widad2020
05-03 09:27 PM
EB2 PD 19 May 2006: NSC
wallpaper World of Warcraft: Wrath
jdsouza
11-04 01:03 PM
[QUOTE=tonyHK12;2057939]Well it is against the law to employ illegals and this is enforced strictly, so we can forget about tax deduction at source, SS, etc. It will be minuscule. These so called publications are from their supporters which they have numerous of.
Sure to what extent do you expect a small company to go to check if the person were legal or illegal.
I am aware of that well publicized stunt. Do you know we have only 800K farm workers and 1.5 million farm workers were granted amnesty in 1986?
The only way to get cheap labor is with short term foreign contract labor, amnesty will never work, they have to return anyway.
The farmer will stop working in the farm, the day he gets his GC. Lets not compare an educated american. A citizen with no schooling would take the job at the right wage.
Nor really true. I have disagree with you here. Labor for agri jobs was documented (and quoted) even by Bush when he was pushing for Comprehensive Immigration reform in 2007. The number 1.5 million that you quote includes families and children of those granted amnesty. Its part of keeping the family unit together.
There is no proof that the new bill will reduce costs at all! It will take many years to realize it anyway. Reform was needed but not at this moment when there were bigger issues that needed fixing in 6-12 months.
In the long run it will. The issue was that people could not afford to pay their healthcare insurance premiums. Those of us who are lucky to have high paying jobs and good employers can very look down on the folks that don't have healthcare. However, health care is now a human right declared by United Nations in Dec 1948. In the US, the largest developed nation, there are millions who cannot get healthcare (only emergency care). Even if this healthcare doesn't reduce it drastically in the short term, it will stem the rising costs eventually. That is the long term projection at least. Think about how much cheaper prescription drugs are in Canada when compared to the US.
I think that "what we are debating here is "what is better for the US". You and I can contribute to the SS and Medicare system that we are not allowed to draw from until we have greencards or become naturalized citizens. The illegals you mention are in the same boat. The point that I am making is that the anti-immigration lobby sees all immigrants in a single light. If we try to divide ourselves away from the low-skilled we are not going to get anywhere. Immigration in general touches a number issues - civil and human rights, economics, etc.. By trying to distance ourselves from any of these issues, we are in fact make it more difficult for ourselves. For the record, I do want a green card, I want a fair system. I don't believe in treating one person different from another because of their background or the kind of work they perform. (that's just to give some perspective regarding my views on the issue). Thanks for listening!
Sure to what extent do you expect a small company to go to check if the person were legal or illegal.
I am aware of that well publicized stunt. Do you know we have only 800K farm workers and 1.5 million farm workers were granted amnesty in 1986?
The only way to get cheap labor is with short term foreign contract labor, amnesty will never work, they have to return anyway.
The farmer will stop working in the farm, the day he gets his GC. Lets not compare an educated american. A citizen with no schooling would take the job at the right wage.
Nor really true. I have disagree with you here. Labor for agri jobs was documented (and quoted) even by Bush when he was pushing for Comprehensive Immigration reform in 2007. The number 1.5 million that you quote includes families and children of those granted amnesty. Its part of keeping the family unit together.
There is no proof that the new bill will reduce costs at all! It will take many years to realize it anyway. Reform was needed but not at this moment when there were bigger issues that needed fixing in 6-12 months.
In the long run it will. The issue was that people could not afford to pay their healthcare insurance premiums. Those of us who are lucky to have high paying jobs and good employers can very look down on the folks that don't have healthcare. However, health care is now a human right declared by United Nations in Dec 1948. In the US, the largest developed nation, there are millions who cannot get healthcare (only emergency care). Even if this healthcare doesn't reduce it drastically in the short term, it will stem the rising costs eventually. That is the long term projection at least. Think about how much cheaper prescription drugs are in Canada when compared to the US.
