GCard_Dream
05-29 04:35 PM
I thought Guantanamo was being closed soon. They might ship us to detention centers in Afganistan or Iraq. :D Hope they have more high tech jobs there.
And I thought it could not be worse than what we already got :(
What are they going to do next... Put us in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.... for being immigrants ...and that too legal...and that too high skilled.:mad:
And I thought it could not be worse than what we already got :(
What are they going to do next... Put us in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.... for being immigrants ...and that too legal...and that too high skilled.:mad:
wallpaper Cool Celebrity Men#39;s Hair:
dixie
12-04 09:44 PM
Personally, if I am not going to get a GC, I would much prefer loosing 20-25% of the PPF and have some chance of recovering the remainder from the "babus" than loosing all of it to the US government that considers me ineligible for benefits that I have already paid for in full. Its a positive sign that the Indian govt, whatever its vested interest may be, has at least considered taking up this issue.
Lets not nitpick on corruption and nepotism in our home countries. Its no secreat that it exists here as well - except that it goes by different names such as premium processing, amnesty etc and the whole thing is more streamlined and marketed with a positive spin on it.Nobody has experienced that more than us. And yeah, I am being cynical here.
Lets not nitpick on corruption and nepotism in our home countries. Its no secreat that it exists here as well - except that it goes by different names such as premium processing, amnesty etc and the whole thing is more streamlined and marketed with a positive spin on it.Nobody has experienced that more than us. And yeah, I am being cynical here.
venky08
11-19 09:56 AM
i second this.
this approach is better known as "attitude of positive expectancy" hoping that things will work out well in the future. It is difficult in this negative world to have this kind of thinking, however if you do, it will get you through your life without losing precious moments of your youth worrying about the future.
all the great leaders and visionaries of the past and present have this attitude as the way of life. something to think about in the midst of darkness surrounding the GC limbo...
I started looking for a house soon after filing for my 485/EAD/AP in August 2007. I finally got a great deal (good price and low fixed mortgage interest rates) on a 14 year home in St Louis and then had to decide whether to wait for the EAD approval before buying the home. I decided to go ahead and buy the home.
My EAD was approved sometime back and looking at the turn of events leading up to buying the house, I realized that there is always an element of risk in committing to long-term investment without a GC. However I am sick and tired of the slow GC process and cannot keep postponing important decisions in life. We need to take risks at some point. I know with a March 2005 EB2 priority date, my dream of getting a GC is still many years away. But postponing important lifestyle decisions for later is too much of a price to pay.
this approach is better known as "attitude of positive expectancy" hoping that things will work out well in the future. It is difficult in this negative world to have this kind of thinking, however if you do, it will get you through your life without losing precious moments of your youth worrying about the future.
all the great leaders and visionaries of the past and present have this attitude as the way of life. something to think about in the midst of darkness surrounding the GC limbo...
I started looking for a house soon after filing for my 485/EAD/AP in August 2007. I finally got a great deal (good price and low fixed mortgage interest rates) on a 14 year home in St Louis and then had to decide whether to wait for the EAD approval before buying the home. I decided to go ahead and buy the home.
My EAD was approved sometime back and looking at the turn of events leading up to buying the house, I realized that there is always an element of risk in committing to long-term investment without a GC. However I am sick and tired of the slow GC process and cannot keep postponing important decisions in life. We need to take risks at some point. I know with a March 2005 EB2 priority date, my dream of getting a GC is still many years away. But postponing important lifestyle decisions for later is too much of a price to pay.
2011 londe hair highlights men.
kaisersose
08-21 09:37 AM
May be it's true that labor and 140 belongs to the company, but they just can't take money from employees and sell it to someone.
Sure, they can. There was nothing in the law forbidding them from doing that and they abused the system badly which has resulted in a permanent ban on substitution.
You cannot do anything about them using the Labor for someone else. Perhaps you can do something about them taking money from you to file 485 and failing to do that. If you can prove this with a clear paper trail, then you stand a good chance on this one.
Sure, they can. There was nothing in the law forbidding them from doing that and they abused the system badly which has resulted in a permanent ban on substitution.
You cannot do anything about them using the Labor for someone else. Perhaps you can do something about them taking money from you to file 485 and failing to do that. If you can prove this with a clear paper trail, then you stand a good chance on this one.
more...
GCInThisLife
07-19 02:23 PM
This discussion should scare many many people. I can count so many people just over the top of my head who would have a similar problem.
This discussion scared me now.
I came in US on 06/03/2001. When I came I was told, no project for me right now and I have to wait. I waited till 09/11/2001 WITHOUT pay.
The first time I was on my company payroll was in 09/11/2001. Since then as of today I am working continously.
