dingox100
11-19 02:18 PM
My friend tried to get his brother. his brother is working in some IT company in india. The visa officer asked only one question
Visa officer: Whats your Age?
my friends brother: 26
Visa officer: sorry , visa cant be issued.. rejected.
No more questions and no more answers
Visa officer: Whats your Age?
my friends brother: 26
Visa officer: sorry , visa cant be issued.. rejected.
No more questions and no more answers
wallpaper hairstyles splitsvilla 4
Prashanthi
06-29 01:28 PM
I have questions on the facts of your case, you say that a recruiter signed a contract on your behalf?, how is that possible?, the contract would then be between the recruiter and your employer, unless you signed a separate contract with the recruiter agreeing to certain terms and conditions, also it is not clear if your recruiter is in the US or in Phillipines, many other aspects are not very clear. Therefore i gave you a general response as to what happens in these situations, if you need a more specific response to your questions, i suggest that you consult an attorney over the phone or in person, it would make more sense to look at the contract in question and then give you advice on your problem.
roseball
05-02 02:09 PM
It shouldn't be a problem if you get into a financially sound company and hire a good attorney...PERM and I-140 shouldn't take more than 6 months if you hire a good attorney.....
2011 MTV Splitsville 4
MatsP
November 14th, 2007, 03:41 AM
I don't know the Nikon story on sensor cleaning, but most cameras have a "mode" for sensor cleaning, which essentially leaves the mirror up until you switch it out of that mode.
As to formatting your memory card, my principle is "whenever there is a problem with them". I don't format my cards "to prevent problems". Most problems are caused by "user errors", such as removing the card from the slot before whatever it's in is finished with it - e.g taking the card out of the camera when it's still writing, or unplugging it from the computer before it's been erased. Others may have other ideas of what's "appropriate" here. But formatting doesn't do anything particularly different from deleting the files on the card. The main difference is that the "root directory" is recreated by the formatting, so if there's antyhing wrong there, it will be "fixed up" by the formatting - but you usually know immediately if there's anything wrong there.
Finally, in about 5500 pictures that I've taken, I've lost three pictures because the card went wrong. The camera said "CF error" or some such, so it was pretty obvious that something was wrong. Formatting in the camera solved the problem, but carrying a spare card is ALWAYS a good idea.
Edit: This site seems useful. http://www.bythom.com/cleaning.htm
I haven't cleaned my sensor ever, so I can't say if it's a good account or not [not that I have a Nikon anyways, but I don't think that really makes much difference].
--
Mats
As to formatting your memory card, my principle is "whenever there is a problem with them". I don't format my cards "to prevent problems". Most problems are caused by "user errors", such as removing the card from the slot before whatever it's in is finished with it - e.g taking the card out of the camera when it's still writing, or unplugging it from the computer before it's been erased. Others may have other ideas of what's "appropriate" here. But formatting doesn't do anything particularly different from deleting the files on the card. The main difference is that the "root directory" is recreated by the formatting, so if there's antyhing wrong there, it will be "fixed up" by the formatting - but you usually know immediately if there's anything wrong there.
Finally, in about 5500 pictures that I've taken, I've lost three pictures because the card went wrong. The camera said "CF error" or some such, so it was pretty obvious that something was wrong. Formatting in the camera solved the problem, but carrying a spare card is ALWAYS a good idea.
Edit: This site seems useful. http://www.bythom.com/cleaning.htm
I haven't cleaned my sensor ever, so I can't say if it's a good account or not [not that I have a Nikon anyways, but I don't think that really makes much difference].
--
Mats
more...
pappu
01-07 07:18 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/
Please stay tuned for a massive IV campaign coming up. We will be announcing it tonight on the forums.
Contact your chapter leaders for various state chapter action items.
Please stay tuned for a massive IV campaign coming up. We will be announcing it tonight on the forums.
Contact your chapter leaders for various state chapter action items.
GlobalCitizen
07-26 09:05 AM
Hello everyone,
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife�s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife�s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife�s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife�s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
more...
sriwaitingforgc
07-23 10:49 AM
Are we supposed to get every year?? did ur friend apply EAD renewal online ?
2010 MTV Splitsvilla 4 Contestant
gcformeornot
01-09 03:01 PM
EB2 India "U"
EB3 India couple of months ahead in 2001.
EB3 India couple of months ahead in 2001.
more...
yabadaba
02-13 12:53 PM
Do you hate lies like this? "Leprosy in this country. Incredible" - Lou Dobbs
Do you hate that your child is now called an anchor baby?
You are stuck in backlog limbo - What are you going to do about it macaca?
Do you hate that your child is now called an anchor baby?
You are stuck in backlog limbo - What are you going to do about it macaca?
hair Episode 8 : Part 4 Video
deepuv
09-16 12:30 PM
As I was checking these forums and since one of my colleague received an RFE asking the company's ability to pay the proffered wage for all the 140 filed by the company I wonder if you can enlighten me with any idea on how to respond to the request? and how severely would it effect the other's in the same process with in the company.
Thank you for help in advance.
