Calouste
07-28 08:20 PM
quite interesting find...do you have a reference?
H-1B numbers:
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2000 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/FY2000Charact.pdf)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2001 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/FY2001Charact.pdf)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2002 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/FY2002Charact.pdf)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2003 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/FY03H1BFnlCharRprt.pdf)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2004 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY04_Characteristics.pdf)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf)
India accounted for the following percentages of new H-1B visa issued:
FY 2000 : 44.5 %
FY 2001 : 45.2 %
FY 2002 : 20.4 %
FY 2003 : 27.8 %
FY 2004 : 46.0 %
FY 2005 : 49.0 %
Note that this is only H-1B and doesn't include other high skilled immigrant visa like L1 and TN.
H-1B numbers:
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2000 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/FY2000Charact.pdf)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2001 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/FY2001Charact.pdf)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2002 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/FY2002Charact.pdf)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2003 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/FY03H1BFnlCharRprt.pdf)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2004 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY04_Characteristics.pdf)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf)
India accounted for the following percentages of new H-1B visa issued:
FY 2000 : 44.5 %
FY 2001 : 45.2 %
FY 2002 : 20.4 %
FY 2003 : 27.8 %
FY 2004 : 46.0 %
FY 2005 : 49.0 %
Note that this is only H-1B and doesn't include other high skilled immigrant visa like L1 and TN.
wallpaper Royal Wedding 1981 - Queen
BimmerFAn
06-22 09:03 PM
Hi guys, I am trying to understand this whole process and was wondering if you could help me out.
I'm a CPA working for a Big4 in the US for h1-B. I have 2 years of experiences (1 with the same company). I am not from Europe. I have the following 2 questions:
1. What can I expect in terms of waiting for a GC if my employer were to file today? It's a huge firm and submits many GC sponsorship requests per year. I belieave 700 were submitted in 2009.
2. Would my CPA/Lvl 2 CFA Certification as well as my membership in professional organizations and performance bonuses (highlighting exceptional ability) bump me up to EB2 if EB3 is not current?
Thank you for your input.
I'm a CPA working for a Big4 in the US for h1-B. I have 2 years of experiences (1 with the same company). I am not from Europe. I have the following 2 questions:
1. What can I expect in terms of waiting for a GC if my employer were to file today? It's a huge firm and submits many GC sponsorship requests per year. I belieave 700 were submitted in 2009.
2. Would my CPA/Lvl 2 CFA Certification as well as my membership in professional organizations and performance bonuses (highlighting exceptional ability) bump me up to EB2 if EB3 is not current?
Thank you for your input.
pune_guy
02-19 05:20 PM
I would suggest that you follow the option of joining some other company, if that is possible. You would be joining with enough experience so as to qualify for a new EB2 application. You can retain your EB3 application and priority date if 180 days have passed since filing 485, which in your case has happened so you are OK.
Trying to file an EB2 application through the same employer might be tricky because you cannot count the experience that you have gained with the employer. Even though a case could be made that you have a masters degree in business but I suspect that that may not be enough as, if I understand you correctly, you have no "business development" experience from your previous employment. Thus you would be a candidate with a degree but no experience.
Just my two cents.
Trying to file an EB2 application through the same employer might be tricky because you cannot count the experience that you have gained with the employer. Even though a case could be made that you have a masters degree in business but I suspect that that may not be enough as, if I understand you correctly, you have no "business development" experience from your previous employment. Thus you would be a candidate with a degree but no experience.
Just my two cents.
2011 queen elizabeth ii wedding.
Anders �stberg
June 4th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Went back to the local lake to stir up some waves and bubbles for a reshoot for FM forums
"Weekly Assignment #117: Blue"... what do you think?
