lost_in_migration
01-18 07:25 PM
I have sent the letter to President as well as IV.
wallpaper olivia palermo city.
ragz4u
02-20 10:16 PM
These are the posts by the user hadron:
For anyone intending to 'vote with their wallet', please keep the following in mind:
- Only US citizens are allowed to contribute to political campaigns (it is even illegal to give money to a citizen friend and have him contribute as a straw-man)
- there are regulations regarding political action committees (PAC) controlled by 'agents of a foreign power'
We are well aware of this and WILL not be contributing to any political campaign. And in any case, where does contributing to political campaign come in the picture? We are just trying to get ourselves heard! Is that illegal in this 'free' country too?
While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the folks setting up IV.com (and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity and honesty of their efforts), I don't see a whole lot on the groups website dealing with the legal aspects noted above.
And then when I posted:
A lot of foreign governments and entities legally employ lobbyists in Washington. They are merely getting your voice heard by the people's representatives!
I am not a US Civics expert, but neither can be everybody else here!
hadron, just because somebody is Board-certified in one field of Medicine does not make them experts in everything else!
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way! Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
This was what he posted:
Correct, and they are very careful to be registered with the secretary of state as a PAC or public interest lobbying organization. As you point out I am certainly not an expert on the law in this area, but before you start collecting a lot of money, make sure you have competent advice from someone who is (I looked into registering an immigration related PAC a year ago, after realizing the red-tape and political minefields involved I decided not to do so).
We are again beating around the bush here. As I have mentioned earlier, we are registering ourselves as a 501C4 org and are not a Political Action Committee from any angle. Hence the red-tape etc that hadron is talking about is not applicable here at all
Quote:
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way!
I actually don't know how to do that.
The reality is, in washington there are two things that open the door of a lawmakers office to a lobbyist:
- a check from the PAC aligned with his cause
- evidence that he represents measurable share of voting citizens in the home district of the representative or senator
And do you see the problem here?
You guys can't legally contribute to political campaigns and you don't represent voting citizens. So, having a lobbyist might be a first step, but it doesn't mean that your cause will be heard.
Hadron seems to have a very myopic view for everything. Anything and everything for him leads to a political contributions. How about trying the old fashioned way of making the lawmakers aware of the situation of legal immigrants. I don't know whether he has ever seen a reply to a fax from any senator/rep, but all of these misconstrue our request as being either a) A request to increase H1b quota or b) Give amnesty to illegal immigrants. The fact of the matter is the lawmakers do NOT know about our plight. If you read another post in this forum by the CA team that visited Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office, it came out very loud and clear! They had no clue about our plight. This coming from a senator who handles all the high tech firms in Silicon Valley with thousands of legal alien constituents! Imagine how much a senator from a state with no techie firms (like say South Dakota/Wyoming etc) know about us? Nothing, Nada, Zilch....but their vote is worth as much as any other senator.....so the primary aim for us as an org is to make every lawmaker realize our plight and influnce their decisions
Our main ally in the immigration arena is the US chamber of commerce. They are spending considerable money on advocating for employment based immigration reform (their main thrust however is getting access to unskilled workers, either through a guest worker program or through legalization. in a secondary way they are interested in higher H1b quotas to get access to cheap professionals, fixing retrogression is not very high on their agenda). Have you talked to other organizations classically on our side yet ?
What makes Hadron think that what he believes (that US chamber of commerce is our main ally) is gospel? In case he does not know, there are many other orgs that have a similar agenda. We have made significant progress in establishing relations with many of these orgs. Unfortunately, we cannot reveal everything here. There is more to it than meets the eye! Thats where QGA is helping us immensely
Quote:
Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
Please, save me the melodramatics.
Immigration bills get introduced by the dozen every year, most of them don't even make it into committee (but every time one gets introduced, people here on this board get all excited that finally 'relief is here'.) Even if a coalition of influential senators picks up the issue, there is no guarantee that it will go anywhere.
True, but how often do you see rallies across the country either pro or anti immigrants? How often do you hear about immigration being a hot issue and being discussed on CNN/Fox everyday? How often does the President address it in his State of the Union address? The fact of the matter is that this issue is really hot right now. Do not forget that this is an election year. A lot of the reps hoping to get reelected from border states like TX.AZ etc had promised their constituents that they will tackle immigration reforms. If they do nothing, they will face the wrath!
If there was ever a chance of an immigration bill passing, it is now. If that does not happen, forget about any chance of any immigration related stuff happening in the next 5 years. The question we need to ask ourselves right now is, 'Am I going to TRY to do something this time or should I try it after 5 years'. I know my answer is NOW. But if you want to be pessimistic and think that no bill might get passed, you are in the wrong place. You are better off visiting murthy.com and hope that she announces rapid movement of dates. the primary reason we are all converging here is because we believe that something will happen to the immigration bill and we want to make sure we are not forgotten
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is last post:
I am not angry at anyone, and I don't think that any of my posts can be misconstrued to convey that impression.
