures.
STATE OF THE UNION REVIEW
• Can President's Plan Keep America Competitive?
• Bush's Energy Plan Faces Hurdles
• Industry Cheers Cleaner-Coal Push
• Full Text: Read the complete prepared text of the address.
• Question of the Day: Which topic should the Bush administration make its top priority this year?
And polls show mounting voter unease about immigration: A December 2005 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that 57% of those questioned think the U.S. is "too open to immigrants."
"It's astonishing how much this has become an issue across the country," says Brian Bilbray, a San Diego Republican who hopes to return to the U.S. House of Representatives this year after spending the past six years as a lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which wants to restrict immigration.
But for all the emotion immigration is stirring up, political operatives in both parties warn that it isn't an issue that rallies voters. "Will this impact your electoral ambitions?" asks Ryan Ellis of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, who has studied the role immigration played in recent elections. "All history has indicated 'no,' whether you're in Arizona or Maine," he answers.
It didn't prove a successful strategy for the Virginia governor's race in November. Republican Jerry Kilgore seized late in the campaign on the issue of taxpayer-funded job centers for illegal immigrants, and in a stinging television ad asked of his Democratic opponent, "What part of illegal does Tim Kaine not understand?" Although immigration was only one issue in the campaign, Mr. Kaine won with 52% of the vote.
Likewise, in December, in a special House election in California's Orange County -- where illegal immigration is a flashpoint -- Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, a volunteer border-patrol group, won just 25% of the vote.
Mr. Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform also points to seven 2004 Republican primaries where immigration-restriction candidates never won more than 46% of the vote. Among those beating back challenges: Arizona Congressmen James Kolbe and Jeff Flake, who are sponsors of a House bill that would let illegal immigrants earn legal residency in the U.S.
Candidates who want to restrict immigration seem not to fare well because very few people worry enough about immigration to vote on it -- even though many of them tell pollsters they're worried. In the Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 78% of those questioned favored "tightening" the border with Mexico -- but only 7% said illegal immigration was their biggest national concern.
Immigration is "a loud debate that produces few voters," says Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington immigrants-rights group.
But that doesn't mean immigration won't be talked about this campaign season. Most prominently among 2006 candidates, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, is toying with a symbolic run for the White House. Among other things, Mr. Tancredo wants to deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. and deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Immigration restrictionists also have announced runs for governor in Colorado, for the U.S. Senate from California and for a smattering of House seats. San Diego's Mr. Bilbray is running in an April primary to succeed former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham while also pursuing a class-action lawsuit that would prevent California public colleges from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
Some state legislatures are considering extending in-state tuition, health benefits and driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, even while others want to ban such benefits. In Ohio, a statehouse Republican has said he is considering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to exclude illegal immigrants from the census counts that are used to apportion Congressional seats.
Bills in New Hampshire and North Carolina would require local policemen to enforce federal immigration laws, and one in Virginia would require proof of legal residency to obtain a marriage license.
With Republicans largely leading the anti-immigration charge, the issue is causing heartburn for the national party, which was hoping that its generally pro-immigration stand would help it pick up Hispanic voters. Twelve years ago, California's Republican Gov. Pete Wilson won re-election in part by campaigning for a ballot measure that would deny benefits to illegal aliens -- a rare instance where an anti-immigration stand won the day.
But a decade passed before Republicans won the governor's office again, and they still haven't won back Hispanic voters. "It was a metaphor for short-term gain, long-term loss," says the National Immigration Forum's Mr. Sharry.
Republican pollster Ed Goeas says he urges his clients to talk about solutions to illegal immigration instead of focusing on emotion-charged issues like immigrant job centers if they want to win. His firm, the Tarrance Group, does polling for several immigration-restriction candidates, including Mr. Tancredo, he says.
But in anticipation of the 2006 elections, he's also running voter focus groups to help candidates handle such volatile issues as amnesty for illegal immigrants and whether to allow guest workers to eventually stay in the U.S. After voters let off steam, he says, focus groups show that immigration "becomes a very reasoned conversation very quickly."
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
Source : Wall Street Journal : 02/01/2006
Can you post the article here? I'm not able to get to it.