(I chose the second picture for the contest, calling it "Smooth sailing". :) )
(100-400 @ 400mm, 1/640s, f/8, ISO 400)
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/BubblesFramed_5450.jpg
(100-400 @ 400mm, 1/500s, f/8, ISO 400)
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/WA117_BubbleVer3Framed_5455.jpg
"Weekly Assignment #117: Blue"... what do you think?
(I chose the second picture for the contest, calling it "Smooth sailing". :) )
(100-400 @ 400mm, 1/640s, f/8, ISO 400)
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/BubblesFramed_5450.jpg
(100-400 @ 400mm, 1/500s, f/8, ISO 400)
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/WA117_BubbleVer3Framed_5455.jpg
more...
mchundi
07-27 08:41 PM
Hi everyone,
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
If ur current employer did not apply for a labor, it doesnot matter anyway, as u r in the same position.
Ur friend is right. However if ur I-140 is also approved, u will continue to get H1-B extensions beyond 6 years.
--MC
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
If ur current employer did not apply for a labor, it doesnot matter anyway, as u r in the same position.
Ur friend is right. However if ur I-140 is also approved, u will continue to get H1-B extensions beyond 6 years.
--MC
gclongwaytogo
10-19 09:42 AM
July 3rd filer....LIN# (though I-140 approved at TSC)
Receipt Date: July 3
Notice Date: October 11
EAD Card: Waiting
No FP notice yet
I-140 approved: TSC
Originating Issuer of I-485 and I-765 : NSC
Receipt Date: July 3
Notice Date: October 11
EAD Card: Waiting
No FP notice yet
I-140 approved: TSC
Originating Issuer of I-485 and I-765 : NSC
more...
Better_Days
12-01 12:55 PM
Guys,
I want to know what are the chances of getting I-140 approve if we file a new petition and current I-140 appeal process is pending with USCIS. My I-140 was denied on education basis. In denial notice USCIS wrote that we did not prove that my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree from India) degree is not equivalent to B.S in Computer science from Labor certification.
Guys please share your experience with me since its important for me to get I-140 approve for future growth.
Thanks
To answer your original question, my I-140 under EB3 was denied on the basis that my 3-year Bachelor in Computer Science was not equivalent to a 4-year BCS degree. I appealed to the AAO and attached an evaluation from Sheila Danzig.
While the AAO was pending, I started the process from scratch by filing a new PERM and my second I-140 was approved. So I guess it is possible to file a new I-140 while the original one is under appeal.
I want to know what are the chances of getting I-140 approve if we file a new petition and current I-140 appeal process is pending with USCIS. My I-140 was denied on education basis. In denial notice USCIS wrote that we did not prove that my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree from India) degree is not equivalent to B.S in Computer science from Labor certification.
Guys please share your experience with me since its important for me to get I-140 approve for future growth.
Thanks
To answer your original question, my I-140 under EB3 was denied on the basis that my 3-year Bachelor in Computer Science was not equivalent to a 4-year BCS degree. I appealed to the AAO and attached an evaluation from Sheila Danzig.
While the AAO was pending, I started the process from scratch by filing a new PERM and my second I-140 was approved. So I guess it is possible to file a new I-140 while the original one is under appeal.
2010 queen elizabeth 2 wedding
wandmaker
12-21 11:22 AM
Can she be of any help to IV's Agenda.
Good thought but your IV handle has the answer to your question. BTW, nothing wrong in making an attempt.
Good thought but your IV handle has the answer to your question. BTW, nothing wrong in making an attempt.
more...
kaisersose
04-21 04:47 PM
Wow!
Texas does not give a damn about any of this.
Just saw my SSN card, old DL and EAD and gave me a license which expires in 2014.
Texas does not give a damn about any of this.
Just saw my SSN card, old DL and EAD and gave me a license which expires in 2014.
hair Queen Elizabeth II HRH Queen
yagw
11-02 01:48 PM
There are no plans for extended vacation.
I thought the 3 year h1b extension after 140 approval is a one time deal and there would be no further extensions :confused: .
I am not aware of the 12yr lifetime H1B limit. Can some one shed some light on this?
There is no lifetime cap on H1B. Also, there is no limit on how many 3 year terms you can extend it after I-140 approval. What would happen is, after the initial 3 years, your PD might become current and that will make you in-eligible for 3 years ext. (and just one year).
DISCLAIMER: I am not an Attorney and this is not a legal advice
I thought the 3 year h1b extension after 140 approval is a one time deal and there would be no further extensions :confused: .
I am not aware of the 12yr lifetime H1B limit. Can some one shed some light on this?
There is no lifetime cap on H1B. Also, there is no limit on how many 3 year terms you can extend it after I-140 approval. What would happen is, after the initial 3 years, your PD might become current and that will make you in-eligible for 3 years ext. (and just one year).
DISCLAIMER: I am not an Attorney and this is not a legal advice
more...
bibhudc
08-21 04:39 PM
Thanks for your replies. The additional thread did throw some light.
Is there any statistic (or guess-timates) for how many people are waiting for their green cards ? by nationality, EB category, Priority Month etc.
Is there any statistic (or guess-timates) for how many people are waiting for their green cards ? by nationality, EB category, Priority Month etc.
hot queen elizabeth ii wedding pictures. queen elizabeth 2 wedding.
Anders �stberg
July 15th, 2004, 06:55 PM
I can't stop thinking about how the picture would have looked with the mother bird in focus and the young OOF... it didn't occur to me at the time but it would have been very cool to try to preset focus for the approaching bird... I hope they are still there tomorrow...
more...
house Queen Elizabeth II and Kate
amits
02-04 04:58 PM
I am in Phoenix/Tempe area.
tattoo Queen Elizabeth II The royal
bazuka6
10-20 09:14 PM
I seriously think IV should take specific instances of past delays due to FBI checks and USCIS delays and highlight these.. A letter campaign supporting Mayorkas should be sent to senatiors.
Letter must specifically highlight how Grassley's allegations are unfounded (based on his history) and how Mayorkas has increased transparency within USCIS and helped legitimate aliens get their immigration benefits in a timely fashion instead of perpetuating bureaucratic delays
Letter must specifically highlight how Grassley's allegations are unfounded (based on his history) and how Mayorkas has increased transparency within USCIS and helped legitimate aliens get their immigration benefits in a timely fashion instead of perpetuating bureaucratic delays
more...
pictures andebay find lady will always Queen+elizabeth+ii+wedding+photos
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
dresses queen elizabeth ii wedding
eb3India
05-22 09:22 AM
Admin,
I do understand core members have fulltime job I mentioned earlier I volunteer to do some research in this subject.
However I don't want re-invent the wheel and I was expecting a very simple answers and pointers on the subject
for example, if someone had spent time on this, they could simply answer yes and provide some links etc where I get more answers.
as I write I am googling on this subject and will provide my findings
between, guys we are all in a same boat we should work collective to get out of this mess
I do understand core members have fulltime job I mentioned earlier I volunteer to do some research in this subject.
However I don't want re-invent the wheel and I was expecting a very simple answers and pointers on the subject
for example, if someone had spent time on this, they could simply answer yes and provide some links etc where I get more answers.
as I write I am googling on this subject and will provide my findings
between, guys we are all in a same boat we should work collective to get out of this mess
more...
makeup Queen Elizabeth II Queen
chanduv23
08-09 08:39 AM
Check this out, get inspired
N2KFOXvkHNM
Make it to the luncheon as well as the rally
N2KFOXvkHNM
Make it to the luncheon as well as the rally
girlfriend Royal Wedding England Queen
eb2_mumbai
10-20 09:35 PM
First of all I am not going to judge you by your actions because I do not know the full story of why you did it.
Now coming back to your question. There are few things you need to do.
1) Talk to a reputed immigration attorney. Take consulting time and tell them the whole story honestly they are the best people to guide you
2) As far as I can tell you out of status triggers a bar of 10 years on immigration to US. Perhaps if your wife can least get out of country and come back (re-enter) into the country on a valid visa then after admission perhaps you can take advantage of 245 (k) clause that counts OOS from last lawful admission for GC processin, but there is a chance that she might be denied entry if CBP officer can see her OOS in the system for some reason.
My advice is what ever you do make sure you consult an attorney and not some friend or some one from a forum. You have already made situation difficult do not make it any worse.
Now coming back to your question. There are few things you need to do.
1) Talk to a reputed immigration attorney. Take consulting time and tell them the whole story honestly they are the best people to guide you
2) As far as I can tell you out of status triggers a bar of 10 years on immigration to US. Perhaps if your wife can least get out of country and come back (re-enter) into the country on a valid visa then after admission perhaps you can take advantage of 245 (k) clause that counts OOS from last lawful admission for GC processin, but there is a chance that she might be denied entry if CBP officer can see her OOS in the system for some reason.
My advice is what ever you do make sure you consult an attorney and not some friend or some one from a forum. You have already made situation difficult do not make it any worse.
hairstyles queen elizabeth ii wedding
bestofall
07-30 12:19 PM
URGENT UPDATE: HR5882 scheduled for tomorrow - PLEASE CALL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Immigration Sub-Committee is planning on mark up Congresswoman Lofgren's recapture bill tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon in her subcommittee. This is an extremely IMPORTANT development. We are hoping that an agreement reached such that there is no party line vote on this effort. As such all members are requested to PLEASE PLEASE call the following members on the subcommittee requesting them to support Lofgren's recapture bill H.R.5882.
Majority Members (Democrats)
Member Name DC Phone
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) 202-225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) 202-225-4695
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) 202-225-3816
Maxine Waters (D-CA) 202-225-2201
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) 202-225-3111
Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA) 202-225-6676
Artur Davis (D-AL) 202-225-2665
Keith Ellison (D-MN) 202-225-4755
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 202-225-6616
Minority Members (Republicans)
Member Name DC Phone
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member]202-225-4426
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Immigration Sub-Committee is planning on mark up Congresswoman Lofgren's recapture bill tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon in her subcommittee. This is an extremely IMPORTANT development. We are hoping that an agreement reached such that there is no party line vote on this effort. As such all members are requested to PLEASE PLEASE call the following members on the subcommittee requesting them to support Lofgren's recapture bill H.R.5882.
Majority Members (Democrats)
Member Name DC Phone
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) 202-225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) 202-225-4695
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) 202-225-3816
Maxine Waters (D-CA) 202-225-2201
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) 202-225-3111
Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA) 202-225-6676
Artur Davis (D-AL) 202-225-2665
Keith Ellison (D-MN) 202-225-4755
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 202-225-6616
Minority Members (Republicans)
Member Name DC Phone
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member]202-225-4426
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
ohguy
09-27 08:56 AM
As your applications in pending in the local office. Get the Infopass appointment at the same office sooner if not later.
Thanks for the advice. I appreciate your insight.
I am going all in now.
1. I will call the Customer Service Line tomorrow.
2. I already got the InfoPass for 10/6
3. The letter for my senator is drafted. It will be sent tomorrow.
4. Finally, an email to the Ombudsman has been sent.
Hopefully, there is be some movement.
Thanks for the advice. I appreciate your insight.
I am going all in now.
1. I will call the Customer Service Line tomorrow.
2. I already got the InfoPass for 10/6
3. The letter for my senator is drafted. It will be sent tomorrow.
4. Finally, an email to the Ombudsman has been sent.
Hopefully, there is be some movement.
gc_kaavaali
08-03 10:24 PM
Yes...i am july 2nd filer...still waiting. PD March 2005
Did you know that that you can generate dollars by locking special pages of your blog or website?
ردحذفSimply join AdWorkMedia and run their Content Locking widget.