I think it is a good idea to start (another) lobbying organization for immigrant rights as the existing ones have a interests very different from us. All the latino groups are only interested in family immigration and legalization of illegals, employment based immigration is only a little blip on their radar screen. Industry on the other hand has their own agenda, again not one coinciding with our issues.
I just think that some of the people involved in IV.com are taking step2 before they have taken step1. They have a nice website (no big suprise with a project run by IT professionals) and are already soliciting contributions, but some aspects of it make me wonder about the level of professionalism involved.
Just to clarify, we are all people with daily jobs other than Immigration Voice. This is a volunteer organization. Do not expect a macromedia flash welcome screen.
So as apparently some of the founders of this organization are present on this board, I would like the following questions answered:
- what is the legal form of your non-profit organization ?
Its on our home page, but just in case, we have applied for 501 C4 status
- is this entity registered in any state, if yes in which ?
Again, the address is listed on the web site.....but since you did not bother to check it, it is NJ
- who is registered as the owner of the organizations bank account ?
It is owned by Immigration Voice. Remember, this is a NON Profit organization. It cannot be 'owned' by a person. Again this is on the web site..
- what is the structure of the organization ? Do you have dues paying members, is there a board of directors, trustees ??
Yes....if you know about 501 C4 orgs, they all NEED to have an org structure and there are officers and a board of trustees
- who are the officers of the organization ?
Everything is in place. 501 C4 cannot be registered without that.
For anyone intending to 'vote with their wallet', please keep the following in mind:
- Only US citizens are allowed to contribute to political campaigns (it is even illegal to give money to a citizen friend and have him contribute as a straw-man)
- there are regulations regarding political action committees (PAC) controlled by 'agents of a foreign power'
We are well aware of this and WILL not be contributing to any political campaign. And in any case, where does contributing to political campaign come in the picture? We are just trying to get ourselves heard! Is that illegal in this 'free' country too?
While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the folks setting up IV.com (and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity and honesty of their efforts), I don't see a whole lot on the groups website dealing with the legal aspects noted above.
And then when I posted:
A lot of foreign governments and entities legally employ lobbyists in Washington. They are merely getting your voice heard by the people's representatives!
I am not a US Civics expert, but neither can be everybody else here!
hadron, just because somebody is Board-certified in one field of Medicine does not make them experts in everything else!
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way! Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
This was what he posted:
Correct, and they are very careful to be registered with the secretary of state as a PAC or public interest lobbying organization. As you point out I am certainly not an expert on the law in this area, but before you start collecting a lot of money, make sure you have competent advice from someone who is (I looked into registering an immigration related PAC a year ago, after realizing the red-tape and political minefields involved I decided not to do so).
We are again beating around the bush here. As I have mentioned earlier, we are registering ourselves as a 501C4 org and are not a Political Action Committee from any angle. Hence the red-tape etc that hadron is talking about is not applicable here at all
Quote:
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way!
I actually don't know how to do that.
The reality is, in washington there are two things that open the door of a lawmakers office to a lobbyist:
- a check from the PAC aligned with his cause
- evidence that he represents measurable share of voting citizens in the home district of the representative or senator
And do you see the problem here?
You guys can't legally contribute to political campaigns and you don't represent voting citizens. So, having a lobbyist might be a first step, but it doesn't mean that your cause will be heard.
Hadron seems to have a very myopic view for everything. Anything and everything for him leads to a political contributions. How about trying the old fashioned way of making the lawmakers aware of the situation of legal immigrants. I don't know whether he has ever seen a reply to a fax from any senator/rep, but all of these misconstrue our request as being either a) A request to increase H1b quota or b) Give amnesty to illegal immigrants. The fact of the matter is the lawmakers do NOT know about our plight. If you read another post in this forum by the CA team that visited Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office, it came out very loud and clear! They had no clue about our plight. This coming from a senator who handles all the high tech firms in Silicon Valley with thousands of legal alien constituents! Imagine how much a senator from a state with no techie firms (like say South Dakota/Wyoming etc) know about us? Nothing, Nada, Zilch....but their vote is worth as much as any other senator.....so the primary aim for us as an org is to make every lawmaker realize our plight and influnce their decisions
Our main ally in the immigration arena is the US chamber of commerce. They are spending considerable money on advocating for employment based immigration reform (their main thrust however is getting access to unskilled workers, either through a guest worker program or through legalization. in a secondary way they are interested in higher H1b quotas to get access to cheap professionals, fixing retrogression is not very high on their agenda). Have you talked to other organizations classically on our side yet ?
What makes Hadron think that what he believes (that US chamber of commerce is our main ally) is gospel? In case he does not know, there are many other orgs that have a similar agenda. We have made significant progress in establishing relations with many of these orgs. Unfortunately, we cannot reveal everything here. There is more to it than meets the eye! Thats where QGA is helping us immensely
Quote:
Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
Please, save me the melodramatics.
