americandesi
06-17 12:05 AM
I am planning to apply for both Canadian Permanent Residency and US green card next month. Assuming that I get my Canadian Permanent Residency and US Greencard after two years, what options do I have to maintain the permanent resident status in both countries, so that I am eligible to apply for citizenship in both countries.
Some say that showing proof of residence in both countries, commuting between the countries for work (Windsor-Canada and Detroit-US) and paying taxes in both countries would suffice.
Please guide me on this.
Some say that showing proof of residence in both countries, commuting between the countries for work (Windsor-Canada and Detroit-US) and paying taxes in both countries would suffice.
Please guide me on this.
wallpaper Assassins Creed 2
Illuminae
06-14 02:13 PM
congratulations Soul!!!! :beam:
:flower:
:flower:
meridiani.planum
02-01 05:23 AM
thanks for the reply..this means having a dependent visa is the key at the time of approval..
if the application was approved and the wife was on h4 (but didnot file her i485 yet..) then she could still file for her i485?
yes. if your wife was on H4, as soon as your 485 is approved, her H4 ends. However since your 485 is getting approved, your PD is presumably current meaning she is eligible to immediately file 485, and get to that as a legal status. If she has a dependent visa approved, and has travelled here thats nice, otherwise she has to file a 485 from your home country as a follow-to-join and htat can take some time for her to travel here.
There is no 6 month grace period as such. Its just that upto 6 months of out-of-status is forgiven at 485 approval, and since on your 485 approval your H1 ends and so does her h4, it makes her status-less here. Being in that state upto 6 months is forgiven for 485.
Its most important that you get married before the approval of your 485. Do court-marriage if your PD is current, to be on the safe side, even if the actual ceremony is still a month or two away. When to honeymoon is upto you. Cant let USCIS decide EVERYTHING, can we...
if the application was approved and the wife was on h4 (but didnot file her i485 yet..) then she could still file for her i485?
yes. if your wife was on H4, as soon as your 485 is approved, her H4 ends. However since your 485 is getting approved, your PD is presumably current meaning she is eligible to immediately file 485, and get to that as a legal status. If she has a dependent visa approved, and has travelled here thats nice, otherwise she has to file a 485 from your home country as a follow-to-join and htat can take some time for her to travel here.
There is no 6 month grace period as such. Its just that upto 6 months of out-of-status is forgiven at 485 approval, and since on your 485 approval your H1 ends and so does her h4, it makes her status-less here. Being in that state upto 6 months is forgiven for 485.
Its most important that you get married before the approval of your 485. Do court-marriage if your PD is current, to be on the safe side, even if the actual ceremony is still a month or two away. When to honeymoon is upto you. Cant let USCIS decide EVERYTHING, can we...
2011 Assassins Creed Wallpapers
vdlrao
04-10 03:36 PM
Source?
more...
sandy_anand
11-06 04:38 PM
I did not want to start a new thread for this. But I had earlier last month contacted many senators with the official I-485 pending inventory as proof and asking them whether it was humane, ethical and moral to ask someone wait more than 15 years for a green card! And what they are doing to remedy the situation.
This is the reply I received today from Sen. Frank Lautenberg. May be this is very standard format, I am not sure but it does mention specific bill and recapture provision.
In Response to Your Message
From: Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (senator@lautenberg.senate.gov)
Sent: Fri 11/06/09 1:00 PM
To:
1 attachment
0A953776.gif (2.8 KB)
Dear Mr. Mundada:
Thank you for contacting me about employment-based immigrant visas. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The �Reuniting American Families Act� (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total.
This bill is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or other relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
FRL: mts
Thanks for posting this information! Gave you green!:D
This is the reply I received today from Sen. Frank Lautenberg. May be this is very standard format, I am not sure but it does mention specific bill and recapture provision.
In Response to Your Message
From: Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (senator@lautenberg.senate.gov)
Sent: Fri 11/06/09 1:00 PM
To:
1 attachment
0A953776.gif (2.8 KB)
Dear Mr. Mundada:
Thank you for contacting me about employment-based immigrant visas. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The �Reuniting American Families Act� (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total.
This bill is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or other relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
FRL: mts
Thanks for posting this information! Gave you green!:D
chennai
07-11 05:05 PM
I would suggest you push your application for premium processing for I-140 so that it would be approved in 30 days time now. Because you are in the 6th year of H1 you can do it. So in 30 days if you have 140 approved then you would know whether your priorty date is recaptured then go for I485 before 08-08-08 Sep bulletin date?
more...
