$eeGrEeN
05-15 09:31 AM
This is totally ludacris to me. Even though the bulletin expects movement going forward, there is no assurance that the dates will not go back. On the flip side, I am wondering if USCIS/DOS wanted to fully utilize the 140K visas this year and just moved the dates too much ahead. If thats the case, the dates might not move again or retrogress back further. DOS official Oppenheimer mentioned that atleast 10-11k were wasted last year. I still feel that the dates are going to go back some time sooner or later without congressional law changes.
This means that we have to stay put and work towards our common goal of getting the system fixed.
yup , rightly said....
This means that we have to stay put and work towards our common goal of getting the system fixed.
yup , rightly said....
wallpaper Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
Templarian
11-23 12:42 PM
Good luck guys. :fab:
joydiptac
04-22 07:35 PM
well.. my attorney says.. i can be on LOP for 3-4 weeks..at the most..so i may have to change to H4..
If the company gives a letter of avaliablity of the job..will that be binding?
i.e. should i work for that firm..after getting a GC..
I know 2 cases where the filer was on LOP for more than six months (atleast in one case):
Case 1: The guy went for his MBA
Case 2: A colleague whose GC was being processed in one of my previous companies way back in 2001. He got laid off. was on LOP. But the guy kept attending office and working for free. Then he got really lucky he was absorbed back.
In fact some companies like IBM let you go on sabbatical. Meaning you can do whatever you please for a year then come back. It is legal.
I suggest you get a second opinion from another lawyer before wasting a LOP.
Also your second question I am not 100% sure. Then anything is possible if the company wants to support you. Cause GC can be for a future job offer. I heard of someone who applied for US GC consular processing while working in Singapore on the basis of a open job offer here. He got the GC but never came to US.
Anyhow, all the best. I could not log in earlier because of some weird login errors, otherwise would have answered before.
If the company gives a letter of avaliablity of the job..will that be binding?
i.e. should i work for that firm..after getting a GC..
I know 2 cases where the filer was on LOP for more than six months (atleast in one case):
Case 1: The guy went for his MBA
Case 2: A colleague whose GC was being processed in one of my previous companies way back in 2001. He got laid off. was on LOP. But the guy kept attending office and working for free. Then he got really lucky he was absorbed back.
In fact some companies like IBM let you go on sabbatical. Meaning you can do whatever you please for a year then come back. It is legal.
I suggest you get a second opinion from another lawyer before wasting a LOP.
Also your second question I am not 100% sure. Then anything is possible if the company wants to support you. Cause GC can be for a future job offer. I heard of someone who applied for US GC consular processing while working in Singapore on the basis of a open job offer here. He got the GC but never came to US.
Anyhow, all the best. I could not log in earlier because of some weird login errors, otherwise would have answered before.
2011 selena gomez and justin bieber
vedicman
11-30 09:00 AM
The Startup Case For Immigration Reform - Maureen Farrell - Scaling Up - Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/maureenfarrell/2010/11/23/startups%E2%80%99-case-for-immigration/?boxes=Homepagechannels)
It�s not just Google that�s worried about attracting and retaining top technical talent. However, the search giant�s recent 10% raise for all its employees is a leading indicator of the talent and compensation war surging through Silicon Valley, and among tech startups around the US.
�It�s the worst I�ve seen since the late 1990s,� says Bessemer Venture Partner�s David Cowan, who estimates that salaries for experienced engineers are up about 20% from before the crisis. Charles River Partners� George Zachary says it takes between $90,000 and $100,000 to land even starting engineers compared to $75,000 to $80,000 just six months ago.
Of the dozen venture capitalists and CEOs I spoke to who are seeing this trend, nearly all say a business-friendly immigration policy could help them find talent to help them grow startups.
�Everyone of my startups has an issue with trying to fill out their engineering headcount plan,� says Cowan. �There are lots of talented engineers around the world. If we invited them to participate in our industry here in the U.S. we would see more Googles and Facebooks.�
Large and small businesses are lining up behind an immigration policy that would make it easier for entrepreneurs and high-tech professionals to come or stay in the United States. Congress did not move forward on comprehensive immigration reform before the midterm election. It has also failed to pass several of the more specific immigration proposals made in recent years. One of these, the DREAM Act, would have allowed alien students who graduate from college or served for two years in the military to stay in the US. Another, the Startup Visa Act, sought to give a visa to anyone who�s received $1 million in equity investment in their company and would create 10 US jobs.