Immigration bills get introduced by the dozen every year, most of them don't even make it into committee (but every time one gets introduced, people here on this board get all excited that finally 'relief is here'.) Even if a coalition of influential senators picks up the issue, there is no guarantee that it will go anywhere.
True, but how often do you see rallies across the country either pro or anti immigrants? How often do you hear about immigration being a hot issue and being discussed on CNN/Fox everyday? How often does the President address it in his State of the Union address? The fact of the matter is that this issue is really hot right now. Do not forget that this is an election year. A lot of the reps hoping to get reelected from border states like TX.AZ etc had promised their constituents that they will tackle immigration reforms. If they do nothing, they will face the wrath!
If there was ever a chance of an immigration bill passing, it is now. If that does not happen, forget about any chance of any immigration related stuff happening in the next 5 years. The question we need to ask ourselves right now is, 'Am I going to TRY to do something this time or should I try it after 5 years'. I know my answer is NOW. But if you want to be pessimistic and think that no bill might get passed, you are in the wrong place. You are better off visiting murthy.com and hope that she announces rapid movement of dates. the primary reason we are all converging here is because we believe that something will happen to the immigration bill and we want to make sure we are not forgotten
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is last post:
I am not angry at anyone, and I don't think that any of my posts can be misconstrued to convey that impression.
I think it is a good idea to start (another) lobbying organization for immigrant rights as the existing ones have a interests very different from us. All the latino groups are only interested in family immigration and legalization of illegals, employment based immigration is only a little blip on their radar screen. Industry on the other hand has their own agenda, again not one coinciding with our issues.
I just think that some of the people involved in IV.com are taking step2 before they have taken step1. They have a nice website (no big suprise with a project run by IT professionals) and are already soliciting contributions, but some aspects of it make me wonder about the level of professionalism involved.
Just to clarify, we are all people with daily jobs other than Immigration Voice. This is a volunteer organization. Do not expect a macromedia flash welcome screen.
So as apparently some of the founders of this organization are present on this board, I would like the following questions answered:
- what is the legal form of your non-profit organization ?
Its on our home page, but just in case, we have applied for 501 C4 status
- is this entity registered in any state, if yes in which ?
Again, the address is listed on the web site.....but since you did not bother to check it, it is NJ
- who is registered as the owner of the organizations bank account ?
It is owned by Immigration Voice. Remember, this is a NON Profit organization. It cannot be 'owned' by a person. Again this is on the web site..
- what is the structure of the organization ? Do you have dues paying members, is there a board of directors, trustees ??
Yes....if you know about 501 C4 orgs, they all NEED to have an org structure and there are officers and a board of trustees
- who are the officers of the organization ?
Everything is in place. 501 C4 cannot be registered without that.
styrum
12-19 03:30 PM
that was a very interesting read. Another scary part is that it took USCIS 6 months to revoke teh I-140 from the time it was requested. Meaning when he actually left his employer, if he had called up USCIS to verify the status of his I-140, it would have come up as still-valid.
Moreover, the decision totally ignores the fact that "The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment" and the entire answer to Q10 in Part I of the Aytes Memo od 12/25/05
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Moreover, the decision totally ignores the fact that "The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment" and the entire answer to Q10 in Part I of the Aytes Memo od 12/25/05
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
2011 Meanwhile, Olivia (left)
nixstor
06-20 03:34 PM
Thanks Arihant. Yes it is strange and I am trying to find their ulterior motive behind this. All the while I thought my employer is not one of the typical desi employers (read blood sucking) we hear about in this forum. Hope I am right.
By the way, my question was related to AC21 (after 180 days of filing 485). If I quit my current employer and join another company, how would I let USCIS know to forward all their RFEs to my new employer/lawyer and not to the old one. Am asking this because I heard the I-9 form we fill while changing employment is only for the employer and he doesn't forward it to anybody. Does my query make any sense at all or am I just blabbering BS :o
The stuff in bold is something I am trying to figure out. How will we answer RFE's after 180 days if we file our selves? Company lawyer and employer will not be even willing to talk to us as we have moved away. What are the chances that USCIS will ask stuff related to your old employer? Can some one confirm that it should not arise as we have moved away using AC21 and all RFE's can be answered by new employer?
Thanks
By the way, my question was related to AC21 (after 180 days of filing 485). If I quit my current employer and join another company, how would I let USCIS know to forward all their RFEs to my new employer/lawyer and not to the old one. Am asking this because I heard the I-9 form we fill while changing employment is only for the employer and he doesn't forward it to anybody. Does my query make any sense at all or am I just blabbering BS :o
The stuff in bold is something I am trying to figure out. How will we answer RFE's after 180 days if we file our selves? Company lawyer and employer will not be even willing to talk to us as we have moved away. What are the chances that USCIS will ask stuff related to your old employer? Can some one confirm that it should not arise as we have moved away using AC21 and all RFE's can be answered by new employer?