Pagal
03-18 07:40 AM
Hello,
My 2-cents:
1. Your EAD is for unrestricted employment till the AOS is resolved (so, it is not tied to your labor petition)
2. Your AP is a travel document to allow you to travel while AOS is pending (again, not tied to employment)
As such, for all legal purposes, you should be able to pursue education full time. However, any IO at entry post has authority to ask you questions beyond what is legally required, which many a times, includes 'are you still employed with the petitioner'.
This is the tricky part... if the IO has good knowledge of the laws, he would let you in 'cause your petition is for the future job, but a wrong IO can twist and turn the laws to suit his/her point of view and land you in unnecessary trouble.
However, in 99% of the cases, the trouble may mean a few more anxious hours at the port of entry and nothing more. Hope you are able to pursue your education, all the best! :)
My 2-cents:
1. Your EAD is for unrestricted employment till the AOS is resolved (so, it is not tied to your labor petition)
2. Your AP is a travel document to allow you to travel while AOS is pending (again, not tied to employment)
As such, for all legal purposes, you should be able to pursue education full time. However, any IO at entry post has authority to ask you questions beyond what is legally required, which many a times, includes 'are you still employed with the petitioner'.
This is the tricky part... if the IO has good knowledge of the laws, he would let you in 'cause your petition is for the future job, but a wrong IO can twist and turn the laws to suit his/her point of view and land you in unnecessary trouble.
However, in 99% of the cases, the trouble may mean a few more anxious hours at the port of entry and nothing more. Hope you are able to pursue your education, all the best! :)
2010 Assassins Creed wallpaper
optimist578
01-31 03:10 PM
You can always ask for a copy of the approval after the I-140 is approved. Depends on how cooperative your HR and lawyer are.
Is there a way to track the status of one's I-140 petition through USCIS's website?
Is there a way to track the status of one's I-140 petition through USCIS's website?
more...
snathan
05-19 12:59 PM
You just have to justify by saying, you have been in US on H1B visa and you came back after you have completed your project. Aftre that it is upto consulate.
I dont think H1B was the reson behind this denial. Remember the law suit against infy for B1 visa...
I dont think H1B was the reson behind this denial. Remember the law suit against infy for B1 visa...
hair assassins creed wallpaper
David C
November 25th, 2005, 01:11 AM
Both compositions have different things going for them - I think I lean slightly towards the dark one... Though I also feel the first one would have looked better to me if it had been a bit sharper in the centre (and the second, which does seem sharp enough at the top of the bloom, if the DOF had been a little wider) ??
more...
MahaBharatGC
10-14 01:39 PM
agree.. 90 days is too much.. esp when just dates need to be extended.. In the first place.. it should be non-expiring .. something like valid with I-485 Receipt... and then when accepting EAD employer can check the I-485 status that its still pending... and any change will send email to the employer about 485 current status...
But then my dear.. where's the money...
Gov: Show me the money?
USCIS: let sdo 1 year EAD/AP renewal... and we can sit for 90 days on it for generating this much money... and find cheapest ways of printing the card and mailing... If errors happen we might get more money :-)
Gov: why are you not moving dates and making more money?
USCIS: Okay we'll issue 2year EAD and accept more new apps...
and so on...
Well said and may be we should add to Show me the money...
USCIS: We should implement a application storage fee for each pending I-485 which should be paid every year to determine if the person is still in work?
Very very ridiculous!!!
But then my dear.. where's the money...
Gov: Show me the money?
USCIS: let sdo 1 year EAD/AP renewal... and we can sit for 90 days on it for generating this much money... and find cheapest ways of printing the card and mailing... If errors happen we might get more money :-)
Gov: why are you not moving dates and making more money?
USCIS: Okay we'll issue 2year EAD and accept more new apps...
and so on...
Well said and may be we should add to Show me the money...
USCIS: We should implement a application storage fee for each pending I-485 which should be paid every year to determine if the person is still in work?
Very very ridiculous!!!
hot Assassin#39;s Creed: Brotherhood
avi101
05-19 04:30 PM
A few more questions:
1. While the I-140 is pending, can I get a different lawyer to file the I-485?
2. If I wait until the I-140 is approved and then get a different lawyer to process my I-485 (or do it myself), will this be a problem?
3. Can my employer withdraw the I-140 AFTER it's been approved?
Please advise me.
1. Yes you can.. but how is it going to help? you still need your employer's support letter and I140 receipt notice. Read all the posts carefully.
2. No problem. But why? Your employer is your 1st problem, lawyer 2nd. Lawyer is going to listen to your employer for labor and I140. They have to legally. you need to get the employment letter and I140 notice. Law firms and employer are not legally obligated to provide you I140 related information as its employer who is petitioning for you.
