dkjariwala
03-30 08:36 PM
Awesome. Congratulations and enjoy!
wallpaper Illuminati+dollar+ill+owl
sash
06-19 09:48 PM
I am not sure I understand your comments. Can you elaborate on the risks and required travel documents?
chanduv23
09-16 02:43 PM
I dont like selfish, coward, lazy people be my friends. Who can't stand up for thier families what can they for me.........
Yes - true - well said.
Libra will consider only unselfish brave folks :)
If you are already married, check with your wife asn ask her - does she like cowards and selfish people?
Yes - true - well said.
Libra will consider only unselfish brave folks :)
If you are already married, check with your wife asn ask her - does she like cowards and selfish people?
2011 american 1 dollar bill;
TexDBoy
11-10 02:29 PM
I did in SFO with an expired visa but with an valid H1B 797 document and they gave an 10 year validity passport.
Seems weird in your case ...
Seems weird in your case ...
more...
nixstor
02-23 02:33 PM
What if I-140 is approved , and the primary applicant (H1) is waiting for the PD to be current, and the dependent wants to go to school. Will this have any impact on the GC process?
Shirish,
I guess you are in VA. My wife is in School at Mason. She is on H-4 as well. Send me an email or call me if you need more info regarding this. I can give you more info if this is with regards to Mason.
Shirish,
I guess you are in VA. My wife is in School at Mason. She is on H-4 as well. Send me an email or call me if you need more info regarding this. I can give you more info if this is with regards to Mason.
raysaikat
10-10 05:58 PM
Thank you very much for all your support. If they are able to transfer his visa, then I am suspecting that they will do fraud with me. Can I inform USCIS about our domestic problem ? If they receive any application about visa transfer. How can I know that ? I don't want my visa used by them at all.After that they can do anything with me. Please help. Thanks!
There is nothing called "VISA transfer". All VISA petitions are "new". In some cases, if the person is already in US in legal status, then USCIS will provide I-94 with the VISA approval notice so that the person does not have to go out; otherwise s/he has to go out of US, get a VISA stamp (if s/he has no VISA stamp for that category) and return on that VISA.
At the time of his new VISA petition, if your dependent wants to claim the he is in H-4 status (so that USCIS gives him I-94), he has to submit copies of primary's (yours) I-797, VISA stamp, etc., with his own application to prove that the primary is in status. In your case, ask your employer to withdraw the H1-B application from USCIS once you leave US. This way your dependent will not be able to use your I-797 to prove his status. AFAIK, usually an employer does not do so since it is additional cost for them. Keep a copy of the letter/email you send to your employer requesting them to withdraw the H1-B petition, and the letter/email you send to your dependent informing him about your departure and that he will be out of status from that time (keep proof of delivery for any physical mail). That should protect you.
You may choose to tip off ICE (1-866-DHS-2-ICE) after your departure that your dependent has not left US, and is out of status. He will not start accruing "illegal presence" until 6 months, but he will be "out of status" from the day you quit your US position. I believe he cannot stay in US as "out of status" (i.e., if ICE wants, they will be able to deport him). In any case, you should take a decision to do such a thing only after considerable thought and keeping aside any anger from the decision process.
There is nothing called "VISA transfer". All VISA petitions are "new". In some cases, if the person is already in US in legal status, then USCIS will provide I-94 with the VISA approval notice so that the person does not have to go out; otherwise s/he has to go out of US, get a VISA stamp (if s/he has no VISA stamp for that category) and return on that VISA.
At the time of his new VISA petition, if your dependent wants to claim the he is in H-4 status (so that USCIS gives him I-94), he has to submit copies of primary's (yours) I-797, VISA stamp, etc., with his own application to prove that the primary is in status. In your case, ask your employer to withdraw the H1-B application from USCIS once you leave US. This way your dependent will not be able to use your I-797 to prove his status. AFAIK, usually an employer does not do so since it is additional cost for them. Keep a copy of the letter/email you send to your employer requesting them to withdraw the H1-B petition, and the letter/email you send to your dependent informing him about your departure and that he will be out of status from that time (keep proof of delivery for any physical mail). That should protect you.
You may choose to tip off ICE (1-866-DHS-2-ICE) after your departure that your dependent has not left US, and is out of status. He will not start accruing "illegal presence" until 6 months, but he will be "out of status" from the day you quit your US position. I believe he cannot stay in US as "out of status" (i.e., if ICE wants, they will be able to deport him). In any case, you should take a decision to do such a thing only after considerable thought and keeping aside any anger from the decision process.
more...
gimme Green!!
07-31 02:06 PM
My understanding is once you use the EAD, your H4 & H1 status is no longer valid and you cannot have the H visas for backup. Hence the need to get AP, etc, rathgere than reenter on H visa. Check with an attorney.
I have a question, if H4 use EAD for employment and is allowed to keep her H4 status , how come a H1b who still work full time for his sponsor employer looses his H1B status when he finds a part-time job using EAD ?
I have a question, if H4 use EAD for employment and is allowed to keep her H4 status , how come a H1b who still work full time for his sponsor employer looses his H1B status when he finds a part-time job using EAD ?