Thanks
more...
willwin
06-01 12:40 PM
done.
yabadaba
07-31 10:57 AM
can someone point me to a thread discussing decoding LIN #?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5814
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5814
more...
sands_14
04-13 11:02 AM
No visa bulletins till October2007
Thats what USCIS announced 2 weeks back
So stay cool:)
Thats what USCIS announced 2 weeks back
So stay cool:)
2010 olivia from the city on mtv
ajm
01-28 03:55 PM
letter sent to WH and IV.
more...
lazycis
11-30 06:35 PM
When is this name check reform getting implemented. Why is is so difficult to implement ?
Because the USCIS did not implement name check procedures properly in the first place - they are not required by law and are not codified in the regulations, the USCIS can implement new procedures simply by issuing inter-office memorandum. One day is enough to do this. I anticipate this may happen within the next two months, more likely early next year. But one can never predict the USCIS, it does not have logical behavior :)
Because the USCIS did not implement name check procedures properly in the first place - they are not required by law and are not codified in the regulations, the USCIS can implement new procedures simply by issuing inter-office memorandum. One day is enough to do this. I anticipate this may happen within the next two months, more likely early next year. But one can never predict the USCIS, it does not have logical behavior :)
hair olivia palermo city.
FinalGC
01-05 12:07 PM
Hi FinalGC,
What is your defintion of a large project ? How much budget/people/schedule etc should we use for that definition.
I would say it depends from organization to organization. The way I have seen operating in the industry, one could consider a project large if it has a $1 million budget or more. However, organizations could also consider a program with mutiple small projects with a total budget value greater than $1 million as a large project, where the PM may handle mutiple small projects which will cumulatively have a budget greater than $1mill.
This is also one way to justify the need of a PM.
What is the budget of the project is one of the questions that a PM should ask during an interview, so that he/she will know the stability of the project and its longevity.
Hope that helps.
What is your defintion of a large project ? How much budget/people/schedule etc should we use for that definition.
I would say it depends from organization to organization. The way I have seen operating in the industry, one could consider a project large if it has a $1 million budget or more. However, organizations could also consider a program with mutiple small projects with a total budget value greater than $1 million as a large project, where the PM may handle mutiple small projects which will cumulatively have a budget greater than $1mill.
This is also one way to justify the need of a PM.
What is the budget of the project is one of the questions that a PM should ask during an interview, so that he/she will know the stability of the project and its longevity.
Hope that helps.
more...
franklin
08-31 08:11 PM
I can help take some stuff - how much is there?
I would offer to carry the flag, but I have Carpal Tunnel, so it might not be a great idea :)
I would offer to carry the flag, but I have Carpal Tunnel, so it might not be a great idea :)
hot olivia palermo city.
LostInGCProcess
10-29 01:21 PM
If USCIS says, there is no problem to continue with our employment as long as we have applied for EAD renewal, there wouldn't be all this emotions. Every one would have normal BP. They must just come out and say that I would be ok to continue working.
It is so inhuman to treat us like this. They say "The day EAD expires, you must quit working until you receive the new EAD card".
Most of our jobs are replaceable in today's world. There is no shortage of "skilled workers". So, I for sure cannot take a long leave and wait for EAD to come by and re-join....because my job would be gone by then to some other "skilled" person. And its not easy to get another one quickly and without moving to a different place.
It is so inhuman to treat us like this. They say "The day EAD expires, you must quit working until you receive the new EAD card".
Most of our jobs are replaceable in today's world. There is no shortage of "skilled workers". So, I for sure cannot take a long leave and wait for EAD to come by and re-join....because my job would be gone by then to some other "skilled" person. And its not easy to get another one quickly and without moving to a different place.
more...
house else confused by Olivia#39;s
tdasara
01-31 01:25 PM
Very helpful if we get to file I485 without PD being current...
REDUCTION IN WEIGHTED AVERAGE
The increase in actual costs to applicants and petitioners will be only 66 percent, however, because applicants for adjustment of status will no longer be required to pay a fee to apply for interim benefits.
Currently, the I-485 fee is $325. The I-485 customer will also file an average of two Applications for Employment Authorization (I-765) and nearly half will file at least one Application for Travel Document (I-131), while an additional 20 percent of applicants will file a second. These additional ‘interim benefits’ applications allow applicants to work or travel while their status application is pending. The combined fee that applicants currently pay is approximately $800. The proposed fee structure will eliminate the need for applicants to have to pay these subsequent fees that result from processing delays. USCIS is proposing a $905 fee for the I-485 form. When considering the interim benefit fees paid by applicants, the increase for the I-485 is $105 instead of $580; therefore, the overall weighted average is reduced to 66 percent because adjustment of status applicants will pay approximately the same fee that is currently assessed when taking into account those associated ‘interim benefits’ that are paid over a multi-year time perio
REDUCTION IN WEIGHTED AVERAGE
The increase in actual costs to applicants and petitioners will be only 66 percent, however, because applicants for adjustment of status will no longer be required to pay a fee to apply for interim benefits.