I think that "what we are debating here is "what is better for the US". You and I can contribute to the SS and Medicare system that we are not allowed to draw from until we have greencards or become naturalized citizens. The illegals you mention are in the same boat. The point that I am making is that the anti-immigration lobby sees all immigrants in a single light. If we try to divide ourselves away from the low-skilled we are not going to get anywhere. Immigration in general touches a number issues - civil and human rights, economics, etc.. By trying to distance ourselves from any of these issues, we are in fact make it more difficult for ourselves. For the record, I do want a green card, I want a fair system. I don't believe in treating one person different from another because of their background or the kind of work they perform. (that's just to give some perspective regarding my views on the issue). Thanks for listening!
pd_recapturing
04-09 12:47 PM
gc4me : Pardon me, but how is citizenship not a relevant issue to legal immigrants? If you're not worried about citizenship issues, then why are you even infesting this thread? Many people, including me, might be interested. And I have indeed contributed, although I don't see how that is any of your business and as long as this website isn't being hosted on your home computer, I don't see what gives you the right to ask it of anyone in a patronizing tone. It's simple really, if you're not interested in any issue, just stay away. No one needs your BS sarcasm or disapproval.
supplychainwallah : you seem to have pretty deep-rooted issues. I recommend you get some anger management counselling.
I totally second that. Saralayar has raised a very valid issue and its up to IV and core memebers to take it or not. Getting GC should not be the end of the story, we ought to think beyond that. had this GC process been consistant and FIFO, there would not have been any problem with the fact "citizenship after 5 years of GC". Now this GC thing is so screwed up, we might want to include citizen ship issue as well but definitely, at the very lowest priority.
supplychainwallah : you seem to have pretty deep-rooted issues. I recommend you get some anger management counselling.
I totally second that. Saralayar has raised a very valid issue and its up to IV and core memebers to take it or not. Getting GC should not be the end of the story, we ought to think beyond that. had this GC process been consistant and FIFO, there would not have been any problem with the fact "citizenship after 5 years of GC". Now this GC thing is so screwed up, we might want to include citizen ship issue as well but definitely, at the very lowest priority.
2011 WoW: Wrath of the Lich King:
khans02
06-06 06:56 PM
When my lawyer applied for my H1B extension she forgot to apply for my wife's H4 extension (Form I 539). Now after about year and half when we are preparing to file for our 485 status adjustment we she found out that she forgot to apply for that. So she is now filing the Form I 539 with an explaination. So that means my wife has been out of status for almost more than a year now unknowingly. How much of a chance does she have to have her form I 539 approved now? Any response would be very much appreciated.
Thank You
Thank You
more...
indianabacklog
06-23 08:49 PM
Hello Susie,
My daughter accompanied me on H4 visa. My labor was approved in June 2006 and she turned 21 in July 2006. My I 140 was approved in Dec 2006. I have received valuable inputs from IV members and understand that she has aged out. I believe that things can be simplified if unmarried children under 21 who come as dependants of workers with dual intent visas or similar catagories are exempt from ageing out rules. This may avoid lengthy rules, computations, complex interpretations and possibly lawsuits.
I would be most interested to see the evidence supporting your statement and the information you have received from IV members. Since in one breath you are saying your daughter has aged out and in the next you are suggesting she is exempt from aging out rules???
My daughter accompanied me on H4 visa. My labor was approved in June 2006 and she turned 21 in July 2006. My I 140 was approved in Dec 2006. I have received valuable inputs from IV members and understand that she has aged out. I believe that things can be simplified if unmarried children under 21 who come as dependants of workers with dual intent visas or similar catagories are exempt from ageing out rules. This may avoid lengthy rules, computations, complex interpretations and possibly lawsuits.
I would be most interested to see the evidence supporting your statement and the information you have received from IV members. Since in one breath you are saying your daughter has aged out and in the next you are suggesting she is exempt from aging out rules???
masterji
08-03 11:56 AM
Actually today I received my CPO e-mail, so I will go down through my list! But anyway,
1. You can contact your local congressman and explain your situation
2. You can visit your local USCIS office through an Infopass appointment
3. You can file an ombudsman form (google it)
Good luck! Opening a SR was really helpful in my case.
Thanks for the info. Can you also tell us how to go through the other steps in your list?
Thanks once again. :)
1. You can contact your local congressman and explain your situation
2. You can visit your local USCIS office through an Infopass appointment
3. You can file an ombudsman form (google it)
Good luck! Opening a SR was really helpful in my case.
Thanks for the info. Can you also tell us how to go through the other steps in your list?