2010 images american one dollar
Munna Bhai
07-12 10:21 AM
any more help??
more...
sidbee
01-02 08:01 PM
I really wish , i could file my 485 in 2 years, If not i am moving to UK.
Another question , being a junior i have, How does IV use our donations to compel USCIS/DOS to do things in favour of LEGAL IMMIGRANTS?
Another question , being a junior i have, How does IV use our donations to compel USCIS/DOS to do things in favour of LEGAL IMMIGRANTS?
hair American one dollar
alterego
12-12 07:09 PM
How there could be demand for visa numbers for EB2 India between the years 2000 & 2002. The possible sources of such visa number demand would be from BEC or LC substitution. Both require filing a new I-140 recently, which most likely would not have been approved yet. Are visa numbers alloted even before I-140 is approved??
Unless there were some real unlucky ones with PD earlier than 2002 that got through 'namecheck' just recently.
You forget that BECs were clearing up since some time now, and that 140PP was available until late July. Which person in his/her right mind having endured the BEC nightmare would not have done the 140PP, and if they did that and filed concurrently, then if all goes well 485 could easily get wrapped up in 4-6 months. I know of a person from EB2 ROW who got his green card start(PERM) to finish(485 approval) in 8mths flat. Similar examples, if a little slower abound at . To him this can seem an efficient system!
Unless there were some real unlucky ones with PD earlier than 2002 that got through 'namecheck' just recently.
You forget that BECs were clearing up since some time now, and that 140PP was available until late July. Which person in his/her right mind having endured the BEC nightmare would not have done the 140PP, and if they did that and filed concurrently, then if all goes well 485 could easily get wrapped up in 4-6 months. I know of a person from EB2 ROW who got his green card start(PERM) to finish(485 approval) in 8mths flat. Similar examples, if a little slower abound at . To him this can seem an efficient system!
more...
GoGreen
07-18 10:32 AM
If EAD is not filed along with I485 application, Do we need to wait for I485 reciept to file EAD or a copy of 485 application is enough?
Thanks,
Rajeev
Can someone who might have some information help me and Rajeev by answering Rajee's question..thanks.
Thanks,
Rajeev
Can someone who might have some information help me and Rajeev by answering Rajee's question..thanks.
hot hair american one dollar bill
Munna Bhai
02-27 07:14 AM
I have received my GC on January 28th. My company filled the following with USCIS:
I140 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 24th 2008
I485 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 20th 2008
Now... some people say to me to wait 180 days to quit my current job (which is paying me half of what I should be earning as a GC holder), some people say it is okay to leave at anytime....
So, I don't know what to do, I pretend to become a citzen in 5 years also, and not sure if this will count bad towards that.
I have some reasons to leave: sallary is low (they will not negociate more), wife is pregnant and I am getting a mortgage.
Please advice.
See with lot of difficulty you got GC. And with GC you can work part-time and even take another job. Why you want to take a chance. Yes, you must work for the employer for 180 days. Just stick for another 6 months and the game is over.
Enjoy the life.
I140 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 24th 2008
I485 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 20th 2008
Now... some people say to me to wait 180 days to quit my current job (which is paying me half of what I should be earning as a GC holder), some people say it is okay to leave at anytime....
So, I don't know what to do, I pretend to become a citzen in 5 years also, and not sure if this will count bad towards that.
I have some reasons to leave: sallary is low (they will not negociate more), wife is pregnant and I am getting a mortgage.
Please advice.
See with lot of difficulty you got GC. And with GC you can work part-time and even take another job. Why you want to take a chance. Yes, you must work for the employer for 180 days. Just stick for another 6 months and the game is over.
Enjoy the life.
more...
house illuminati dollar bill owl.
gk_2000
10-20 10:13 PM
he is leading his dem candidate by 30 points in one poll
Hey bhagwan, is budde ko dharthi se tu utha le..
(Oh almighty, summon this old man away from us)
Hey bhagwan, is budde ko dharthi se tu utha le..
(Oh almighty, summon this old man away from us)
tattoo one dollar bill clip art. one
snathan
04-26 05:43 PM
Thanks UKannan,
That is the first thing I did and the cust rep said it is 1 bag, moreover, she said talk to your travel agent.
Also, it is different to hear from cust rep and then get the actual experience in front of the check-in staff. Hence I was asking recent experiences here.
Please don't get me wrong, but traveling with 2 toddlers, the last thing I want is baggage hassle.
Two bags, each can be max. 20 kg.
That is the first thing I did and the cust rep said it is 1 bag, moreover, she said talk to your travel agent.
Also, it is different to hear from cust rep and then get the actual experience in front of the check-in staff. Hence I was asking recent experiences here.
Please don't get me wrong, but traveling with 2 toddlers, the last thing I want is baggage hassle.