Currently, the I-485 fee is $325. The I-485 customer will also file an average of two Applications for Employment Authorization (I-765) and nearly half will file at least one Application for Travel Document (I-131), while an additional 20 percent of applicants will file a second. These additional ‘interim benefits’ applications allow applicants to work or travel while their status application is pending. The combined fee that applicants currently pay is approximately $800. The proposed fee structure will eliminate the need for applicants to have to pay these subsequent fees that result from processing delays. USCIS is proposing a $905 fee for the I-485 form. When considering the interim benefit fees paid by applicants, the increase for the I-485 is $105 instead of $580; therefore, the overall weighted average is reduced to 66 percent because adjustment of status applicants will pay approximately the same fee that is currently assessed when taking into account those associated ‘interim benefits’ that are paid over a multi-year time perio
tattoo Who is Olivia Palermo?
ragz4u
03-16 01:32 PM
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18845
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee finally broached the controversial subject of the undocumented population on day five of the Committee's markup of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, but deferred any votes on the subject until after next week's congressional recess.
Chairman Specter began the day's proceedings by reiterating that it would be a "colossal mistake" for Senate Majority Leader Frist to bring an immigration bill to the Senate floor that had not been completely vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As background, Senator Frist has threatened to bring his enforcement-only legislation directly to the Senate floor unless the Judiciary Committee produces a bill by March 27. Senator Frist could do this using the seldom employed "Rule 14" procedure that permits him to introduce a bill and bypass the committee process so that it goes directly to the Senate calendar. According to Senate sources, Senator Frist's bill would simply take Chairman Specter's proposal and strip out the guestworker plan and the provisions dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens present in the U.S.
Because Senator Frist apparently will not back off of his deadline, Chairman Specter proposed this morning to continue the Committee's work beyond what was to have been the final day of the markup (today). Unfortunately, the Senate is out on recess next week, leaving tomorrow or Monday, March 27, as the only available options for continued work. Most of the Senators present agreed that meeting on March 27 would make sense, with the exception of Senator Cornyn, who disagreed that bringing the Committee's incomplete bill to the floor would be problematic (clearly an attempt on his part to stave off debate in the Committee on what to do with the undocumented population). However, in a clear rebuke to Senator Cornyn, Chairman Specter responded that the Committee would proceed immediately to debate on the controversial issue of a path to citizenship for the undocumented!
Chairman Specter said that he and Senator Kennedy talked at length yesterday about the issue of the undocumented. He reiterated his concerns about the undocumented workers jumping the line in front of those who have followed the legal channels. He's concerned about 25-year backlogs for 4th preference beneficiaries and other long backlogs. However, he noted his willingness to find a way to put the undocumented on a path to citizenship at the end of the line. Chairman Specter also reiterated that he wants a bill to come out of Committee that can pass the floor and be reconciled with the House bill.
Senator Kennedy argued that the McCain/Kennedy bill will not lead to line-jumping, explaining that the bill's formula would clear backlogs and deal with the lines themselves. In addition, he noted his willingness to accept a 2nd degree amendment to ensure that legal permanent residence would not be granted to the undocumented population until both the current employment-based and family-based backlogs had been cleared. "What really is the alternative," he asked? "Mass deportations? Criminalization and a permanent subclass?"
Senator Kennedy continued by talking eloquently about the pure motives of immigrants who have come to this country, both historically and currently, to make a better life for themselves and their families. He said that we should admire the drive of these people. We should not treat them as criminals but should give them an opportunity. We should bring them out of shadows, have them pay a fine, work, and wait their turn. Senator Kennedy also noted that some 60,000 legal permanent residents currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Senator Kyl noted that no one on the Committee supports enforcement only, adding that his and Senator Cornyn's proposal would provide a "work opportunity," not a punishment. He said that the Specter "gold card" would be just like a green card but without the right to citizenship. He also opined that people waiting in the family-based backlog don't have the right to be in the U.S. now, so letting undocumented aliens get in line would harm those individuals who have been waiting patiently. At one point, he allowed that it might be OK to give a path to citizenship to high skilled workers but not to low skilled workers.
Senator Cornyn associated himself with Senator Kyl's remarks. "We can't accept everyone in the world who wants to come here," he said. And while he professed agreement with Senator Kennedy about the beneficial contributions and benevolent motivations of the undocumented population, he couldn't seem to get past the "law breaking" issue. "The American people won't accept a program to deal with the undocumented if we haven't finished the bill's enforcement titles," he argued. He also defended the Cornyn/Kyl "report to deport" proposal, noting that it is neither a ruse nor impractical. He added that the intention of the proposal is not to strand people outside of the country as some have accused.
Senator Durbin weighed in by stating that the immigration system has been broken for a long while. He recounted stories about important individuals he knows whose parents were undocumented aliens. He stood in support of the McCain/Kennedy proposal, calling it "tough but fair," and reiterated that we should not be criminalizing undocumented status, as both the Chairman's Mark and H.R. 4437 would do.
Senator Graham noted that many people, including many on the Republican side of the aisle, don't even want to debate this complex issue. For them, rounding these immigrants up and deporting them is the only answer. "Such a proposal is simply not feasible," Senator Graham added. He also noted that half of his family likely would not be able to meet the requirements of the McCain/Kennedy legislation, thereby buttressing the argument that it is no easy give away. "While there are lots of people on talk radio complaining about the undocumented, these folks are out there working," he said. "This is not a 'get out of jail free' card." In addition to those who would deport the undocumented population, there are others who would put them all in jail, he continued, adding that this also would not work. He warned Chairman Specter and others that they shouldn't be trying to avoid criticism on this issue, because they're all going to get it. He agreed that the undocumented population should be put in line behind all those currently waiting in the backlogs but does not believe it is appropriate to force them to leave the country in order to take part in the program, as this would break up families.
Senator Feinstein argued that the DHS would be incapable of handling such a massive program. She was also concerned with what would happen to those who apply for the program if they are unable to pass the requisite background checks. "Could people with minor misdemeanors get status,?" she asked. She requested a letter from Senator Kennedy's staff on the issue. Senator Feinstein also returned to the issue of DHS's processing capabilities, asking for additional information on the subject before the issue is brought to a vote.
Senator Specter indicated that he intends to work through the undocumented issue by beginning with the McCain/Kennedy bill and the 2nd degree amendment mentioned above by Senator Kennedy. He also indicated that there is a deal on the table between Senators Cornyn and Kennedy on the temporary worker (future flows) program.
Senator Feinstein brought up the subject of agricultural workers and wanted to know why they weren't included as part of the guestworker program. Senator Kennedy responded that the reason is because Senator Craig, the chief sponsor of AgJobs, would offer it as an amendment on the floor. Senator Brownback opined that they needed to have staff work out the details of any agricultural program.
Chairman Specter then noted that staff would be working out various details during next week's recess, confirmed continuation of the markup on March 27th, and gaveled the meeting to a close.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee finally broached the controversial subject of the undocumented population on day five of the Committee's markup of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, but deferred any votes on the subject until after next week's congressional recess.
Chairman Specter began the day's proceedings by reiterating that it would be a "colossal mistake" for Senate Majority Leader Frist to bring an immigration bill to the Senate floor that had not been completely vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As background, Senator Frist has threatened to bring his enforcement-only legislation directly to the Senate floor unless the Judiciary Committee produces a bill by March 27. Senator Frist could do this using the seldom employed "Rule 14" procedure that permits him to introduce a bill and bypass the committee process so that it goes directly to the Senate calendar. According to Senate sources, Senator Frist's bill would simply take Chairman Specter's proposal and strip out the guestworker plan and the provisions dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens present in the U.S.
Because Senator Frist apparently will not back off of his deadline, Chairman Specter proposed this morning to continue the Committee's work beyond what was to have been the final day of the markup (today). Unfortunately, the Senate is out on recess next week, leaving tomorrow or Monday, March 27, as the only available options for continued work. Most of the Senators present agreed that meeting on March 27 would make sense, with the exception of Senator Cornyn, who disagreed that bringing the Committee's incomplete bill to the floor would be problematic (clearly an attempt on his part to stave off debate in the Committee on what to do with the undocumented population). However, in a clear rebuke to Senator Cornyn, Chairman Specter responded that the Committee would proceed immediately to debate on the controversial issue of a path to citizenship for the undocumented!
Chairman Specter said that he and Senator Kennedy talked at length yesterday about the issue of the undocumented. He reiterated his concerns about the undocumented workers jumping the line in front of those who have followed the legal channels. He's concerned about 25-year backlogs for 4th preference beneficiaries and other long backlogs. However, he noted his willingness to find a way to put the undocumented on a path to citizenship at the end of the line. Chairman Specter also reiterated that he wants a bill to come out of Committee that can pass the floor and be reconciled with the House bill.
Senator Kennedy argued that the McCain/Kennedy bill will not lead to line-jumping, explaining that the bill's formula would clear backlogs and deal with the lines themselves. In addition, he noted his willingness to accept a 2nd degree amendment to ensure that legal permanent residence would not be granted to the undocumented population until both the current employment-based and family-based backlogs had been cleared. "What really is the alternative," he asked? "Mass deportations? Criminalization and a permanent subclass?"