Thanks once again. :)
more...
pal351
04-12 04:45 PM
Thanks for the reply !
I have valid AP have no issues to travel but my concern is if my application is not approved before i start(May 14th) then what will be the status of my application
I mean MY EAD Application
I have valid AP have no issues to travel but my concern is if my application is not approved before i start(May 14th) then what will be the status of my application
I mean MY EAD Application
2010 World of Warcraft : Wrath
logiclife
04-10 08:07 PM
Gurus Pls help
I was with Company A whn I got married which had my visa and I 94 till Nov 08,2006. My wife wnt to consul. and got her visa and I-94 till same date.
I came back to US alone and changed to company B in July 06 and got my I-94 till 2009. Since my wife came to USA after that she didnt get her xtension.
i forgot to file for her xtension.
I had to agn change the company C in Dec 06. Thats whn i realised her I-94 expired in Nov. My lawyer said it shud be Ok since she has not passed 180 days after it has expired. or else she cud be black listed
Today lawyer got an email from USCIS saying they r waiting on security check on my wife. Wht r the options my wife has becos her 180 days will reach in May 08. Can she stay here till a decision on her is finalised by USCIS?
Guruls..Pls any help will be appreciated..
I think generally, whenever you have a pending case with USCIS, you can stay until the adjudication is made. that is common knowledge. If somehow it doesnt apply in your case, I think your lawyer would have told you about that. If you are not sure and want to be 100% sure, get all paperwork in order and call another good lawyer to get a second opinion as to whether your wife (or wives :D :D ) can stay or not.
I was with Company A whn I got married which had my visa and I 94 till Nov 08,2006. My wife wnt to consul. and got her visa and I-94 till same date.
I came back to US alone and changed to company B in July 06 and got my I-94 till 2009. Since my wife came to USA after that she didnt get her xtension.
i forgot to file for her xtension.
I had to agn change the company C in Dec 06. Thats whn i realised her I-94 expired in Nov. My lawyer said it shud be Ok since she has not passed 180 days after it has expired. or else she cud be black listed
Today lawyer got an email from USCIS saying they r waiting on security check on my wife. Wht r the options my wife has becos her 180 days will reach in May 08. Can she stay here till a decision on her is finalised by USCIS?
Guruls..Pls any help will be appreciated..
I think generally, whenever you have a pending case with USCIS, you can stay until the adjudication is made. that is common knowledge. If somehow it doesnt apply in your case, I think your lawyer would have told you about that. If you are not sure and want to be 100% sure, get all paperwork in order and call another good lawyer to get a second opinion as to whether your wife (or wives :D :D ) can stay or not.
more...
validIV
04-08 02:44 PM
As a result, these annual limits have been reached and both categories have become �Unavailable.�
Visa availability in these categories will resume in October, the first month of the new fiscal year
See you guys in October!
Visa availability in these categories will resume in October, the first month of the new fiscal year
See you guys in October!
hair Our sister web site WoW
gcdreamer05
01-15 10:10 AM
Guys, books are the best way to learn something and here is a free link to one of the ebooks which teaches trading...
(a small help from my side)
The book name is "Come into my trading room - a complete guide to trading" written by elder alexander
http://www.4shared.com/file/26362749/cb2d9492/Elder_Alexander_-_Come_Into_My_Trading_Room_-_A_Complete_Guide_To_Trading.html?s=1
(a small help from my side)
The book name is "Come into my trading room - a complete guide to trading" written by elder alexander
http://www.4shared.com/file/26362749/cb2d9492/Elder_Alexander_-_Come_Into_My_Trading_Room_-_A_Complete_Guide_To_Trading.html?s=1
more...
gvenkat
09-25 01:05 PM
what it means
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document production or Oath Ceremony
On July 29, 2009 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
This step applies to applications that result in an applicant receiving a card (such as a green card) or other document (such as a naturalization certificate, refugee travel documents or advance parole). Applications will be in this step from the time the order to produce the card/document is given until the card/document is produced and mailed to the applicant. You can expect to receive your card/document within 30 days of the approval of your application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document production or Oath Ceremony
On July 29, 2009 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
This step applies to applications that result in an applicant receiving a card (such as a green card) or other document (such as a naturalization certificate, refugee travel documents or advance parole). Applications will be in this step from the time the order to produce the card/document is given until the card/document is produced and mailed to the applicant. You can expect to receive your card/document within 30 days of the approval of your application.[/QUOTE]
I got the same. Not sure if it is an error?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document production or Oath Ceremony
On July 29, 2009 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
This step applies to applications that result in an applicant receiving a card (such as a green card) or other document (such as a naturalization certificate, refugee travel documents or advance parole). Applications will be in this step from the time the order to produce the card/document is given until the card/document is produced and mailed to the applicant. You can expect to receive your card/document within 30 days of the approval of your application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document production or Oath Ceremony
On July 29, 2009 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
This step applies to applications that result in an applicant receiving a card (such as a green card) or other document (such as a naturalization certificate, refugee travel documents or advance parole). Applications will be in this step from the time the order to produce the card/document is given until the card/document is produced and mailed to the applicant. You can expect to receive your card/document within 30 days of the approval of your application.[/QUOTE]
I got the same. Not sure if it is an error?
hot World of Warcraft: Wrath of
Totoro
03-21 09:19 AM
WOW!!.. whats a response.. Keep going..
At the same time, keep trying yourselves also by whatever means possible. Totoro is trying so hard for us, and even if we have five guys like this with such contacts, yet the efforts are not sufficient. We must also help ourselves by our individual efforts like writing to change.gov etc.. Lets not put all the 6 pages of ideas in just one basket. Since there is difference between eggs and ideas, duplicate the ideas and put them in other ways also, apart from just here.
Totoro,
Thanks for your efforts.
We all missed one point. Can you please update your profile.
Are Canadians also backlogged in this mess.
And you said "As some of you know...." . Were you try in these lines before too.
Canadians don't have as many problems as Indians, but a broken system doesn't work for anyone. I know of Canadians who are also very frustrated with the system, myself included.
At the same time, keep trying yourselves also by whatever means possible. Totoro is trying so hard for us, and even if we have five guys like this with such contacts, yet the efforts are not sufficient. We must also help ourselves by our individual efforts like writing to change.gov etc.. Lets not put all the 6 pages of ideas in just one basket. Since there is difference between eggs and ideas, duplicate the ideas and put them in other ways also, apart from just here.
Totoro,
Thanks for your efforts.
We all missed one point. Can you please update your profile.
Are Canadians also backlogged in this mess.
And you said "As some of you know...." . Were you try in these lines before too.
Canadians don't have as many problems as Indians, but a broken system doesn't work for anyone. I know of Canadians who are also very frustrated with the system, myself included.
more...
house World of Warcraft Screenshot
sathweb
07-11 03:57 PM
Is she so powerfull?
Is she so powerfull? If so, she deserves flowers with note "Thank you for standing up for lagal immigrants".
She Rocks.
Is she so powerfull? If so, she deserves flowers with note "Thank you for standing up for lagal immigrants".
She Rocks.
tattoo World of Warcraft: Wrath of
dilbert_cal
05-15 12:36 AM
Thanks ksircar for replying to this thread. littly_willy - now you can spend the night deciding what to do :-) - do get some sleep too and pray the best for you.
more...
pictures 13:World Of Warcraft Wrath Of
perm2gc
03-23 02:20 PM
/\/\/\
dresses World of Warcraft: Wrath of
PlainSpeak
01-12 05:29 PM
It is surprising (rather shocking) to see how a discussion on an EB bill (which might never see the light of day anyway) has degenerated into an oft-repeated rant on how IV does not represent EB3.
When I meet with my lawmaker's office (and when I again meet in Feb), I repeat the IV provisions which are for ALL EB and not any specific category/country. THe problem with EB3 is the with the way the EB system/inventory is set-up. It is stupid to convert a chronic issue into a "IV is not trying" debate. As always, we have lots of armchair critics and few grass-roots workers.
Yes forever_waiting it is surprising and shocking to see how a discussion on an EB Bill which will never see the light of the day has degenerated into an oft-repeated rant
By using the keyword
oft-repeated (i will ignore the word rant because only an immature mind will call the other side of a discussion as rant) it
would imply that many EB3 members have raised the same concern in this forum before and i am not the first and believe me when i say this i will not be the last also. So that would mean a whole bunch of people (remember eb3 are 50 k and eb2 are 12k) have the same concern and they have raised the same concern in this same forum so that would mean IV is aware of the concern.
Now what has
IV done about it ??
Meeting a lawmaker with the support of IV behind you is not a reflection of a big effort on your side. The power behind that is IV. Now for me or any other EB3 to meet a law maker is not something i would consider an effort since EB3 are willing to put the same effort which you are putting only if they believein what they are doing. To believe a person needs to feel that they are working for a cause that will impact their situation. Sadly this is missing and that is why EB3 people are cool about the whole meet the law maker process
Regarding the statement I repeat the IV provisions which are for ALL EB and not any specific category/country. THe problem with EB3 is the with the way the EB system/inventory is set-up. What specific steps has IV articulated to resolve the specific issue of EB3
By your own definition this is a chronic issue and what we are taught is that any issue which is chronic needs to be redressed and when it is not it becomes a big issue which cannot be handled
As always, there is the name calling stating that EB3 people aarmchair critics and winers but you are part of a community and you have issues you will air your greviences in the same community not to some one who has no idea or does notcare about it
What is really suprising and shocking is that in EB community itself EB2 does not care to listen and provide and open discussion about EB3 issues. Now according to me that is shocking
BTW i commend your effort of meeting the law maker but if you introspect the only reason you are making an effort is because you believe your efforts will bear fruit in the form of a GC soon (I believe you are EB2 with a priority date of Apr 08)
When I meet with my lawmaker's office (and when I again meet in Feb), I repeat the IV provisions which are for ALL EB and not any specific category/country. THe problem with EB3 is the with the way the EB system/inventory is set-up. It is stupid to convert a chronic issue into a "IV is not trying" debate. As always, we have lots of armchair critics and few grass-roots workers.
Yes forever_waiting it is surprising and shocking to see how a discussion on an EB Bill which will never see the light of the day has degenerated into an oft-repeated rant
By using the keyword
oft-repeated (i will ignore the word rant because only an immature mind will call the other side of a discussion as rant) it
would imply that many EB3 members have raised the same concern in this forum before and i am not the first and believe me when i say this i will not be the last also. So that would mean a whole bunch of people (remember eb3 are 50 k and eb2 are 12k) have the same concern and they have raised the same concern in this same forum so that would mean IV is aware of the concern.
Now what has
IV done about it ??
Meeting a lawmaker with the support of IV behind you is not a reflection of a big effort on your side. The power behind that is IV. Now for me or any other EB3 to meet a law maker is not something i would consider an effort since EB3 are willing to put the same effort which you are putting only if they believein what they are doing. To believe a person needs to feel that they are working for a cause that will impact their situation. Sadly this is missing and that is why EB3 people are cool about the whole meet the law maker process
Regarding the statement I repeat the IV provisions which are for ALL EB and not any specific category/country. THe problem with EB3 is the with the way the EB system/inventory is set-up. What specific steps has IV articulated to resolve the specific issue of EB3
By your own definition this is a chronic issue and what we are taught is that any issue which is chronic needs to be redressed and when it is not it becomes a big issue which cannot be handled
As always, there is the name calling stating that EB3 people aarmchair critics and winers but you are part of a community and you have issues you will air your greviences in the same community not to some one who has no idea or does notcare about it
What is really suprising and shocking is that in EB community itself EB2 does not care to listen and provide and open discussion about EB3 issues. Now according to me that is shocking
BTW i commend your effort of meeting the law maker but if you introspect the only reason you are making an effort is because you believe your efforts will bear fruit in the form of a GC soon (I believe you are EB2 with a priority date of Apr 08)
more...
makeup World of Warcraft Wrath of the
learning01
02-01 08:59 PM
and tell us if our provisions are there....
PDF LINK FROM SA 187 FROm THOMAS.GOV (S1105) (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S1105&position=all)
I will take any number of such goof-ups.. so it will be another night of hope & dream(s)...
PDF LINK FROM SA 187 FROm THOMAS.GOV (S1105) (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S1105&position=all)
I will take any number of such goof-ups.. so it will be another night of hope & dream(s)...
girlfriend Wrath of The Lich King
485Mbe4001
06-19 12:47 PM
Enforcement First
The right way to reform immigration.
An NRO Primary Document
Editor's note: This letter was released this morning by John Fonte of the Hudson Institute.
Prominent Conservatives and Civic Leaders Urge President Bush and Congress to Back Enforcement First on Immigration
Leading conservatives and civic leaders have signed an �open letter� on immigration declaring that �border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful � and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs.�
The signers include William Bennett, Robert Bork, William F Buckley, Ward Connerly, Newt Gingrich, David Horowitz, David Keene, John Leo, Herbert London, Rich Lowry, Daniel Pipes, Phyllis Schlafly, and Thomas Sowell among others.
Hudson Senior Fellow John Fonte, who organized the letter, said:
�We want to commend the members of Congress who have supported enforcement first including 85% of all Congressional Republicans, 36 Democrats in the House and 4 in the Senate.�
�We particularly want to thank Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and House chairmen Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Peter King (R-NY) for their leadership role in putting America�s national interests in border and interior enforcement first.�
As a matter of organizational policy, Hudson Institute does not take stances on pending legislation.
�First Things First on Immigration: An Open Letter to President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Frist, and Speaker of the House, Hastert�
Recently, columnist Thomas Sowell wrote: �It will take time to see how various new border control methods work out in practice and there is no reason to rush ahead to deal with people already illegally in this country before the facts are in on how well the borders have been secured.�
We the undersigned agree with this statement. In 1986, Congress passed �comprehensive� immigration reform that included amnesty for around 3 million illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and interior enforcement (employer sanctions). Amnesty came, but enforcement was never seriously implemented either at the border or in the interior.
Let us not make this mistake again. We favor what Newt Gingrich has described as �sequencing.� First border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful � and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs. We are in the middle of a global war on terror. 2006 is not 1986. Today, we need proof that enforcement (both at the border and in the interior) is successful before anything else happens. As Ronald Reagan used to say �trust, but verify.�
The majority of Republicans in the Senate opposed the recently passed Hagel-Martinez bill. Senator Vitter (R-LA) said that because border enforcement will not be in place, �this [bill] will in fact make the illegal immigration problem much bigger.� The No. 3 Republican in the Senate, Senator Rick Santorum (PA) said, �We need a border-security bill first.� Senator Vitter, Senator Santorum, the majority of Senate Republicans, and the majority of House Republicans are right � we need proven enforcement before we do anything else. Adopting cosmetic legislation to appear to be �doing something� about enforcement, but which actually makes the situation worse, is not statesmanship, it is demagogy.
We thank the majority of the Senate Republicans (33 in all) and the seven Democrats who supported the Isakson amendment, which insists upon verifiable benchmarks for border security before considering other issues. Moreover, we say �Thank You� to Jim Sensenbrenner, Peter King, and the bi-partisan House majority including 36 Democrats, that passed HR 4437. We may quibble with a clause here and there, but you in the House and the majority of Senate Republicans are right to emphasize that the Congress and the President must deal with enforcement first and other issues later. Stand fast; the American people are overwhelmingly with you.
Signed,
William B. Allen, Professor of Political Science at Michigan State University
William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan, former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President George H.W. Bush
Thomas L. Bock, National Commander of the American Legion
Robert H. Bork, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, former Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and Editor-at-Large of National Review
Peter Collier, founding Publisher of Encounter Books, cofounder of Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Ward Connerly, former Regent at the University of California, founder and Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy advisor for President Ronald Reagan
Glynn Custred, Professor of Anthropology at California State University, Hayward, and coauthor of the California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209
John C. Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law, Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center of American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute
David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, Resident Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., founder and President of the Center for Security Policy
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chairman of the Gingrich Group, Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Jonah Goldberg, Editor-at-Large of the National Review Online, national syndicated columnist
Victor Davis Hanson, Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, recipient of the 1991 American Philological Association Excellence in Teaching Award
David Horowitz, cofounder of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Editor of FrontPageMag.com
Fred C. Ikl�, former Undersecretary of Defense under Reagan, former Director of U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union
Brian Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute, Publisher of the Claremont Review of Books
Roger Kimball, Managing Editor of The New Criterion
Alan Charles Kors, Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies
Michael A. Ledeen, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Seth Leibsohn, Fellow at the Claremont Institute
John Leo, columnist and Contributing Editor to U.S. News and World Report
Herbert London, President of the Hudson Institute
Kathryn Jean Lopez, Editor of National Review Online
Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review
Heather Mac Donald, John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
John O�Sullivan, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Editor-at-Large of National Review
Juliana Pilon, Research Professor at the Institute for World Politics
Daniel Pipes, founder and Director of the Middle East Forum and Campus Watch, former member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace
Andrew �Andy� Ramirez, Chairman of the Friends of Border Patrol
Phyllis Schlafly, founder and President of Eagle Forum
Thomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2003 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Shelby Steele, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2006 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Stephen Steinlight, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, former National Affairs Director of the American Jewish Committee, and Vice President of the National Conference of Christians and Jews
Thomas G. West, Director and Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas
The right way to reform immigration.
An NRO Primary Document
Editor's note: This letter was released this morning by John Fonte of the Hudson Institute.
Prominent Conservatives and Civic Leaders Urge President Bush and Congress to Back Enforcement First on Immigration
Leading conservatives and civic leaders have signed an �open letter� on immigration declaring that �border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful � and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs.�
The signers include William Bennett, Robert Bork, William F Buckley, Ward Connerly, Newt Gingrich, David Horowitz, David Keene, John Leo, Herbert London, Rich Lowry, Daniel Pipes, Phyllis Schlafly, and Thomas Sowell among others.
Hudson Senior Fellow John Fonte, who organized the letter, said:
�We want to commend the members of Congress who have supported enforcement first including 85% of all Congressional Republicans, 36 Democrats in the House and 4 in the Senate.�
�We particularly want to thank Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and House chairmen Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Peter King (R-NY) for their leadership role in putting America�s national interests in border and interior enforcement first.�
As a matter of organizational policy, Hudson Institute does not take stances on pending legislation.
�First Things First on Immigration: An Open Letter to President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Frist, and Speaker of the House, Hastert�
Recently, columnist Thomas Sowell wrote: �It will take time to see how various new border control methods work out in practice and there is no reason to rush ahead to deal with people already illegally in this country before the facts are in on how well the borders have been secured.�
We the undersigned agree with this statement. In 1986, Congress passed �comprehensive� immigration reform that included amnesty for around 3 million illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and interior enforcement (employer sanctions). Amnesty came, but enforcement was never seriously implemented either at the border or in the interior.
Let us not make this mistake again. We favor what Newt Gingrich has described as �sequencing.� First border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful � and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs. We are in the middle of a global war on terror. 2006 is not 1986. Today, we need proof that enforcement (both at the border and in the interior) is successful before anything else happens. As Ronald Reagan used to say �trust, but verify.�
The majority of Republicans in the Senate opposed the recently passed Hagel-Martinez bill. Senator Vitter (R-LA) said that because border enforcement will not be in place, �this [bill] will in fact make the illegal immigration problem much bigger.� The No. 3 Republican in the Senate, Senator Rick Santorum (PA) said, �We need a border-security bill first.� Senator Vitter, Senator Santorum, the majority of Senate Republicans, and the majority of House Republicans are right � we need proven enforcement before we do anything else. Adopting cosmetic legislation to appear to be �doing something� about enforcement, but which actually makes the situation worse, is not statesmanship, it is demagogy.
We thank the majority of the Senate Republicans (33 in all) and the seven Democrats who supported the Isakson amendment, which insists upon verifiable benchmarks for border security before considering other issues. Moreover, we say �Thank You� to Jim Sensenbrenner, Peter King, and the bi-partisan House majority including 36 Democrats, that passed HR 4437. We may quibble with a clause here and there, but you in the House and the majority of Senate Republicans are right to emphasize that the Congress and the President must deal with enforcement first and other issues later. Stand fast; the American people are overwhelmingly with you.
Signed,
William B. Allen, Professor of Political Science at Michigan State University
William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan, former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President George H.W. Bush
Thomas L. Bock, National Commander of the American Legion
Robert H. Bork, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, former Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and Editor-at-Large of National Review
Peter Collier, founding Publisher of Encounter Books, cofounder of Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Ward Connerly, former Regent at the University of California, founder and Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy advisor for President Ronald Reagan
Glynn Custred, Professor of Anthropology at California State University, Hayward, and coauthor of the California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209
John C. Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law, Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center of American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute
David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, Resident Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., founder and President of the Center for Security Policy
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chairman of the Gingrich Group, Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Jonah Goldberg, Editor-at-Large of the National Review Online, national syndicated columnist
Victor Davis Hanson, Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, recipient of the 1991 American Philological Association Excellence in Teaching Award
David Horowitz, cofounder of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Editor of FrontPageMag.com
Fred C. Ikl�, former Undersecretary of Defense under Reagan, former Director of U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union
Brian Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute, Publisher of the Claremont Review of Books
Roger Kimball, Managing Editor of The New Criterion
Alan Charles Kors, Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies
Michael A. Ledeen, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Seth Leibsohn, Fellow at the Claremont Institute
John Leo, columnist and Contributing Editor to U.S. News and World Report
Herbert London, President of the Hudson Institute
Kathryn Jean Lopez, Editor of National Review Online
Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review
Heather Mac Donald, John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
John O�Sullivan, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Editor-at-Large of National Review
Juliana Pilon, Research Professor at the Institute for World Politics
Daniel Pipes, founder and Director of the Middle East Forum and Campus Watch, former member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace
Andrew �Andy� Ramirez, Chairman of the Friends of Border Patrol
Phyllis Schlafly, founder and President of Eagle Forum
Thomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2003 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Shelby Steele, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2006 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Stephen Steinlight, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, former National Affairs Director of the American Jewish Committee, and Vice President of the National Conference of Christians and Jews
Thomas G. West, Director and Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas
hairstyles The Lich King Arthas beckons
GCFROMOHIO
01-17 04:45 PM
Hi All,
I have just signed up for $20 contribution per month. Already contributed about $250 dollars until now.
I tried to get many of my friends in OHIO to enroll, but they just don't trust these efforts. I tried to convince them a lot but, they think everything will be resolved automatically and especially does not want to contribute even a $ for these kind of efforts. It's a shame on us that we tend to be the same backhome as well as here. Just use and use for free and never contribute anything back.
I have just signed up for $20 contribution per month. Already contributed about $250 dollars until now.
I tried to get many of my friends in OHIO to enroll, but they just don't trust these efforts. I tried to convince them a lot but, they think everything will be resolved automatically and especially does not want to contribute even a $ for these kind of efforts. It's a shame on us that we tend to be the same backhome as well as here. Just use and use for free and never contribute anything back.
hellomms
05-27 02:43 PM
All,
I have created a letter template (linked below), I have a couple questions that I have put in the comments so you guys can provide some input.
I am going to create another template that you can use to fill in your name and other related information (naidu2543 brought up a good point and I am somewhat skeptical on adding the case number. Admins, any input?). I think we should all have hand-written signature (not typed) in that letter.
I am going to provide a fax number and email address, where each one of you can send the signed sheet.
I think there should be a benchmark for the signature, before we can send it out. From the polls, I see 69 people said that they would support the initiative, I think its reasonable to expect at least 65 people will send their signatures, before we can send the letter out.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sjzyz31kqm4
IV Admins.,
Please review the letter and let us know if you have any input to the questions I have in the letter.
WaitingBoy, I added your case and the link has the updated file.
I have created a letter template (linked below), I have a couple questions that I have put in the comments so you guys can provide some input.
I am going to create another template that you can use to fill in your name and other related information (naidu2543 brought up a good point and I am somewhat skeptical on adding the case number. Admins, any input?). I think we should all have hand-written signature (not typed) in that letter.
I am going to provide a fax number and email address, where each one of you can send the signed sheet.
I think there should be a benchmark for the signature, before we can send it out. From the polls, I see 69 people said that they would support the initiative, I think its reasonable to expect at least 65 people will send their signatures, before we can send the letter out.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sjzyz31kqm4
IV Admins.,
Please review the letter and let us know if you have any input to the questions I have in the letter.
WaitingBoy, I added your case and the link has the updated file.
speddi
06-02 01:21 PM
I didnt. I dont know if there is any number to call to find the status.
0 comments:
Post a Comment