AM I IN PROBLEM?
Please comment and give me hope.
This discussion scared me now.
I came in US on 06/03/2001. When I came I was told, no project for me right now and I have to wait. I waited till 09/11/2001 WITHOUT pay.
The first time I was on my company payroll was in 09/11/2001. Since then as of today I am working continously.
AM I IN PROBLEM?
Please comment and give me hope.
speddi
05-05 02:56 PM
Hi,
Here is my situation:
Company A:
EB2 PD Aug 2006
140 Approved
485 Applied July '07 (Got EAD and AP for myself and wife. I am still on H1B but wife used EAD)
Still working with Company A and intend to work with them for another couple of years.
Company B:
EB2 PD Nov 2005 (Substitution labor)
140 Approved.
Can I interfile or do the PD porting so that I can get the older PD? If so, do I have to work for Company B?
I dont have a copy of the LCA and I may not have the original of the approved 140. Can I use a copy of 140 approval notice to apply for the interfile?
Do I need any kind of document from Company B like employment letter in future ?
Does the PD need to be current to interfile?
Do I need to work for Company B?
Does this process in anyway create problems for my current 485 status? My wife used EAD but I have been on H1B with the company that filed for my 485.
I already completed 180 days after filing 485. So, I can use AC21. Will this interfiling process have any impact on that?
How would I know that interfiling process completed successfully?
If USCIS denys the interfile I submitted, does that have any impact on my current 485 process?
If I want to use AC21, does that new job need be similar to Company A or Company B job requirement?
Thank you everyone..
Here is my situation:
Company A:
EB2 PD Aug 2006
140 Approved
485 Applied July '07 (Got EAD and AP for myself and wife. I am still on H1B but wife used EAD)
Still working with Company A and intend to work with them for another couple of years.
Company B:
EB2 PD Nov 2005 (Substitution labor)
140 Approved.
Can I interfile or do the PD porting so that I can get the older PD? If so, do I have to work for Company B?
I dont have a copy of the LCA and I may not have the original of the approved 140. Can I use a copy of 140 approval notice to apply for the interfile?
Do I need any kind of document from Company B like employment letter in future ?
Does the PD need to be current to interfile?
Do I need to work for Company B?
Does this process in anyway create problems for my current 485 status? My wife used EAD but I have been on H1B with the company that filed for my 485.
I already completed 180 days after filing 485. So, I can use AC21. Will this interfiling process have any impact on that?
How would I know that interfiling process completed successfully?
If USCIS denys the interfile I submitted, does that have any impact on my current 485 process?
If I want to use AC21, does that new job need be similar to Company A or Company B job requirement?
Thank you everyone..
more...
rdehar
07-17 11:25 AM
Hey Guys, I don't know how many of you know about this link, but you can find out how your case is going and when it is supposed to be approved:
http://www.immigrationwatch.com/immi_predict_form.jsp
Gives me a peace of mind knowing how many cases filed around my date are approved ...
http://www.immigrationwatch.com/immi_predict_form.jsp
Gives me a peace of mind knowing how many cases filed around my date are approved ...
2010 dirty londe hair highlights.
yash04
08-01 11:57 AM
I'm waiting for it too..RN from TSC - mine was recieved by 9.55 am and signed by some dude...who's was your's signed by?
more...
diptam
08-15 12:43 PM
Some peoples think that they are the smartest world has ever Produced.
When you go for Fedex/USPS Express they takes your Name, Current Address in a page which has Pointer to the TRACKING NO. 1 copy comes to you , 1 copy goes out with Package and 1 Copy gets saved with FEDEX/USPS.
The 3rd copy above is sufficient to straightout any "Potential Liars" :mad:
People can show someone elses fedex receipt and claim that they too mailed their application. How can USCIS find out which fedex receipt is for what application?
When you go for Fedex/USPS Express they takes your Name, Current Address in a page which has Pointer to the TRACKING NO. 1 copy comes to you , 1 copy goes out with Package and 1 Copy gets saved with FEDEX/USPS.
The 3rd copy above is sufficient to straightout any "Potential Liars" :mad:
People can show someone elses fedex receipt and claim that they too mailed their application. How can USCIS find out which fedex receipt is for what application?
hair hot londe hair highlights men.
StuckInTheMuck
11-09 12:24 PM
July 2 filer (@TSC), awaiting FP for both me and my wife (no SR opened yet).
more...
whoever
04-14 08:39 AM
China eb3 may move but not india eb3. there are too many of them. i dont think there will be any cir or things like it passed this year. there is already however several bills writting to resolve but with eb3 world and rest doing just fine, why would the congress want to do something for india. i would be very surprised if they did
hot Celebrity Hair Highlights and
sixpockets
07-02 04:59 PM
Medical exam = $400
Birth certificate=$100
Cancelled trip to India = $600 (me + wife)
Postage = $200
Lawyers fee + Filing fee = $6000 (me+wife) paid by company, wont pay next time.