Senator Kennedy continued by talking eloquently about the pure motives of immigrants who have come to this country, both historically and currently, to make a better life for themselves and their families. He said that we should admire the drive of these people. We should not treat them as criminals but should give them an opportunity. We should bring them out of shadows, have them pay a fine, work, and wait their turn. Senator Kennedy also noted that some 60,000 legal permanent residents currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Senator Kyl noted that no one on the Committee supports enforcement only, adding that his and Senator Cornyn's proposal would provide a "work opportunity," not a punishment. He said that the Specter "gold card" would be just like a green card but without the right to citizenship. He also opined that people waiting in the family-based backlog don't have the right to be in the U.S. now, so letting undocumented aliens get in line would harm those individuals who have been waiting patiently. At one point, he allowed that it might be OK to give a path to citizenship to high skilled workers but not to low skilled workers.
Senator Cornyn associated himself with Senator Kyl's remarks. "We can't accept everyone in the world who wants to come here," he said. And while he professed agreement with Senator Kennedy about the beneficial contributions and benevolent motivations of the undocumented population, he couldn't seem to get past the "law breaking" issue. "The American people won't accept a program to deal with the undocumented if we haven't finished the bill's enforcement titles," he argued. He also defended the Cornyn/Kyl "report to deport" proposal, noting that it is neither a ruse nor impractical. He added that the intention of the proposal is not to strand people outside of the country as some have accused.
Senator Durbin weighed in by stating that the immigration system has been broken for a long while. He recounted stories about important individuals he knows whose parents were undocumented aliens. He stood in support of the McCain/Kennedy proposal, calling it "tough but fair," and reiterated that we should not be criminalizing undocumented status, as both the Chairman's Mark and H.R. 4437 would do.
Senator Graham noted that many people, including many on the Republican side of the aisle, don't even want to debate this complex issue. For them, rounding these immigrants up and deporting them is the only answer. "Such a proposal is simply not feasible," Senator Graham added. He also noted that half of his family likely would not be able to meet the requirements of the McCain/Kennedy legislation, thereby buttressing the argument that it is no easy give away. "While there are lots of people on talk radio complaining about the undocumented, these folks are out there working," he said. "This is not a 'get out of jail free' card." In addition to those who would deport the undocumented population, there are others who would put them all in jail, he continued, adding that this also would not work. He warned Chairman Specter and others that they shouldn't be trying to avoid criticism on this issue, because they're all going to get it. He agreed that the undocumented population should be put in line behind all those currently waiting in the backlogs but does not believe it is appropriate to force them to leave the country in order to take part in the program, as this would break up families.
Senator Feinstein argued that the DHS would be incapable of handling such a massive program. She was also concerned with what would happen to those who apply for the program if they are unable to pass the requisite background checks. "Could people with minor misdemeanors get status,?" she asked. She requested a letter from Senator Kennedy's staff on the issue. Senator Feinstein also returned to the issue of DHS's processing capabilities, asking for additional information on the subject before the issue is brought to a vote.
Senator Specter indicated that he intends to work through the undocumented issue by beginning with the McCain/Kennedy bill and the 2nd degree amendment mentioned above by Senator Kennedy. He also indicated that there is a deal on the table between Senators Cornyn and Kennedy on the temporary worker (future flows) program.
Senator Feinstein brought up the subject of agricultural workers and wanted to know why they weren't included as part of the guestworker program. Senator Kennedy responded that the reason is because Senator Craig, the chief sponsor of AgJobs, would offer it as an amendment on the floor. Senator Brownback opined that they needed to have staff work out the details of any agricultural program.
Chairman Specter then noted that staff would be working out various details during next week's recess, confirmed continuation of the markup on March 27th, and gaveled the meeting to a close.
more...
pictures Olivia Palermo is a Reality TV
plassey
08-20 08:01 PM
Bottom line is that u got screwed. Labor is for a position with your employer. He may choose to give to anyone he wishes. Labor substitution thus was not illegal act on his part as it was permitted by the law.
I-140 is his stuff .
I-485 is ur stuff but in absence of I-140 it means nothing.
Your only case is if he has violated any of the H1 provisions.
I-140 is his stuff .
I-485 is ur stuff but in absence of I-140 it means nothing.
Your only case is if he has violated any of the H1 provisions.
dresses Olivia Palermo Pops Out for
gc_check
07-07 12:19 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/070610_AZlawsuit.pdf
Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law
The Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration law, claiming the law is "invalid" and "must be struck down." Read More (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/justice-department-file-suit-arizona-early-tuesday/)
Sometimes a rule/law might be an unpopular one, but the right one. All popular ones does not mean they are correct. People who have the guts to make unpopular / but the right decisions and enact them are the real leaders. This time, either this year or next year, we will know if CIR is driven by real Leader's or Politician who exploit any situation to increase their chances to stay longer in power.
Also do not see much media attention to anything related to CIR. May be it an election year politics that drive things now !!!
If this law suit translates into some action to address this broken immigration system, then it is a good one !!! Will have to wait and see ....
Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law
The Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration law, claiming the law is "invalid" and "must be struck down." Read More (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/justice-department-file-suit-arizona-early-tuesday/)
Sometimes a rule/law might be an unpopular one, but the right one. All popular ones does not mean they are correct. People who have the guts to make unpopular / but the right decisions and enact them are the real leaders. This time, either this year or next year, we will know if CIR is driven by real Leader's or Politician who exploit any situation to increase their chances to stay longer in power.
Also do not see much media attention to anything related to CIR. May be it an election year politics that drive things now !!!
If this law suit translates into some action to address this broken immigration system, then it is a good one !!! Will have to wait and see ....
more...
makeup City star, Olivia Palermo.
Libra
07-10 09:21 AM
I never saw him talking +ve about legal immgration, he is an anti-immigrant.
Attacking Lou Dobbs will help those who purposefully blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. While Dobbs sometimes talks about H1Bs, his main focus is on illegal immigration and he's mostly sympathetic to legal immigration, in my opinion.
Attacking Lou Dobbs will help those who purposefully blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. While Dobbs sometimes talks about H1Bs, his main focus is on illegal immigration and he's mostly sympathetic to legal immigration, in my opinion.
girlfriend Olivia Palermo Olivia Palermo
Kitiara
02-04 05:28 PM
I don't care! I got a second vote! :beam:
Thank you very much for voting for my little castle. Still got a long way to catch up with Soul and Eilsoe though. :cyborg:
Thank you very much for voting for my little castle. Still got a long way to catch up with Soul and Eilsoe though. :cyborg:
hairstyles Olivia Palermo 1 Olivia
gc_on_demand
06-10 03:18 PM
Was USCIS following prediction of OMBUDSMAN ???? or OMBUDSMAN WAS PREDICTING TRUE....
This was dated in May 2007. before july fiasco.
"This loss of visas is due to: (1) gaps in USCIS� accounting of cases; (2) USCIS not processing enough pending applications in a timely manner; and (3) the imprecise art of predicting workflows and demand surges at three federal agencies: Department of Labor (DOL) (approves labor certifications); USCIS (processes immigration petitions after completion of labor certifications and processes green card applications for applicants in the United States); and DOS (establishes priority dates and processes immigrant visas from applicants outside the United States). There will be severe consequences from rapid fluctuations in priority dates. If the priority date became current today, due to delayed USCIS processing and thus underutilization of visa numbers, some have predicted that within a few months as many as 500,000 to 750,000 individuals now residing in the United States under a temporary worker visa could apply for a green card. Additionally, DOL�s recent backlog elimination efforts, scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2007, are predicted to add 70,000 or more approved labor certifications yielding as many as 170,000 additional green card applications. As USCIS begins to complete these applications and request visa numbers from DOS, the 140,000 statutorily authorized visa numbers will be used. DOS then will be required to retrogress priority dates. Consequently, most applicants in this scenario will find themselves trapped whereas they anticipated timely receipt of a green card, their wait exceeds seven or more years. In addition, all future employment-based green card applicants effectively would be barred from applying for many years.38"
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_annualrpt07__June_11_2007_section3e_untimel yprocessing.pdf
PAGE 2-3
This was dated in May 2007. before july fiasco.
"This loss of visas is due to: (1) gaps in USCIS� accounting of cases; (2) USCIS not processing enough pending applications in a timely manner; and (3) the imprecise art of predicting workflows and demand surges at three federal agencies: Department of Labor (DOL) (approves labor certifications); USCIS (processes immigration petitions after completion of labor certifications and processes green card applications for applicants in the United States); and DOS (establishes priority dates and processes immigrant visas from applicants outside the United States). There will be severe consequences from rapid fluctuations in priority dates. If the priority date became current today, due to delayed USCIS processing and thus underutilization of visa numbers, some have predicted that within a few months as many as 500,000 to 750,000 individuals now residing in the United States under a temporary worker visa could apply for a green card. Additionally, DOL�s recent backlog elimination efforts, scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2007, are predicted to add 70,000 or more approved labor certifications yielding as many as 170,000 additional green card applications. As USCIS begins to complete these applications and request visa numbers from DOS, the 140,000 statutorily authorized visa numbers will be used. DOS then will be required to retrogress priority dates. Consequently, most applicants in this scenario will find themselves trapped whereas they anticipated timely receipt of a green card, their wait exceeds seven or more years. In addition, all future employment-based green card applicants effectively would be barred from applying for many years.38"
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_annualrpt07__June_11_2007_section3e_untimel yprocessing.pdf
PAGE 2-3
sandy_anand
11-02 02:21 PM
I'm getting my bag of M & M's and box of Kleenex tissues ready.
Hahaha funny! :D
Hahaha funny! :D
syzygy
05-15 01:12 AM
would it even help people who did MS in stem from US university but are stuck in eb3 due to bad policies of their companies ?Or is this only for eb2 / eb1?
0 comments:
Post a Comment