Expect a concerted push to reverse what�s seen as a brain drain from big business and the venture capital industry. Jim Turley, the CEO of Ernst and Young who serves on Obama�s National Export Council, advocates a policy of what he calls �staple diplomacy.� Explaining it he said: �Whenever there�s a student from anywhere in the world who is walking across the stage from a leading university getting his or her PhD or masters we should staple a visa there to him or her and say you�re welcome to stay.�
Immigration proponents cite studies by Duke Professor Vivek Wadhwa, who determined that immigrants created a quarter of all technology and engineering firms founded in the U.S. between 1995 and 2005. Foreign-born nationals residing in this country were part of nearly one-quarter of patents filed in 2006.
Right now entrepreneurs and businesses have two options to bring highly skilled international residents into the US: the EB-5 visa and the H1B visa. With the EB-5 visa, immigrant investors can obtain a green card if they invest $1 million into a new or existing business and create at least 10 jobs. Less than half of last year�s 10,000 EB-5 slots were filled. Eleanor Pelta, the President-Elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and a partner at the law firm Morgan Lewis in Washington says foreign nationals are wary of using these visas to start a new business because if a business runs into trouble and the company doesn�t employ 10 workers two years later, the investor will lose his or her provisional visa. �It�s a dicey proposition because you have to use your own money or secure it with your own assets and you might not get a visa at the end of it anyway,� she says.
The H-1B visa is for highly skilled foreign workers who will fill jobs that Americans can�t. US companies must sponsor these visas. The US caps this visa category at 65,000 individuals and it�s nearly always oversubscribed. Cleveland immigration attorney David Leopold and current President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association expects that this fiscal year�s (staring on October 1, 2010) visa slots will be filled by January of 2011. �So from January through next October, no companies can bring in skilled workers on these visas.�
The United States� Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra says President Obama has tried to lower administrative barriers for bringing foreign nationals into the US for professional development. �In his first year the President wanted to make sure scientists around the world who wanted to visit the US to participate in conferences and seminars could do that,� says Chopra. �We have streamlined that process and efforts so they can participate in ways that are a lot more friendly to their participation.�
Many in Silicon Valley question how well even that move has worked. New Enterprise Associates Scott Sandell who invests in companies in Silicon Valley and China says it�s hard to bring in top executives from Chinese firms to meet with executives from his US companies. �Immigration agents are more overwhelmed and seem to have more trouble processing applications than they ever have,� says Sandell, noting that it�s been worse in the past six months.
Still both Chopra and Undersecretary of Commerce Francisco Sanchez say that Obama will put political capital behind immigration reform in the next Congress. �We are obviously committed to comprehensive solution for immigration reform,� asserts Chopra. �There are clear areas of consensus in this country around reform, and areas of high-growth entrepreneurship clearly might be one that we can take action on sooner.�
It�s not just Google that�s worried about attracting and retaining top technical talent. However, the search giant�s recent 10% raise for all its employees is a leading indicator of the talent and compensation war surging through Silicon Valley, and among tech startups around the US.
�It�s the worst I�ve seen since the late 1990s,� says Bessemer Venture Partner�s David Cowan, who estimates that salaries for experienced engineers are up about 20% from before the crisis. Charles River Partners� George Zachary says it takes between $90,000 and $100,000 to land even starting engineers compared to $75,000 to $80,000 just six months ago.
Of the dozen venture capitalists and CEOs I spoke to who are seeing this trend, nearly all say a business-friendly immigration policy could help them find talent to help them grow startups.
�Everyone of my startups has an issue with trying to fill out their engineering headcount plan,� says Cowan. �There are lots of talented engineers around the world. If we invited them to participate in our industry here in the U.S. we would see more Googles and Facebooks.�
Large and small businesses are lining up behind an immigration policy that would make it easier for entrepreneurs and high-tech professionals to come or stay in the United States. Congress did not move forward on comprehensive immigration reform before the midterm election. It has also failed to pass several of the more specific immigration proposals made in recent years. One of these, the DREAM Act, would have allowed alien students who graduate from college or served for two years in the military to stay in the US. Another, the Startup Visa Act, sought to give a visa to anyone who�s received $1 million in equity investment in their company and would create 10 US jobs.
