kumar1
07-23 06:04 PM
With my limited knowledge on this topic -- Unemployment is not considered a social burden. It is funded by all employers. At no time, govt funds this pool with tax payer's money so I would not call it a social burden. Personally, if unemployment office is ready to give me a check, I would collect it !
wallpaper will smith son trey. will
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
Canadianindian
07-08 09:55 PM
5 star from me too :D
Best of luck.
Best of luck.
2011 son Jaden Smith,9. Will
pbuckeye
06-25 08:02 AM
Hi Gurus / Attorneys,
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
Can you try to get the MSA/SOW/PO between the client and vendor for the MTR (or client and your employer)? Sometimes the SOW reads almost like a client letter (with name, job duties, client supervisor name, signed by IT and legal department at client site).
Another option could be to get an email from the client stating that they cannot provide a letter because of company policy AND/OR get a letter from the vendor stating the same and provide the contact information of the supervisor at client location.
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
Can you try to get the MSA/SOW/PO between the client and vendor for the MTR (or client and your employer)? Sometimes the SOW reads almost like a client letter (with name, job duties, client supervisor name, signed by IT and legal department at client site).
Another option could be to get an email from the client stating that they cannot provide a letter because of company policy AND/OR get a letter from the vendor stating the same and provide the contact information of the supervisor at client location.
more...
coopheal
04-13 12:13 AM
That is incorrect. USCIS would send a copy of RFE to you as well.
My wife got a medical RFE and I'm looking at the letter from USCIS as I type.
Yes, We did sign the lawyer form. Lawyer first got a copy and informed us. He also told us that we would be getting one. And we got one.
For me I never got a any communication directly from USCIS for the RFE.
My wife got a medical RFE and I'm looking at the letter from USCIS as I type.
Yes, We did sign the lawyer form. Lawyer first got a copy and informed us. He also told us that we would be getting one. And we got one.
For me I never got a any communication directly from USCIS for the RFE.
fall2004us
10-20 05:59 PM
Sorry for asking this here. Can somebody please tell me how can i start a new thread in this forum.Thanks
Go here
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum6-non-immigrant-visas/
click on new thread :D
Go here
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum6-non-immigrant-visas/
click on new thread :D
more...
billu
08-20 02:10 PM
4. An apology from USCIS for the delay!!
i think we should have USCIS director come home personally to deliver sincere apology in both verbal and written for making people from india file GC and provide detailed explaination for reasons of the delay....thats the only way for him to keep getting our business in future...
i think we should have USCIS director come home personally to deliver sincere apology in both verbal and written for making people from india file GC and provide detailed explaination for reasons of the delay....thats the only way for him to keep getting our business in future...
2010 Will Smith is His Son#39;s Number
GCAmigo
05-22 12:04 PM
ALL of them will fedex overnight to reach the concerned office by June1st..
more...
psaxena
04-13 06:28 PM
No South Africa and no Australian cousin's neighbor.
Once happened to be my friend with the same PD as mine, got his GC just January.
well he changed the day he got his GC and started ignoring me.. well I don't care as well, they hardly even exists for us...
But this is right some got their GC out of the way just like that. and this is first hand information. No cousins and no neighbors...
One of my friends neighbours Aunt who lives in Australia has a cousin in South Africa
This cousin's sister's uncles' kids' friend got his GC last month, his PD was 2007. He was in EB3.
I have heard quite a few cases like that,
like other day I was at Safeway and the counter lady told me that her friend's cousin's son just got the whole process completed in 2 months and that too in EB3.
I can only say it is just unbelivable that these things still happen in this world. USCIS is just full of bums, we should definitely do some campaign about it.
But then ignorance is bliss :D
Once happened to be my friend with the same PD as mine, got his GC just January.
well he changed the day he got his GC and started ignoring me.. well I don't care as well, they hardly even exists for us...
But this is right some got their GC out of the way just like that. and this is first hand information. No cousins and no neighbors...
One of my friends neighbours Aunt who lives in Australia has a cousin in South Africa
This cousin's sister's uncles' kids' friend got his GC last month, his PD was 2007. He was in EB3.
I have heard quite a few cases like that,
like other day I was at Safeway and the counter lady told me that her friend's cousin's son just got the whole process completed in 2 months and that too in EB3.
I can only say it is just unbelivable that these things still happen in this world. USCIS is just full of bums, we should definitely do some campaign about it.
But then ignorance is bliss :D
hair DID WILL SMITH SON JADEN SMITH
rrajasekar
08-11 09:38 AM
We have written a letter to our congressman asking if he could help expediting the process. They called us yesterday and said that they would try to do their best though they couldn't promise on the outcome.
more...
lord_labaku
09-21 10:20 PM
It may be better to rent in the near future until tax rates increase so much (which they will as someone has to pay for all these unimaginable bailouts) that it starts to make sense again to own a house so as to get the interest deducted in taxes.
Eventually there will be a demand supply equilibrium point. People got to live somewhere right?