Mental harrasment = no formula to calculate
Impact on career = massive
Birth certificate=$100
Cancelled trip to India = $600 (me + wife)
Postage = $200
Lawyers fee + Filing fee = $6000 (me+wife) paid by company, wont pay next time.
Mental harrasment = no formula to calculate
Impact on career = massive
more...
house dresses londe hair highlights men.
PD_Dec2002
06-19 03:04 PM
You would need employee letter as well. The employee letter will state that the position is still open and they are willing the pay the amount that was initially agreed to while filing for labor.....so pay stub is not enough.....
desi3933 and WillIBLucky:
My lawyer as well as my wife's lawyer confirmed that an employment letter is not required if using pay stubs. Several posters on this forum have gotten the same information from their lawyers. Anyway, let's not get into a debate on who's correct or incorrect.
It's a different thing to have the employment letter to make the case stronger (probably), but you will definitely not get a RFE for using the pay stubs. And in "sats123"'s case, this is a less expensive and reliable option.
Of course, one could argue it's worth paying $5000 if it ensures a smooth adjucation, but then that would depend on the financial situation of the applicant. I cannot comment on that for "sats123".
Having written all this, please check with your own lawyers and do what they advise.
Thanks,
Jayant
desi3933 and WillIBLucky:
My lawyer as well as my wife's lawyer confirmed that an employment letter is not required if using pay stubs. Several posters on this forum have gotten the same information from their lawyers. Anyway, let's not get into a debate on who's correct or incorrect.
It's a different thing to have the employment letter to make the case stronger (probably), but you will definitely not get a RFE for using the pay stubs. And in "sats123"'s case, this is a less expensive and reliable option.
Of course, one could argue it's worth paying $5000 if it ensures a smooth adjucation, but then that would depend on the financial situation of the applicant. I cannot comment on that for "sats123".
Having written all this, please check with your own lawyers and do what they advise.
Thanks,
Jayant
tattoo londe hair highlights men.
kumar4875
04-29 02:39 PM
hmm...,
1). what makes you think that these kings, generals and colonel's didn't contribute to the event?
2). What's your point?? close down this forum??
no just close this thread.
1). what makes you think that these kings, generals and colonel's didn't contribute to the event?
2). What's your point?? close down this forum??
no just close this thread.
more...
pictures londe hair highlights men.
neverbefore
07-14 11:38 AM
Your spouse applied for H4/H1? Which one?
Applied for H1B. We already have the H1B approval notices. We also have EAD/AP. Still we got dragged into this.
The H1B sponsoring company is a large and famous Biopharma company with billions in market cap. AOS is also through the I-140 from that company.
Everything is way above board for us. Still we got stuck!
Applied for H1B. We already have the H1B approval notices. We also have EAD/AP. Still we got dragged into this.
The H1B sponsoring company is a large and famous Biopharma company with billions in market cap. AOS is also through the I-140 from that company.
Everything is way above board for us. Still we got stuck!
dresses Tags: Blonde Hair Highlights
chtting2me
10-09 08:53 PM
I am wondering is any one from everest technologies?
more...
makeup Blonde Bleach Blonde Hair With
vin13
06-24 03:17 PM
Source:Immigration reformers press WH - First Read - msnbc.com (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/24/1976186.aspx)
From NBC's Mark Murray
In advance of President Obama's meeting tomorrow to discuss immigration reform with congressional Democrats and Republicans, immigration advocates held a conference call today with reporters, urging the Obama administration to make immigration a priority -- this year.
Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento said that tomorrow's meeting will tell them whether the White House is serious about enacting comprehensive immigration reform or whether it's timid. "Delaying immigration reform will be a mistake," he said, arguing that the country can no longer accept the status quo.
Tamar Jacoby, president and CEO of ImmigrationWorks USA, added that when the economy begins to recover, employers will need immigrant labor. "This is the time to do it. This is the time to start preparing for the economic recovery."
Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, said it was smart policy and smart politics to take up immigration reform. He noted that Obama was elected in no small part because independent voters thought he and the Democrats were best able to find solutions to challenging problems like immigration. He also said Republicans "will have a huge price to pay" if they are seen as blocking immigration reform and scapegoating immigrants and Latinos.
Asked about Robert Gibbs' recent comment that the "math" might be against immigration reform this year, Sharry replied, "When it comes to counting votes in the U.S. Congress, we tend to look to Harry Reid before Robert Gibbs."