Thank you for help in advance.
more...
teddy the dog
07-21 11:58 AM
I heard gossip that the USCIS agentssss (4 s because a lot of agentssss) specially delivered the GC document to his house. That is why our receipt and backlog still not clear (they too busy).;) But don't worry they know IV will protest this discrimination, so they will work really hard to help us too.:D
hot contestants of splitsvilla 4
indianabacklog
10-24 06:16 PM
I would like to suggest that anyone in Indiana who can make it meet at the Starbucks coffee location in Westfield this Saturday.
This is at US31 and 146th Street north of Indianapolis.
I propose 11am.
Even if there are only half a dozen of us surely we can achieve more than as individuals.
This is at US31 and 146th Street north of Indianapolis.
I propose 11am.
Even if there are only half a dozen of us surely we can achieve more than as individuals.
more...
house splitsvilla 4 contestants.
freddy22
07-20 07:34 AM
The outcome in a case like this depends on the specific State's criminal code, and the individual's specific record. I cannot tell you for sure that USCIS will seek to remove your son, but I would strongly advise your son and his criminal lawyer to consult with an experienced immigration lawyer before going further.
Some states have special
courts, processes and/or dispositions for certain juveniles that are different than for those in adult court. Some such dispositions are not considered �convictions� for immigration purposes
(although they may still become a problem for discretionary forms of relief or where �admitting to a crime� is enough). For example, in New York:
- A �Youthful Offender� disposition for people under the age of 19 at time of conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes. In fact, a Y.O. for a more serious offense is
sometimes better than a straight conviction for a lesser offense.
- A �Juvenile Delinquency� disposition in Family Court for people under age 16 at time of
conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes.
- However, a �Juvenile Offender� disposition is considered a conviction for immigration
purposes and does not have the same benefits.
Note: The federal government and every state has its own system for treating juveniles in the criminal justice system � some will be safer for immigrant youth, and some will not. Every state also has its own rules for the maximum age at which a young person may qualify for this treatment � for example, one state may place a 15-year-old in adult court with no special dispositions, while another state may place a 17-year old in the juvenile justice system.
Consider going to trial instead of pleading guilty. This is not always the best option, but you may want to consider it if, for example, the evidence against you is weak and/or the benefits of the plea offer are not worth the immigration consequences to you.
Some states have special
courts, processes and/or dispositions for certain juveniles that are different than for those in adult court. Some such dispositions are not considered �convictions� for immigration purposes
(although they may still become a problem for discretionary forms of relief or where �admitting to a crime� is enough). For example, in New York:
- A �Youthful Offender� disposition for people under the age of 19 at time of conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes. In fact, a Y.O. for a more serious offense is
sometimes better than a straight conviction for a lesser offense.
- A �Juvenile Delinquency� disposition in Family Court for people under age 16 at time of
conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes.
- However, a �Juvenile Offender� disposition is considered a conviction for immigration
purposes and does not have the same benefits.
Note: The federal government and every state has its own system for treating juveniles in the criminal justice system � some will be safer for immigrant youth, and some will not. Every state also has its own rules for the maximum age at which a young person may qualify for this treatment � for example, one state may place a 15-year-old in adult court with no special dispositions, while another state may place a 17-year old in the juvenile justice system.
Consider going to trial instead of pleading guilty. This is not always the best option, but you may want to consider it if, for example, the evidence against you is weak and/or the benefits of the plea offer are not worth the immigration consequences to you.
tattoo splitsvilla 4 contestants.
mirage
03-12 09:46 AM
This is one of the most hilarious thing I heard in months, thought I'll share....
--------------------------------------------------
It was the first day of a school in USA and a new Indian student named Chandrasekhar Subramanian entered the fourth grade.
The teacher said,
"Let's begin by reviewing some American History. Who said 'Give me Liberty or give me Death'?"
She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Chandrasekhar, who had his hand up: 'Patrick Henry, 1775' he said.
'Very good!'
Who said 'Government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall not perish from the Earth?'
Again, no response except from Chandrasekhar. 'Abraham Lincoln, 1863' said Chandrasekhar.
The teacher snapped at the class, 'Class, you should be ashamed. Chandrasekhar, who is new to our country, knows more
about its history than you do.'
She heard a loud whisper: 'Fuck the Indians,'
'Who said that?' she demanded. Chandrasekhar put his hand up. 'General Custer, 1862.'
At that point, a student in the back said, 'I'm gonna puke.'
The teacher glares around and asks 'All right! Now, who said that?'
Again, Chandrasekhar says, 'George Bush to the Japanese Prime Minister, 1991.'
Now furious, another student yells, 'Oh yeah? Suck this!' Chandrasekhar jumps out of his chair waving his hand
and shouts to the teacher , 'Bill Clinton, to Monica Lewinsky, 1997!'
Now with almost mob hysteria someone said 'You little shit. If you say anything else, I'll kill you.'
Chandrasekhar frantically yells at the top of his voice, Michael 'Jackson to the child witnesses testifying against him- 2004.'
The teacher fainted..
And as the class gathered around the teacher on the floor, someone said, 'Oh shit, we're screwed!'
And Chandrasekhar whispered quietly, "the Republicans, November 4th, 2008".