Eventually there will be a demand supply equilibrium point. People got to live somewhere right?
hot Jaden Smith is the son of Will
arun_psu
12-08 10:53 PM
I have the following visa stampings F1(1998 Chennai), H1B(2002 Chennai), F1(2006 Matamaros) and am currently on H1B (not the 2002 company). Am I eligible for stamping in one of the border posts?
thanks
arun
thanks
arun
more...
house Power couple Will Smith and
cgs
08-21 10:46 AM
Is this anything to do with PD?
tattoo Photo: Will Smith Son Trey
fcres
08-09 10:19 AM
Here it is
Q #17 in http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
Q17: How will USCIS interpret the language of AC21 Sec 104(c) (for three-year H-1B extensions) during a period in which AOS applications could be filed?
A17. USCIS interprets AC21 �104(c) as only applicable when an alien, who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for application of the per country limitations. Any petitioner seeking an H-1B extension on behalf of a beneficiary pursuant to AC21 �104(c) must thus establish that at the time of filing for such extension, the alien is not eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status on account of the per country immigrant visa limitations.
And here is what OH says in his breaking news for July 24th after this memo
0724/2007: AC 21 Three-Year Increment H-1B Extension Petition Availability in July and August 2007
Under Section 104(c) of AC 21 Act, those who have an approved I-140 petition or pending EB-485 application with the approved I-140 petition are eligible for the H-1B extension in three-year increment, if they cannot file EB-485 or EB-485 is pending but cannot be adjudicated because of the visa number unavailability for him/her. The question remained whether visa number should be unavailable at the time of filing of H-1B extension or at the time of adjudication of filing. The USCIS FAQ indicates that it will be determined by the date of filing rather than date of adjudication.
You should ask your lawyer to get an amendment. I read here yday somebody doing that.
Q #17 in http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
Q17: How will USCIS interpret the language of AC21 Sec 104(c) (for three-year H-1B extensions) during a period in which AOS applications could be filed?
A17. USCIS interprets AC21 �104(c) as only applicable when an alien, who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for application of the per country limitations. Any petitioner seeking an H-1B extension on behalf of a beneficiary pursuant to AC21 �104(c) must thus establish that at the time of filing for such extension, the alien is not eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status on account of the per country immigrant visa limitations.
And here is what OH says in his breaking news for July 24th after this memo
0724/2007: AC 21 Three-Year Increment H-1B Extension Petition Availability in July and August 2007
Under Section 104(c) of AC 21 Act, those who have an approved I-140 petition or pending EB-485 application with the approved I-140 petition are eligible for the H-1B extension in three-year increment, if they cannot file EB-485 or EB-485 is pending but cannot be adjudicated because of the visa number unavailability for him/her. The question remained whether visa number should be unavailable at the time of filing of H-1B extension or at the time of adjudication of filing. The USCIS FAQ indicates that it will be determined by the date of filing rather than date of adjudication.
You should ask your lawyer to get an amendment. I read here yday somebody doing that.
more...
pictures Kid: Will Smith#39;s Son to
aaren253
02-19 02:51 AM
ok i 16 and i want to go to pasadena art center for transportation...and i want to know is their llike a art school that i can go to to help me create a portfolio and enhance my skills in sketching.
dresses Post image for Will Smith,
stemcell
03-07 06:38 PM
Can you give more detalis?
are you filing NIW as a physician?
are you filing NIW as a physician?
more...
makeup Will Smith, Jaden Smith,
bobzibub
10-06 01:27 PM
Attempting to get USCIS to post a page like that would be like squeezing blood from a stone.
Example: When AILA asked USCIS whether moonlighting on an 485 derived EAD voids your H1-B (when you also keep your main job) seven months ago, they "take it under advice" but haven't bothered to answer the question. I've asked my lawyers and they are unwilling to say either way because they think USCIS could rule on it some day.
Leadership. They've heard of it.
Example: When AILA asked USCIS whether moonlighting on an 485 derived EAD voids your H1-B (when you also keep your main job) seven months ago, they "take it under advice" but haven't bothered to answer the question. I've asked my lawyers and they are unwilling to say either way because they think USCIS could rule on it some day.
Leadership. They've heard of it.
girlfriend is will smith son dead. will
go_gc_way
05-23 10:22 PM
A job well done Salil Pradhan ..
I think , Article rightly points out .. "We all have a tremendous sense of insecurity and uncertainty about the future".
I think , Article rightly points out .. "We all have a tremendous sense of insecurity and uncertainty about the future".
hairstyles about Will Smith hitting
kalwinhobbess
08-28 06:16 PM
Its writern in the RFE. I got an RFE and in that letter its clearly mentioned by when you need to submit the required docs.
imh1b
05-19 09:35 AM
Is there a transcript available somewhere. What was the outcome of this. Can someone explain the process?
kshitijnt
07-30 08:02 AM
I do not recommend E3 visa. As non immigrant intent like F1/B1 is required on E3.
0 comments:
Post a Comment