3. Yes.
1. While the I-140 is pending, can I get a different lawyer to file the I-485?
2. If I wait until the I-140 is approved and then get a different lawyer to process my I-485 (or do it myself), will this be a problem?
3. Can my employer withdraw the I-140 AFTER it's been approved?
Please advise me.
1. Yes you can.. but how is it going to help? you still need your employer's support letter and I140 receipt notice. Read all the posts carefully.
2. No problem. But why? Your employer is your 1st problem, lawyer 2nd. Lawyer is going to listen to your employer for labor and I140. They have to legally. you need to get the employment letter and I140 notice. Law firms and employer are not legally obligated to provide you I140 related information as its employer who is petitioning for you.
3. Yes.
more...
house Assassin#39;s Creed wallpaper
diwa209
07-21 03:02 PM
Gcfever007,
thanks for the post.. on your point below -
3. Spouse in USA as your dependent ( i.e. H4 etc.)
he/she will be 'out of status' as soon as your GC is approved. Inspected by an immigration agent at entry point. Not on parole. You can file 485 under [Section 245(K)] within 180 days. No special processing. NO fines.
doesnt my PD have to be current for me to apply for her 485? What if the PD is not current at the time after my approval?! I will not be able to apply for her 485?
My guess(Only a guess!, as you can tell from my no. of posts) is that if the primary applicants priority date is not current, the spouse will not be allowed to apply for I-485 and hence will become "out of status" as soon as the I-485 is approved. Good, if the dates become current(and you do apply for spouses I-485) within 180 days as we are protected under 245(K). Otherwise only option is for spouse to leave. I am not sure what happens after that.
My assumption is based on the fact that if INS does not allow for spouses I-485 to be filed as soon as she enters the country on H4 anyway, why would they allow her to apply after approval.
If this is correct then its a 'gotcha'.
Questions:
1) Should the spouse go to the home country and file a 'Follow to join' ?(on basis of marriage before approval)
2) Can a spouse file a 'Follow to join' before leaving the home country to join primary applicant in H4, anyway (even though I-485 is not approved at that time). Just to be one step ahead, and anticipating this situation?
3) Are there any other options?
Can a senior member please clarify?
thanks for the post.. on your point below -
3. Spouse in USA as your dependent ( i.e. H4 etc.)
he/she will be 'out of status' as soon as your GC is approved. Inspected by an immigration agent at entry point. Not on parole. You can file 485 under [Section 245(K)] within 180 days. No special processing. NO fines.
doesnt my PD have to be current for me to apply for her 485? What if the PD is not current at the time after my approval?! I will not be able to apply for her 485?
My guess(Only a guess!, as you can tell from my no. of posts) is that if the primary applicants priority date is not current, the spouse will not be allowed to apply for I-485 and hence will become "out of status" as soon as the I-485 is approved. Good, if the dates become current(and you do apply for spouses I-485) within 180 days as we are protected under 245(K). Otherwise only option is for spouse to leave. I am not sure what happens after that.
My assumption is based on the fact that if INS does not allow for spouses I-485 to be filed as soon as she enters the country on H4 anyway, why would they allow her to apply after approval.
If this is correct then its a 'gotcha'.
Questions:
1) Should the spouse go to the home country and file a 'Follow to join' ?(on basis of marriage before approval)
2) Can a spouse file a 'Follow to join' before leaving the home country to join primary applicant in H4, anyway (even though I-485 is not approved at that time). Just to be one step ahead, and anticipating this situation?
3) Are there any other options?
Can a senior member please clarify?
tattoo 18505 Assassin#39;s Creed 2 Cell
chanduv23
09-04 04:21 PM
This is yet another inefficiency on their part. When it comes to AC21 your file does not even get updated even though you may have attached I-485 receipt along with AC21 filing. But when the employer revokes I-140 they don't forget to send you NOID or even I-485 denial.
yes it is like electricity department in India - If you miss payments for a particular period - the next moment they stand in front of ur house and block power suppply whereas they are seen nowhere in vicinity when you complain that you have a power cut and need someone to fix it.
yes it is like electricity department in India - If you miss payments for a particular period - the next moment they stand in front of ur house and block power suppply whereas they are seen nowhere in vicinity when you complain that you have a power cut and need someone to fix it.
more...
pictures Assassins Creed
Sath thesmilingstar
02-24 11:27 AM
My son got his FAFSA approved last year. I am on H1 and he is on H4. Your daughter either way on H4 or EAD qualifies for FAFSA. If you have questions, you can call FAFSA directly and they are very helpful.
Good Luck..
RV
Hi,your post gives me small hope but can you please tell whether i am eligible or not.?
I am on a H-4 visa and my mother is the H-1 holder.we recently applied for i-140 and got the recipt for it.can i apply for FAFSA..?
Good Luck..
RV
Hi,your post gives me small hope but can you please tell whether i am eligible or not.?
I am on a H-4 visa and my mother is the H-1 holder.we recently applied for i-140 and got the recipt for it.can i apply for FAFSA..?
dresses Assassins Creed Blood
little_willy
08-25 03:16 PM
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
Are you sure about this? I don't think this is true. My wife entered using AP and works on H-1B. Note that she is a derivative on my I-485 and works on H-1 for a totally different employer.
Are you sure about this? I don't think this is true. My wife entered using AP and works on H-1B. Note that she is a derivative on my I-485 and works on H-1 for a totally different employer.
more...
makeup Assassin#39;s Creed
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.
girlfriend Assassin#39;s Creed
ashkam
08-09 09:34 AM
i filed my 140 on july 12th. Received receipt notice from TSC on jul 23rd.
My attorney filed for 485 on aug 2nd. But he filed with old fee and old 485 forms. He says i fall under july visa bulletin, so i can file with older fee.
Is he correct? Will there be no problem with my application?
Your attorney is right. Old fees apply and old forms are fine.
My attorney filed for 485 on aug 2nd. But he filed with old fee and old 485 forms. He says i fall under july visa bulletin, so i can file with older fee.
Is he correct? Will there be no problem with my application?
Your attorney is right. Old fees apply and old forms are fine.
hairstyles PSP Assassins Creed Wallpaper
seahawks
07-02 12:07 AM
Guys,
Can some read the SOP in the above quote and figure out what they are trying to say?
I read it and it does mention that if you came prior to an year from filing, your G-325A does not count. I wonder why that is because Finger printing is triggered by G-325A was what I thought and its a form with 3 copies so to speak so I thought it goes to 3 different offices, who knows how it works.. anyways here is what I am doing for now..
Wait until my attorney gets back to me
Go for the FP and probably explain to them and see if anything can be done.
Wrote to my district congressman's immigration specialist who I had met before while campaigning for IV goals on CIR. Well I won't sweat it out, will see what happens I guess.
Can some read the SOP in the above quote and figure out what they are trying to say?
I read it and it does mention that if you came prior to an year from filing, your G-325A does not count. I wonder why that is because Finger printing is triggered by G-325A was what I thought and its a form with 3 copies so to speak so I thought it goes to 3 different offices, who knows how it works.. anyways here is what I am doing for now..
Wait until my attorney gets back to me
Go for the FP and probably explain to them and see if anything can be done.
Wrote to my district congressman's immigration specialist who I had met before while campaigning for IV goals on CIR. Well I won't sweat it out, will see what happens I guess.
dazed378
04-07 09:41 PM
A small correction - the notice sent by IRS did not mention that my filing status was changed from "married filing jointly" to "married filing separately" or "filing single". The notice says that
"We didn't allow your spouse's personal exemption because your spouse's:
Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) was missing or
Last name doesn't match our records or the records provided by the Social Security Administration.
Each exemption listed on your tax return must have a valid SSN or ITIN. If your spouse has a valid Social Security Number assigned by the Social Security Administration or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service, please contact us. Please have your spouse's Social Security card available when you contact us. If your spouse has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, please have the notice from us assigning the spouse's number available when you contact us.
If you have questions or need additional information, please have the following on hand when you call:
A copy of this page.
A copy of your tax return.
The notice we sent you.
If you disagree with this change or the way we processed your return, please contact us.
."
Do I still need to file form 1040X? Please let me know.
"We didn't allow your spouse's personal exemption because your spouse's:
Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) was missing or
Last name doesn't match our records or the records provided by the Social Security Administration.
Each exemption listed on your tax return must have a valid SSN or ITIN. If your spouse has a valid Social Security Number assigned by the Social Security Administration or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service, please contact us. Please have your spouse's Social Security card available when you contact us. If your spouse has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, please have the notice from us assigning the spouse's number available when you contact us.
If you have questions or need additional information, please have the following on hand when you call:
A copy of this page.
A copy of your tax return.
The notice we sent you.
If you disagree with this change or the way we processed your return, please contact us.
."
Do I still need to file form 1040X? Please let me know.
chinna2003
03-12 01:14 AM
but i asked this question to find the legality of this issue before reporting someone to the USCIS that i know is doing this.I just used I instead of someone in my thread to start the discussion.
Who do i complain to in this case?
Buddy,
Are you the same person as the one who posted this? Has someone hijacked your id or your brain?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=129163#post129163
Who do i complain to in this case?
Buddy,
Are you the same person as the one who posted this? Has someone hijacked your id or your brain?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=129163#post129163
No comments:
Post a Comment