--------------------------------------------------
It was the first day of a school in USA and a new Indian student named Chandrasekhar Subramanian entered the fourth grade.
The teacher said,
"Let's begin by reviewing some American History. Who said 'Give me Liberty or give me Death'?"
She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Chandrasekhar, who had his hand up: 'Patrick Henry, 1775' he said.
'Very good!'
Who said 'Government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall not perish from the Earth?'
Again, no response except from Chandrasekhar. 'Abraham Lincoln, 1863' said Chandrasekhar.
The teacher snapped at the class, 'Class, you should be ashamed. Chandrasekhar, who is new to our country, knows more
about its history than you do.'
She heard a loud whisper: 'Fuck the Indians,'
'Who said that?' she demanded. Chandrasekhar put his hand up. 'General Custer, 1862.'
At that point, a student in the back said, 'I'm gonna puke.'
The teacher glares around and asks 'All right! Now, who said that?'
Again, Chandrasekhar says, 'George Bush to the Japanese Prime Minister, 1991.'
Now furious, another student yells, 'Oh yeah? Suck this!' Chandrasekhar jumps out of his chair waving his hand
and shouts to the teacher , 'Bill Clinton, to Monica Lewinsky, 1997!'
Now with almost mob hysteria someone said 'You little shit. If you say anything else, I'll kill you.'
Chandrasekhar frantically yells at the top of his voice, Michael 'Jackson to the child witnesses testifying against him- 2004.'
The teacher fainted..
And as the class gathered around the teacher on the floor, someone said, 'Oh shit, we're screwed!'
And Chandrasekhar whispered quietly, "the Republicans, November 4th, 2008".
more...
pictures Splitsvilla Season 4 by
sam_hoosier
11-15 04:02 PM
Do the following job descriptions qualify for AC21 provided all other factors such as salary and 485 pending for 180+ days have been met
Job A: Techincal Consultant
- Configures and implements risk management solutions using ASP.NET, VB.NET, XML, XSLT/XPATH.
- Basic working understanding of SQL Server, Oracle and related query language and tools
- Consulting development experience in IT or Systems Integration
- Excellent communication skills; written and verbal.
Job B: Project Manager
- Accomplishes project objectives by planning and evaluating project activities.
- Creates and executes project work plans and revises as appropriate to meet changing needs and requirements
- Identifies resources needed and assigns individual responsibilities.
- Manages day-to-day operational aspects of a project and scope.
- Reviews deliverables prepared by team before passing to client.
etc etc.
On promotion with the same employer, i will have responsibilities for job B but i am looking to change employers. can i join new employer with job B and use AC21 ?
Is the SOC/O*NET job code same for both jobs ? If so, you should be fine but double check with your lawyer.
Job A: Techincal Consultant
- Configures and implements risk management solutions using ASP.NET, VB.NET, XML, XSLT/XPATH.
- Basic working understanding of SQL Server, Oracle and related query language and tools
- Consulting development experience in IT or Systems Integration
- Excellent communication skills; written and verbal.
Job B: Project Manager
- Accomplishes project objectives by planning and evaluating project activities.
- Creates and executes project work plans and revises as appropriate to meet changing needs and requirements
- Identifies resources needed and assigns individual responsibilities.
- Manages day-to-day operational aspects of a project and scope.
- Reviews deliverables prepared by team before passing to client.
etc etc.
On promotion with the same employer, i will have responsibilities for job B but i am looking to change employers. can i join new employer with job B and use AC21 ?
Is the SOC/O*NET job code same for both jobs ? If so, you should be fine but double check with your lawyer.
dresses MTV Splitsvilla 4 Winner
Suva
07-27 03:23 PM
One of the stupid questions!!!
If NSC had put all applications from July 2nd to July 17th on hold.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
If NSC had put all applications from July 2nd to July 17th on hold.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
more...
makeup Mtv+splitsvilla+4+yashita+
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
girlfriend Labels: Contestant, Images
DesiTech
06-01 06:25 PM
hi viewers,
any help will be appreciate in this matter. MY PD is June/2003 and my i-140 approved few weeks back. When can I file my 485 ? do I need to wait till PD ?
Also can I transfer to other company maintaining my approved i-140 and PD ?
What are risks involved here.
Thanks U all in advance.
any help will be appreciate in this matter. MY PD is June/2003 and my i-140 approved few weeks back. When can I file my 485 ? do I need to wait till PD ?
Also can I transfer to other company maintaining my approved i-140 and PD ?
What are risks involved here.
Thanks U all in advance.
hairstyles MTV Splitsvilla 4 Contestant
waitingmygc
05-20 11:48 PM
I understand two I-140s, one existing (EB-3) and second new I-140 (EB2), but you have also mentioned more. Why need more than two, in what circumstances?
renupond
10-04 10:46 PM
No I am not related to eadguru.
I simply need this info for my spouse.
Thanks
I simply need this info for my spouse.
Thanks
gparr
January 5th, 2005, 06:56 AM
Like this one a lot. I agree with Queen that it would be interesting to see one of the pots colored. Might try rotating the image so the pipe on the right is vertical. 2 deg. CW did it for me. Squares up the image better. Nice shooting.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar