purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
wallpaper amore lekker by die see. amore
chanduv23
07-21 03:17 PM
I am in same boat, I took a Infopass today and met with a IO in NYC. She said she will do the needful as the dates are current by communicating with TSC and if nothing happens I have to come back in 45 days. I do not have hopes but lets see what happens
indianabacklog
11-09 09:20 AM
My lawyer told me the backlog is 400K. As an European, I am expecting to wait between 2 to 3 years for my GC. Anything sooner would be a nice surprise!
It is going to very much depend on your priority date and employment based category.
It is going to very much depend on your priority date and employment based category.
2011 nuLOOM Pop Amore Black / White
gevgelija50
02-27 02:39 PM
So applications from India are in first place with over 300% more applications than the second place? Wow
more...
rongha_2000
10-02 11:07 AM
I have briefly searched the forums and could not find a related post hence starting a new thread. If the answer already is on any other post, please point me to it and delete this thread.
***********
Question: I am on H1 and, my wife and daughter are on H4. I have applied for EAD for both me and my wife and AP for all 3 of us. My question is "Do I need to maintain my H1 status so that my daughter can stay in US?" If I (and my wife too) switch to EAD, what status will my daughter be in? As I understand "Pending Adjustment" is not a status so how can my daughter stay in US legally if I switch to EAD.
Any response is highly appreciated.
***********
Question: I am on H1 and, my wife and daughter are on H4. I have applied for EAD for both me and my wife and AP for all 3 of us. My question is "Do I need to maintain my H1 status so that my daughter can stay in US?" If I (and my wife too) switch to EAD, what status will my daughter be in? As I understand "Pending Adjustment" is not a status so how can my daughter stay in US legally if I switch to EAD.
Any response is highly appreciated.
immieb2
10-14 09:04 AM
I went to the Chennai consulate in July 2008 with blue jeans and bright colored T shirt and I got my H1 visa stamped. No issues. But I sure felt like the odd man out there, NO ONE else was wearing a jeans and shirt. At the interview she asked me how is the weather in Michigan, that's about it..
Is it mandatory to wear business formal? I am going to get visa stamping with my wife, she is applying for H4.
Thanks!
Is it mandatory to wear business formal? I am going to get visa stamping with my wife, she is applying for H4.
Thanks!
more...
prioritydate
09-21 11:27 PM
What if the employer showed XXX amount on the Labor Certification, and in the offer letter, but send an offer letter to the employee for YYY, where YYY < XXX? Does the employee is still obliged to for with the employer?
2010 Amore
crystal
02-04 02:42 PM
You are right only if they dont want to use EAD after they come back. If they use EAD once they come back to USA, then they are back to adjustee status.
Well..you can fall back to H-4 if something goes wrong with 485. But if you are on AP you will have to leave the country.
Well..you can fall back to H-4 if something goes wrong with 485. But if you are on AP you will have to leave the country.
more...
xmmx10
11-19 12:16 PM
Damn...I saw it was Apr 2007 for NSC and when I rechecked its back to Oct bulletin. What the hey...
For Nebraska:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
For Texas:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
Summary for I485:
Nebraska has processed most applications that it has had for 7 months (filed on or before April 14 2007).
Texas has processed most applications that it has had for 6 months.
Since 6 months is the target, Texas can be considered to be caught up, and Nebraska will likely have caught up next month.
For I485 that makes the visa bulletin the main issue.
For Nebraska:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
For Texas:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
Summary for I485:
Nebraska has processed most applications that it has had for 7 months (filed on or before April 14 2007).
Texas has processed most applications that it has had for 6 months.
Since 6 months is the target, Texas can be considered to be caught up, and Nebraska will likely have caught up next month.
For I485 that makes the visa bulletin the main issue.
hair Furniture Set, Amore by
mnkaushik
06-04 04:57 PM
Slightly off topic. But do we need to send our original BC if we are sponsoring someone other than your parents. I am in the process of sponsoring my aunt and would like to know if i need to send my orginal BC. Sorry for going off topic.
more...
GCOP
01-08 03:51 PM
If you have already sent passport along with I-94, don't worry. They will return your Old passport with I-94 & New passport.
i did not remove the i-94's and have already sent the passport for renewal. i do have a scanned copy of the i-94's. is there anything i can do at this point to get back the i-94's? i hope this does not pose a problem when i plan to travel outside the US. any advice is much appreciated.
i did not remove the i-94's and have already sent the passport for renewal. i do have a scanned copy of the i-94's. is there anything i can do at this point to get back the i-94's? i hope this does not pose a problem when i plan to travel outside the US. any advice is much appreciated.
hot Furniture. That#39;s D#39;Amore
sbdol
08-05 06:33 PM
...
What if all the background adjudication of 485 is done in 1 year and then we change from EB3 to EB2, its not going to affect the current 485 ? It will just put the file in a better category ?
If every EB3 is ported to EB2 then EB2 will retrogress to 2001 and EB3 will become current.
What if all the background adjudication of 485 is done in 1 year and then we change from EB3 to EB2, its not going to affect the current 485 ? It will just put the file in a better category ?
If every EB3 is ported to EB2 then EB2 will retrogress to 2001 and EB3 will become current.
more...
house Save on Amore#39; Recepton
xbohdpukc
03-26 07:30 PM
Well... thanks for your reply but maybe you are one of the lucky ones who never been scr... up by the lawyers in the past. Well.. I have and others as well. Just becuase the lawyer says "it can be done" (read: pay now and we will see what USCIS will say later) I am not necessarily going to believe in that ...
CIRcus is in the early stages of the show so hopefully it will pick up the steam soon I will not need to go through the EB2/EB3 pains ....
It was done well in my case. Takes a lawyer who knows what s/he is doing though. Gluck.
CIRcus is in the early stages of the show so hopefully it will pick up the steam soon I will not need to go through the EB2/EB3 pains ....
It was done well in my case. Takes a lawyer who knows what s/he is doing though. Gluck.
tattoo To Paint Raw Wood Amore
longwaitneeds2end
09-16 03:25 PM
Jediknight,
Thank you so much for posting this on IV. We really need to stop such people from spreading hatered towards immigrants.
Signed the petition. :)
Thank you so much for posting this on IV. We really need to stop such people from spreading hatered towards immigrants.
Signed the petition. :)
more...
pictures innovative furniture units
maximus777
09-16 03:20 PM
done
dresses Vintage TV Cabinet Amore
clazale
04-07 03:26 PM
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/28005017/
Its not easy but can be done. The cover letter in my case didn't work - no way of knowing because my application was filed in July when EVERYONE was current. Lawyer screwed up and didnt file in February 07 with the I 140. Below is what I got back from TSC re: cross charge- I had to jump through the hoops for them to consider it. There are some good and informative posts on .
"Today I received an email from my lawyers office who had requested a congressional inquiry with TSC. Good news is that my congresswoman's office is really efficient - they followed up till they got the confirmation. Now atleast I know they will consider it as CC.
Below is what TSC wrote back. Now the wait for visa bulletins and processing dates resumes!
"The message was sent to management. Yes they can be charge cross chargeability. However, at this time the files can not be request due to the large volume of work the unit has. Cases are process accordingly and chronological.
Will sent another message to management, but this request in expediting these cases does not meet the service criteria.
Thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have further questions regarding this case.
Texas Service Center
Congressional Relations " "
I am trying to get TSC to accept my cross-chargeability without much luck. I would really appreciate it if you could spare few mins to answer a few questions:
1. Will an infopass appointment help or a call to customer service help?
2. Do you have the format of the letter sent by your congresswomen's office?
3. Is it better if my lawyer requests the congressman's office or should i do it?
4. If i speak to my congressmans office, should i inform my attorney? I hope the letters sent by the congressmans office do not undo any work my attorney might have done.
5. How do we know that cross chargeability has been accepted. Does USCIS always send a letter informing that they have accepted the request for cross-chargeability?
Any help is really appreciated.
Its not easy but can be done. The cover letter in my case didn't work - no way of knowing because my application was filed in July when EVERYONE was current. Lawyer screwed up and didnt file in February 07 with the I 140. Below is what I got back from TSC re: cross charge- I had to jump through the hoops for them to consider it. There are some good and informative posts on .
"Today I received an email from my lawyers office who had requested a congressional inquiry with TSC. Good news is that my congresswoman's office is really efficient - they followed up till they got the confirmation. Now atleast I know they will consider it as CC.
Below is what TSC wrote back. Now the wait for visa bulletins and processing dates resumes!
"The message was sent to management. Yes they can be charge cross chargeability. However, at this time the files can not be request due to the large volume of work the unit has. Cases are process accordingly and chronological.
Will sent another message to management, but this request in expediting these cases does not meet the service criteria.
Thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have further questions regarding this case.
Texas Service Center
Congressional Relations " "
I am trying to get TSC to accept my cross-chargeability without much luck. I would really appreciate it if you could spare few mins to answer a few questions:
1. Will an infopass appointment help or a call to customer service help?
2. Do you have the format of the letter sent by your congresswomen's office?
3. Is it better if my lawyer requests the congressman's office or should i do it?
4. If i speak to my congressmans office, should i inform my attorney? I hope the letters sent by the congressmans office do not undo any work my attorney might have done.
5. How do we know that cross chargeability has been accepted. Does USCIS always send a letter informing that they have accepted the request for cross-chargeability?
Any help is really appreciated.
more...
makeup Amore
nozerd
01-10 03:10 PM
I know of 2 ppl very close to me who have been laid off. However they both already have GC.
girlfriend The Amore Rocker is a
waiting_4_gc
07-20 02:06 PM
Can someone advise on this. My 6 yrs of H1 expires in Jan 2008. Employer says they will only apply 90 days prior to H1-b expiration.
They already applied my 485 and AP.
What should I be doing?
1. Can I apply EAD myself?
2. will I get in trouble if I do not have EAD and my H1 expires?
3. Can I move to new employer using AC21 without EAD?
You can apply for EAD
I believe you have to have either EAD or valid H1B
You can move to new employer using AC21 WITH EAD
----------
Contributed $100.00 so far.
They already applied my 485 and AP.
What should I be doing?
1. Can I apply EAD myself?
2. will I get in trouble if I do not have EAD and my H1 expires?
3. Can I move to new employer using AC21 without EAD?
You can apply for EAD
I believe you have to have either EAD or valid H1B
You can move to new employer using AC21 WITH EAD
----------
Contributed $100.00 so far.
hairstyles TCH Furniture: Amore Bedroom
reallow23
09-28 09:49 PM
Hello Everyone,
Thank for all your help..My case have been pending over a year now of the due date......So can I file the Mandamus????
Thank for all your help..My case have been pending over a year now of the due date......So can I file the Mandamus????
vishwak
02-01 01:40 PM
Congrats....Enjoy.
eb3_nepa
04-13 11:19 AM
I was reading this article.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html.
It's a great article and maybe we shud add it in our FAQ section.
If you scroll down to the heading "The Bill Becomes Law"
it says :
Officially, after the President signs the bill, 10 days passes without a signature, or after a veto override, the bill is considered law. It is in effect at that moment. But in reality, it is, of course, more difficult than that.
Even on the Wikipedia article listed in the FAQ there was no mention of a 90 day delay. Just wondering if Sen Sessions simply asked for a 90 day delay or a 180 day delay.
Check this out too.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/presidential.html
"A bill becomes law on the date of approval or passage over the President's veto, unless it expressly provides a different effective date."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html.
It's a great article and maybe we shud add it in our FAQ section.
If you scroll down to the heading "The Bill Becomes Law"
it says :
Officially, after the President signs the bill, 10 days passes without a signature, or after a veto override, the bill is considered law. It is in effect at that moment. But in reality, it is, of course, more difficult than that.
Even on the Wikipedia article listed in the FAQ there was no mention of a 90 day delay. Just wondering if Sen Sessions simply asked for a 90 day delay or a 180 day delay.
Check this out too.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/presidential.html
"A bill becomes law on the date of approval or passage over the President's veto, unless it expressly provides a different effective date."
No comments:
Post a Comment