Admin,
Here you go ::p
President Takes Dual Tack on Immigration
White House Seeks Tougher Enforcement,
While Pushing Idea of Guest-Worker Program
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 2, 2006; Page A8
WASHINGTON -- President bush drew big applause during his State of the Union address with a renewed call for "a rational, humane guest-worker program" to keep the economy humming.
But that appeal came only after Mr. Bush issued a much sterner one first -- for tougher enforcement of immigration laws, more vigilance on the border and an immigration policy that "reflects our values."
The message Mr. Bush delivered to lawmakers is the same one an increasingly vocal anti-immigration chorus is sending to him: First get tough; then we'll talk.
Mr. Bush was cheered by an unlikely alliance of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, unions and immigrant groups when he called for a guest-worker program in his State of the Union address two years ago. But the idea has hit a wall of opposition from the party's cultural conservatives and security hawks who first want to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the U.S. (See related article.)
In December, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would, among other things, extend a short wall on the border with Mexico to 700 miles. The Senate, which had planned to overhaul immigration laws when it takes up its own bill in a few weeks, now also is under pressure from some Republicans to toughen border controls first.
As immigration soars to an all-time high, that get-tough argument is gaining political steam. With the 2006 elections still 10 months away, a half-dozen candidates are running for national office on pledges to stop illegal immigration. Bills on the issue, many denying benefits to illegal immigrants, have been introduced in 31 state legislatures.
STATE OF THE UNION REVIEW
• Can President's Plan Keep America Competitive?
• Bush's Energy Plan Faces Hurdles
• Industry Cheers Cleaner-Coal Push
• Full Text: Read the complete prepared text of the address.
• Question of the Day: Which topic should the Bush administration make its top priority this year?
And polls show mounting voter unease about immigration: A December 2005 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that 57% of those questioned think the U.S. is "too open to immigrants."
"It's astonishing how much this has become an issue across the country," says Brian Bilbray, a San Diego Republican who hopes to return to the U.S. House of Representatives this year after spending the past six years as a lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which wants to restrict immigration.
But for all the emotion immigration is stirring up, political operatives in both parties warn that it isn't an issue that rallies voters. "Will this impact your electoral ambitions?" asks Ryan Ellis of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, who has studied the role immigration played in recent elections. "All history has indicated 'no,' whether you're in Arizona or Maine," he answers.
It didn't prove a successful strategy for the Virginia governor's race in November. Republican Jerry Kilgore seized late in the campaign on the issue of taxpayer-funded job centers for illegal immigrants, and in a stinging television ad asked of his Democratic opponent, "What part of illegal does Tim Kaine not understand?" Although immigration was only one issue in the campaign, Mr. Kaine won with 52% of the vote.
Likewise, in December, in a special House election in California's Orange County -- where illegal immigration is a flashpoint -- Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, a volunteer border-patrol group, won just 25% of the vote.
Mr. Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform also points to seven 2004 Republican primaries where immigration-restriction candidates never won more than 46% of the vote. Among those beating back challenges: Arizona Congressmen James Kolbe and Jeff Flake, who are sponsors of a House bill that would let illegal immigrants earn legal residency in the U.S.
Candidates who want to restrict immigration seem not to fare well because very few people worry enough about immigration to vote on it -- even though many of them tell pollsters they're worried. In the Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 78% of those questioned favored "tightening" the border with Mexico -- but only 7% said illegal immigration was their biggest national concern.
Immigration is "a loud debate that produces few voters," says Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington immigrants-rights group.
But that doesn't mean immigration won't be talked about this campaign season. Most prominently among 2006 candidates, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, is toying with a symbolic run for the White House. Among other things, Mr. Tancredo wants to deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. and deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Immigration restrictionists also have announced runs for governor in Colorado, for the U.S. Senate from California and for a smattering of House seats. San Diego's Mr. Bilbray is running in an April primary to succeed former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham while also pursuing a class-action lawsuit that would prevent California public colleges from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
Some state legislatures are considering extending in-state tuition, health benefits and driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, even while others want to ban such benefits. In Ohio, a statehouse Republican has said he is considering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to exclude illegal immigrants from the census counts that are used to apportion Congressional seats.
Bills in New Hampshire and North Carolina would require local policemen to enforce federal immigration laws, and one in Virginia would require proof of legal residency to obtain a marriage license.
With Republicans largely leading the anti-immigration charge, the issue is causing heartburn for the national party, which was hoping that its generally pro-immigration stand would help it pick up Hispanic voters. Twelve years ago, California's Republican Gov. Pete Wilson won re-election in part by campaigning for a ballot measure that would deny benefits to illegal aliens -- a rare instance where an anti-immigration stand won the day.
But a decade passed before Republicans won the governor's office again, and they still haven't won back Hispanic voters. "It was a metaphor for short-term gain, long-term loss," says the National Immigration Forum's Mr. Sharry.
Republican pollster Ed Goeas says he urges his clients to talk about solutions to illegal immigration instead of focusing on emotion-charged issues like immigrant job centers if they want to win. His firm, the Tarrance Group, does polling for several immigration-restriction candidates, including Mr. Tancredo, he says.
But in anticipation of the 2006 elections, he's also running voter focus groups to help candidates handle such volatile issues as amnesty for illegal immigrants and whether to allow guest workers to eventually stay in the U.S. After voters let off steam, he says, focus groups show that immigration "becomes a very reasoned conversation very quickly."
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
Source : Wall Street Journal : 02/01/2006
more...
paskal
07-09 11:41 PM
senthil:
stop stop stop. it was not a mistake, it was not an accident.
they knew what they were doing. they worked weekends to achieve it damnit.
they are civil servants- u ever heard of civil servants working sundays to do 6 months of work in 15 days? that too by MISTAKE?????
smitha:
life is not all it seems. i came here in 1996. but my pd is 2007.
i have worked 4 years in an underserved area doing "national service"
i'm nowhere near a green card, forget that...you even grudge me an EAD.
i do not expect a gc tomorrow. i did not ask that july become current. but it did. and i lost a lot of money, time and effort to catch the window for an EAD. my family and employer scrambled with me. and got throughly screwed. not by senthil's "mistake", but coldly calculatedly so. in your wonderfully fair world, where does that rank?
stop stop stop. it was not a mistake, it was not an accident.
they knew what they were doing. they worked weekends to achieve it damnit.
they are civil servants- u ever heard of civil servants working sundays to do 6 months of work in 15 days? that too by MISTAKE?????
smitha:
life is not all it seems. i came here in 1996. but my pd is 2007.
i have worked 4 years in an underserved area doing "national service"
i'm nowhere near a green card, forget that...you even grudge me an EAD.
i do not expect a gc tomorrow. i did not ask that july become current. but it did. and i lost a lot of money, time and effort to catch the window for an EAD. my family and employer scrambled with me. and got throughly screwed. not by senthil's "mistake", but coldly calculatedly so. in your wonderfully fair world, where does that rank?
hot Princess Diana And Car Crash
dtekkedil
07-11 11:08 AM
Now that we have more people knowing about the flower campaign... I think we can do this again... bigger and better!
Any takers?
Any takers?
more...
house princess diana car crash pics.
legal_la
06-29 07:19 PM
My stupid big law firm delayed filing until monday this week. With all this hoopla.. Any ideas or rumors floating around about ppl who did not get reciept yet.
No rumors for June until now, you should be perfectly fine.
No rumors for June until now, you should be perfectly fine.
tattoo princess diana died in a car
k_usa
06-28 07:13 AM
Can anybody tell me what do i need to put on I-765 , Q11, as i am not able to rely on my company's attorney.
11.Have you ever applied for employment authorization from USCIS?
As per the following link - http://www.uga.edu/oie/ISSIS/form/Department/PR/Instructions%20for%20I-765.pdf
it says that you need to put yes and have to attach all the previous 797's.
But my attorney says that you need to put No. Only those who applied for EAD earlier have to put yes (Which i feel not correct).
can anybody clarify please.
Thanks in Advance.
=====================
contribution so far 100$
11.Have you ever applied for employment authorization from USCIS?
As per the following link - http://www.uga.edu/oie/ISSIS/form/Department/PR/Instructions%20for%20I-765.pdf
it says that you need to put yes and have to attach all the previous 797's.
But my attorney says that you need to put No. Only those who applied for EAD earlier have to put yes (Which i feel not correct).
can anybody clarify please.
Thanks in Advance.
=====================
contribution so far 100$
more...
pictures hair princess diana car crash
rajeev_74
07-09 10:29 PM
My PD is 2005 but I have been in this country for 10 years now....There will be lot of people like me....If you really want to see FIFO USCIS should impement PD as the first arrival date..some of the ~2002 folks will be upset as it will push them down the PD list...