Expect a concerted push to reverse what�s seen as a brain drain from big business and the venture capital industry. Jim Turley, the CEO of Ernst and Young who serves on Obama�s National Export Council, advocates a policy of what he calls �staple diplomacy.� Explaining it he said: �Whenever there�s a student from anywhere in the world who is walking across the stage from a leading university getting his or her PhD or masters we should staple a visa there to him or her and say you�re welcome to stay.�
Immigration proponents cite studies by Duke Professor Vivek Wadhwa, who determined that immigrants created a quarter of all technology and engineering firms founded in the U.S. between 1995 and 2005. Foreign-born nationals residing in this country were part of nearly one-quarter of patents filed in 2006.
Right now entrepreneurs and businesses have two options to bring highly skilled international residents into the US: the EB-5 visa and the H1B visa. With the EB-5 visa, immigrant investors can obtain a green card if they invest $1 million into a new or existing business and create at least 10 jobs. Less than half of last year�s 10,000 EB-5 slots were filled. Eleanor Pelta, the President-Elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and a partner at the law firm Morgan Lewis in Washington says foreign nationals are wary of using these visas to start a new business because if a business runs into trouble and the company doesn�t employ 10 workers two years later, the investor will lose his or her provisional visa. �It�s a dicey proposition because you have to use your own money or secure it with your own assets and you might not get a visa at the end of it anyway,� she says.
The H-1B visa is for highly skilled foreign workers who will fill jobs that Americans can�t. US companies must sponsor these visas. The US caps this visa category at 65,000 individuals and it�s nearly always oversubscribed. Cleveland immigration attorney David Leopold and current President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association expects that this fiscal year�s (staring on October 1, 2010) visa slots will be filled by January of 2011. �So from January through next October, no companies can bring in skilled workers on these visas.�
The United States� Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra says President Obama has tried to lower administrative barriers for bringing foreign nationals into the US for professional development. �In his first year the President wanted to make sure scientists around the world who wanted to visit the US to participate in conferences and seminars could do that,� says Chopra. �We have streamlined that process and efforts so they can participate in ways that are a lot more friendly to their participation.�
Many in Silicon Valley question how well even that move has worked. New Enterprise Associates Scott Sandell who invests in companies in Silicon Valley and China says it�s hard to bring in top executives from Chinese firms to meet with executives from his US companies. �Immigration agents are more overwhelmed and seem to have more trouble processing applications than they ever have,� says Sandell, noting that it�s been worse in the past six months.
Still both Chopra and Undersecretary of Commerce Francisco Sanchez say that Obama will put political capital behind immigration reform in the next Congress. �We are obviously committed to comprehensive solution for immigration reform,� asserts Chopra. �There are clear areas of consensus in this country around reform, and areas of high-growth entrepreneurship clearly might be one that we can take action on sooner.�
more...
justin150377
06-22 09:27 AM
any advice?
chanduv23
11-20 12:25 PM
This is just believe and what I think is something will be good for EB community. Specially those who has MS or Higer degree from USA. It can be tough for employee of small consulting companies. But that is Reform.
Ultimately they will hike H1b quota with some tight regulations so who ever is genuine can use it.
I know some people are saying that CIS wont be able to process all app and we have to suffer from Illegal people's filling. but if they add , recapture some visa for us in their CIR bill then dates will be current for us for some 1-2 years for sure and we can go to CP route and get green card thing done. I am 100 % sure that illegal people will not go to CP route. and CP route is very quick when dates are current.
only one thing I see if CIR passes.. Lawers.. they will be busy with illegal people and will not look at us because I am sure their fees will be higher than our straight cases and they want it desparetly than us. so lawer may not give attention to your case..
Hmmmm - laws are generally framed with generic thumb rules. They cannot be addressed to specific stuff. Visass and restrictions are based on needs and demands and not moods and whims. If USA needs software engineers, then they frame laws to get software engineers - they do not target consulting companies - remember it is we who have issues with consulting companies and it is upto those having issues to deal with them
Ultimately they will hike H1b quota with some tight regulations so who ever is genuine can use it.
I know some people are saying that CIS wont be able to process all app and we have to suffer from Illegal people's filling. but if they add , recapture some visa for us in their CIR bill then dates will be current for us for some 1-2 years for sure and we can go to CP route and get green card thing done. I am 100 % sure that illegal people will not go to CP route. and CP route is very quick when dates are current.
only one thing I see if CIR passes.. Lawers.. they will be busy with illegal people and will not look at us because I am sure their fees will be higher than our straight cases and they want it desparetly than us. so lawer may not give attention to your case..
Hmmmm - laws are generally framed with generic thumb rules. They cannot be addressed to specific stuff. Visass and restrictions are based on needs and demands and not moods and whims. If USA needs software engineers, then they frame laws to get software engineers - they do not target consulting companies - remember it is we who have issues with consulting companies and it is upto those having issues to deal with them
more...
SU1979
10-09 01:05 PM
Dude!! Don't even think of applying for AOS now. The dates are not current and you have some issues with your H1-B. Please consult an Attorney immediately!!!!......
I am from a non-retrogressed country. For me the priority date is always current...both in October and November visa buletin. I understand, there are some issues. Do you know, what can happen at worst case ?
Thanks
I am from a non-retrogressed country. For me the priority date is always current...both in October and November visa buletin. I understand, there are some issues. Do you know, what can happen at worst case ?
Thanks
2010 Selena Gomez at Justin Bieber
docwa
04-11 03:08 PM
Sure moonlighting should definitely be ok.
Will being a fellow be ok too? Its open only to internists, but is a training program in oncology. Its only 2 years, and looking at to current rate of processing, I should be done by the time my PD (sept 2006) is current.
Will being a fellow be ok too? Its open only to internists, but is a training program in oncology. Its only 2 years, and looking at to current rate of processing, I should be done by the time my PD (sept 2006) is current.
more...
clif
06-15 06:00 AM
:confused: My H1B is about to expire in Oct 2007 and I haven't yet filed for 7th year extension. I have approved I-140 with April 2006 PD. Should I file for 7th year ext. of H1B or I-485 or both? If I file for H1B extension, will I get 1 year ext. or 3 year ext? :confused:
hair justin bieber and selena gomez
go_guy123
08-13 01:54 PM
isnt this $600M is comming off of the 2k hike on h1 50-50 rule?
if so, any one who wants think of getting rid of h1s they should also think of loosing this border security measure.
This h1b money is totally insufficient but most likely it will add to governent deficit...but who cares. Eventually this 2000K will increase in some "piece-meal enforcement only" bill
in future.
if so, any one who wants think of getting rid of h1s they should also think of loosing this border security measure.
This h1b money is totally insufficient but most likely it will add to governent deficit...but who cares. Eventually this 2000K will increase in some "piece-meal enforcement only" bill
in future.
more...
mbartosik
06-22 05:15 PM
They charge $2, blimey, that's nothing. They want to increase to $9, hey increase it to $100 and to the job properly!
If I was stuck in name check I'd happy write them a check for $900 not just $9.
This is a typical example of how doing things on the cheap is just plain stupid.
If they are going to do a name check for the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 then how does that affect them. In computing we have to write systems that scale, I doubt their system will scale to cope with an extra 20,000,000 checks.
If I was stuck in name check I'd happy write them a check for $900 not just $9.
This is a typical example of how doing things on the cheap is just plain stupid.
If they are going to do a name check for the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 then how does that affect them. In computing we have to write systems that scale, I doubt their system will scale to cope with an extra 20,000,000 checks.
hot Selena Gomez talks Justin Bieber, performs on #39;GMA#39; (Video)
va_dude
03-09 01:21 PM
To port from EB3 to EB2, you will need an approved EB2 labor.
You can't just randomly convert your EB3 to EB2 just because you are more qualified, etc. Besides the category, Eb1,2,3 is determined by the job requirements, not your qualification. So you could be a PhD from MIT, but if the job requires only a Bachelor's for example, you can't do an Eb2.
So in your case, your new employer C would need to file for a new labor in EB2 and then do the 140 after labor approval.
I'm not a 100% sure if you can do the porting while filing the new 140 or only after its approval. For that you might need to confirm with an attorney consult.
My advice - spend the 100/200 bucks and get a 1 hour consult with a reputed attorney or the attorney that employer C works with.
You can't just randomly convert your EB3 to EB2 just because you are more qualified, etc. Besides the category, Eb1,2,3 is determined by the job requirements, not your qualification. So you could be a PhD from MIT, but if the job requires only a Bachelor's for example, you can't do an Eb2.
So in your case, your new employer C would need to file for a new labor in EB2 and then do the 140 after labor approval.
I'm not a 100% sure if you can do the porting while filing the new 140 or only after its approval. For that you might need to confirm with an attorney consult.
My advice - spend the 100/200 bucks and get a 1 hour consult with a reputed attorney or the attorney that employer C works with.
more...
house Selena Gomez Justin Bieber and
dollar500
08-09 09:04 PM
This bill is mostly for aviation safety. It doesn't necessarily applies to immigrants who are applying for permanent residency.
tattoo Selena Gomez drops the purity
asdqwe2k
04-19 10:02 AM
Job location does not matter, as long as it is mentioned that it will be the case in the Labour application.
All the desi consulting companies do that, so that their employees can work anywhere in USA...
All the desi consulting companies do that, so that their employees can work anywhere in USA...
more...
pictures justin bieber and selena gomez
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.
dresses selena gomez and justin bieber
qualified_trash
11-30 12:11 PM
I have Labor (PERM) and I140 approved from my current employer.
can I apply trasfer and extension with new employer.
Advice is highly appreciated.
you can!!
BUT, your new employer has to do your PERM and I140 all over again. you can retain your old PD though!!
can I apply trasfer and extension with new employer.
Advice is highly appreciated.
you can!!
BUT, your new employer has to do your PERM and I140 all over again. you can retain your old PD though!!
more...
makeup Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
immi_seeker
10-05 12:29 AM
Based on current estimates, it will be 10-15 years time, unless u r son/daughter can sponsor you prior... u will end up in family quota wait still.
I am not sarcastic this is the reality,
May be there wil be a big queue for that also at that time
I am not sarcastic this is the reality,
May be there wil be a big queue for that also at that time
girlfriend Selena Gomez Justin Bieber and
TeddyKoochu
10-14 04:34 PM
Spring 2010 (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201004&RIN=1615-AB82)
Sakthisagar & RSM144 many thanks for posting, the spring document has a target date of Oct 2010, I believe there is a chance of this happening sometime with the fee increase, they will have a fee for this. Hope this rule comes into play it is good news for us.
Sakthisagar & RSM144 many thanks for posting, the spring document has a target date of Oct 2010, I believe there is a chance of this happening sometime with the fee increase, they will have a fee for this. Hope this rule comes into play it is good news for us.
hairstyles JUSTIN BIEBER AND SELENA GOMEZ
jasmin45
08-21 10:36 AM
Go party now!
crystal
07-08 02:02 PM
Could be the side effect of logiclife bashing of immigration lawyers :D I'm sorry but why he did not say IV... i'm not trying to offened anybody people from all over are sending as well. it would make it better if he said the legal immigrant community
wildcat1313
03-30 04:53 PM
How in the world did you get so many greens??
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
Thanks guys for your support. Its not that I didn't want to contribute and I will definetely do it once I get my H1 visa stamped.
Status Update -
Manager is working actively on getting all the documents ready including detailed job description, requriements that were posted when I joined, vendor letter stating they cannot provide the master agreement with detailed duties. My client lawyers have asked the vendor not to share the master agreeement otherwise it will be a breach of contract, so there is nothing much my manager can do.
My company has already prepared a letter to show work schedule if I get out of work with current client.
So now I have almost all the letters that I have been asked for but I'm still not sure if I will get the visa without the master agreement. Do I have a choice?
What do you guys think?
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
Thanks guys for your support. Its not that I didn't want to contribute and I will definetely do it once I get my H1 visa stamped.
Status Update -
Manager is working actively on getting all the documents ready including detailed job description, requriements that were posted when I joined, vendor letter stating they cannot provide the master agreement with detailed duties. My client lawyers have asked the vendor not to share the master agreeement otherwise it will be a breach of contract, so there is nothing much my manager can do.
My company has already prepared a letter to show work schedule if I get out of work with current client.
So now I have almost all the letters that I have been asked for but I'm still not sure if I will get the visa without the master agreement. Do I have a choice?
What do you guys think?
No comments:
Post a Comment