Two bags, each can be max. 20 kg.
more...
pictures dollar bill secrets
TeddyKoochu
09-24 04:32 PM
I checked the site, couldn't find this info any more, probably its got archived. Thanks for your efforts in letting the group know.
dresses 1 dollar bill illuminati. 1 dollar bill illuminati.
pokemon
05-27 12:37 PM
Thx
Pokemon
Pokemon
more...
makeup 1 dollar bill illuminati.
walking_dude
10-19 02:58 PM
Thanks for the clarification.
I would greatly appreciate if any future outages in check collections are posted on the Homepage page at least one or two weeks in advance.
Reason - if member opted for "Bill Pay" (to make payments recurring )Bank deducts the money from the account as soon as the Paper check [from the bank] gets sent . This is done to ensure that the Bank has the cash to pay the check it mailed to payee (IV). If check never gets encashed that money is lost and wasted!
I don't know if this is feasible or not, but if IV can provide a bank Account Number and Routing, "Bill Pay" can be set such that Bank will send the amount Electonically to IV account (as E-check). E-checks get cashed in 2 days compared to Paper checks (sent by the bank) which takes 5 days [per my bank]. It's just a suggestion as I have no ideas on the issues and the logistics involved.
This is only temporary. We will accept the checks after some time and will update the page.
I would greatly appreciate if any future outages in check collections are posted on the Homepage page at least one or two weeks in advance.
Reason - if member opted for "Bill Pay" (to make payments recurring )Bank deducts the money from the account as soon as the Paper check [from the bank] gets sent . This is done to ensure that the Bank has the cash to pay the check it mailed to payee (IV). If check never gets encashed that money is lost and wasted!
I don't know if this is feasible or not, but if IV can provide a bank Account Number and Routing, "Bill Pay" can be set such that Bank will send the amount Electonically to IV account (as E-check). E-checks get cashed in 2 days compared to Paper checks (sent by the bank) which takes 5 days [per my bank]. It's just a suggestion as I have no ideas on the issues and the logistics involved.
This is only temporary. We will accept the checks after some time and will update the page.
girlfriend with Dollar Bill Pyramid
glus
07-11 11:01 AM
Hi Folks,
Just thought I'd share with the group, I recently received my I-140 approval. I did it premium processing through the Nebraska service center (I think) and the application was approved in 3 days (!) - submitted 06/25, premium processing fee check cashed 06/26, approval 06/29.
Now if only they had premium processing for I-485s ! (I was impacted by this recent visa bulletin thing unfortunately ... my PD was current in June but now I have to wait till Oct to file I-485 ... sigh).
- GS
I485 premium would be way too complicated, unless it takes longer than 14 days. The agency is suppose to do much more checks before granting legal residency, so it may be difficult for them to process i485s in 14 days. Jusy my thoughts.
Just thought I'd share with the group, I recently received my I-140 approval. I did it premium processing through the Nebraska service center (I think) and the application was approved in 3 days (!) - submitted 06/25, premium processing fee check cashed 06/26, approval 06/29.
Now if only they had premium processing for I-485s ! (I was impacted by this recent visa bulletin thing unfortunately ... my PD was current in June but now I have to wait till Oct to file I-485 ... sigh).
- GS
I485 premium would be way too complicated, unless it takes longer than 14 days. The agency is suppose to do much more checks before granting legal residency, so it may be difficult for them to process i485s in 14 days. Jusy my thoughts.
hairstyles the one dollar bill owl.
glus
05-31 09:00 AM
Guys,
Pappu just posted an important message here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=72997#post72997
Please read and contribute now, as it is a critical time for us.
Pappu just posted an important message here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=72997#post72997
Please read and contribute now, as it is a critical time for us.
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
RLNY122004
06-15 10:09 PM
CaliGC,
Here is my interview experience which I attendend at NYC district office on Apr 4th 2006.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=208982
If your case is in service center then I think initiating the service request is as good as taking infopass and going to local office. becasue even if you take infopass and go to local office you will only talk to the information officer on infopass counter which is as good as calling the customre service. But if your case is in the local office then I would suggest you to take infopass and go there. If you are lucky you will get to talk to DAO (immigration officer who would be handling your case) and you may be able to find more info.
I am not sure why my case was transfered for interview. But mine was future employment based labor substitution case so that might be the reason.
Any reason why your case was transferred to local office? Our PD is becoming current on July 1st do you recommend me taking an appointment and visiting the local office? please suggest.
Also, please elobrate the interview information you had, and what you carried for the interview.
TIA.
Here is my interview experience which I attendend at NYC district office on Apr 4th 2006.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=208982
If your case is in service center then I think initiating the service request is as good as taking infopass and going to local office. becasue even if you take infopass and go to local office you will only talk to the information officer on infopass counter which is as good as calling the customre service. But if your case is in the local office then I would suggest you to take infopass and go there. If you are lucky you will get to talk to DAO (immigration officer who would be handling your case) and you may be able to find more info.
I am not sure why my case was transfered for interview. But mine was future employment based labor substitution case so that might be the reason.
Any reason why your case was transferred to local office? Our PD is becoming current on July 1st do you recommend me taking an appointment and visiting the local office? please suggest.
Also, please elobrate the interview information you had, and what you carried for the interview.
TIA.
No comments:
Post a Comment