This is just a message to 2005/2006/2007 PD guys. Please don't think that some miracle will happen and dates will be current soon, it will take its own time. Mostly for EB2 & EB3June 2006- June 2007 guys, it will be like a lottery if the PD becomes current somewhere in 2007 Oct-Nov time. Right??
So life is not always easy. There are people waiting since 2002-03-04.
Don't think that life is not a FIFO always.
Why some of the guys became violent when I said, INDIA IS GREAT???
Guys.. do you know why I always feel like this???
As my parents,in laws and most of my relatives stay there. Not only mine, allmost all guys who are in the IV, they must have parents and relatives in India for sure. There is no other reason why I said India is great.
Someone asked me to pack up... YES, I will if nothing happens;however, I will be waiting to see the progress for sure. This is July. Let's have a look over OCT bulletin after 2 months and for sure dates will move atleast 4-6 months for EB2 guys and 1 year for EB3 guys. So wait, be patient, instead of doing all this.
Anyway, our turn will come sooner or later, so why to become impatient just seeing the JULY bulletin CURRENT and then "U".
Mainly this is the message for 2005-2006-2007 PD guys. Please don't take it otherwise.
This is just a message to 2005/2006/2007 PD guys. Please don't think that some miracle will happen and dates will be current soon, it will take its own time. Mostly for EB2 & EB3June 2006- June 2007 guys, it will be like a lottery if the PD becomes current somewhere in 2007 Oct-Nov time. Right??
So life is not always easy. There are people waiting since 2002-03-04.
Don't think that life is not a FIFO always.
Why some of the guys became violent when I said, INDIA IS GREAT???
Guys.. do you know why I always feel like this???
As my parents,in laws and most of my relatives stay there. Not only mine, allmost all guys who are in the IV, they must have parents and relatives in India for sure. There is no other reason why I said India is great.
Someone asked me to pack up... YES, I will if nothing happens;however, I will be waiting to see the progress for sure. This is July. Let's have a look over OCT bulletin after 2 months and for sure dates will move atleast 4-6 months for EB2 guys and 1 year for EB3 guys. So wait, be patient, instead of doing all this.
Anyway, our turn will come sooner or later, so why to become impatient just seeing the JULY bulletin CURRENT and then "U".
Mainly this is the message for 2005-2006-2007 PD guys. Please don't take it otherwise.
dresses princess diana car crash
NKR
08-07 10:26 AM
But what if it is successful... What will happen then...
Then you will get GC faster though you had cut the GC line. What else...
Then you will get GC faster though you had cut the GC line. What else...
more...
makeup princess diana car crash
newtoearth
06-16 03:29 PM
Of course, person on L1 status can work at client site as long as he/she is directly managed by company that has sponsored L1 visa. They can not be directly managed by client. That is the restriction. Have you even read posts in this thread?
FYI, there will be a manager from TCS/WIPRO/IBM side to whom all these L1s will be reporting... This shows your poor understanding of how an Indian company is being operated...
They will "work" with client MGRs but report to employer MGR....:D
FYI, there will be a manager from TCS/WIPRO/IBM side to whom all these L1s will be reporting... This shows your poor understanding of how an Indian company is being operated...
They will "work" with client MGRs but report to employer MGR....:D
girlfriend princess diana car crash
drona
07-09 09:01 PM
No need to preach to us Smitha. Each person has an individual reason to be here. If you want to go home, by all means goodbye. For those of us that want to stay, it is our choice. No need to judge anyone.
hairstyles hair Princess Diana Car Wreck
bikram_das_in
09-23 11:02 PM
Has anybody calculated how many spill over visa numbers will available from 2009?
nkavjs
09-25 12:39 PM
Ok my dumb lawyer changed the website on me.. and all the image files of our application made are done.. null. huh.. something else to worry about now.
FinalGC
08-18 09:32 AM
Congrads!
So when children reach 14 years of age they have to do fingerprinting?
I think it is around 13 or 14...if they are under that, USCIS only takes a thumb print
So when children reach 14 years of age they have to do fingerprinting?
I think it is around 13 or 14...if they are under that, USCIS only takes a thumb print
No comments:
Post a Comment