Senate Majority Leader Reid, per Sharry, has said that the votes are there
From NBC's Mark Murray
In advance of President Obama's meeting tomorrow to discuss immigration reform with congressional Democrats and Republicans, immigration advocates held a conference call today with reporters, urging the Obama administration to make immigration a priority -- this year.
Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento said that tomorrow's meeting will tell them whether the White House is serious about enacting comprehensive immigration reform or whether it's timid. "Delaying immigration reform will be a mistake," he said, arguing that the country can no longer accept the status quo.
Tamar Jacoby, president and CEO of ImmigrationWorks USA, added that when the economy begins to recover, employers will need immigrant labor. "This is the time to do it. This is the time to start preparing for the economic recovery."
Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, said it was smart policy and smart politics to take up immigration reform. He noted that Obama was elected in no small part because independent voters thought he and the Democrats were best able to find solutions to challenging problems like immigration. He also said Republicans "will have a huge price to pay" if they are seen as blocking immigration reform and scapegoating immigrants and Latinos.
Asked about Robert Gibbs' recent comment that the "math" might be against immigration reform this year, Sharry replied, "When it comes to counting votes in the U.S. Congress, we tend to look to Harry Reid before Robert Gibbs."
Senate Majority Leader Reid, per Sharry, has said that the votes are there
girlfriend Brunette Hair With Highlights,
Sheila Danzig
12-12 08:03 AM
Almost all holders of the CA have a 3 year BCom. We have had, as far as we know, 100% approvals (for only a few cases) showing the CA = US Masters with the proper documentation and a professor's expert opinion letter. However the strong evidence points to the equivalency being a BA.
Easygoer,
From your reply, I get that you got your EB2 approved by equating CA to Masters degree. Can you let me know whether your bachelors degree was 3 years or 4 years?
Also, could you let me know which month and year your appeal got cleared?
Thanks a lot for your help.
Easygoer,
From your reply, I get that you got your EB2 approved by equating CA to Masters degree. Can you let me know whether your bachelors degree was 3 years or 4 years?
Also, could you let me know which month and year your appeal got cleared?
Thanks a lot for your help.
hairstyles londe hair highlights men.
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.
JA1HIND
01-26 06:00 PM
hey thanks for the replies....
I talked to the employer and he says that this is a standard clause that is put in almost every company's offer letter. While I am experienced and dont need trainings, there are other candidate who will go through some trainings prior to start of work. The company does not want to loose the training costs incurred for those candidates who may leave them just after completing the training. And hence the clause.
I need one advise from you all...In case I do not take any training from the company, and decide to leave the company after some duration, will I be liable to pay something to the company considering the above clause? Is there a way the company can prove that I went through a training when I actually did not? Is my position safe?
be careful with what your employer say's "....that this is a standard clause that is put in almost every company's offer letter."..one thing is for sure, if its written in terms & condition or some type of agreement, I don't understand how can your employer say that its standard clause.....is he/she gone out their brains??
You take training or don't take training and still planning to leave before agreed contract then company will have full support legally to BURN YOUR A** at any time if they need to....(FYI- I am the personal victim and ended up paying 7K..which hurts when I think about it....) and just wanted to warn you to be careful before you make any such decisions and might end up something like what happen to me....
I talked to the employer and he says that this is a standard clause that is put in almost every company's offer letter. While I am experienced and dont need trainings, there are other candidate who will go through some trainings prior to start of work. The company does not want to loose the training costs incurred for those candidates who may leave them just after completing the training. And hence the clause.
I need one advise from you all...In case I do not take any training from the company, and decide to leave the company after some duration, will I be liable to pay something to the company considering the above clause? Is there a way the company can prove that I went through a training when I actually did not? Is my position safe?
be careful with what your employer say's "....that this is a standard clause that is put in almost every company's offer letter."..one thing is for sure, if its written in terms & condition or some type of agreement, I don't understand how can your employer say that its standard clause.....is he/she gone out their brains??
You take training or don't take training and still planning to leave before agreed contract then company will have full support legally to BURN YOUR A** at any time if they need to....(FYI- I am the personal victim and ended up paying 7K..which hurts when I think about it....) and just wanted to warn you to be careful before you make any such decisions and might end up something like what happen to me....
spindoctor
07-19 06:51 PM
She may not get a visitor's visa. Visitor's visa requires non-immigration intent, just like F-1. In your case, there is a very clear intent to immigrate, which may disqualify her from getting a visitor's visa.
Good point. Restart thinking process...what a mess...
Good point. Restart thinking process...what a mess...
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar