waitingonlc
02-13 03:50 PM
Immigration plan looms in Congress
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
yabadaba
07-24 08:07 AM
<^^^^^^>
<> <>
|
____
<> <>
|
____
gcnotfiledyet
03-16 05:54 PM
My company informed me today that, when spouse is added to the insurence, the insurence will start from day 1 of next month. My wife will be comming in the middle of month. How to cover this gap with insurence...?? Any suggestions...????
If you show them marriage certificate they should be able to backdate the dates of coverage. That is what happened in my case. Other option is to shop for private insurance for few days. You will pay premium. Get some cheaper insurance then you run risk of lot of loopholes in coverage. Get travel insurance from companies in India. There are plenty and you can find discussion on this forum. Check with pre existing condition clause with your insurance company even if the coverage starts from 1st.
Other option is to have your wife come after 1st of month or pray to God that she doesn't fall sick, just kidding.
If you show them marriage certificate they should be able to backdate the dates of coverage. That is what happened in my case. Other option is to shop for private insurance for few days. You will pay premium. Get some cheaper insurance then you run risk of lot of loopholes in coverage. Get travel insurance from companies in India. There are plenty and you can find discussion on this forum. Check with pre existing condition clause with your insurance company even if the coverage starts from 1st.
Other option is to have your wife come after 1st of month or pray to God that she doesn't fall sick, just kidding.
gjoe
10-03 02:41 PM
First let us get USCIS to process our applications strictly based on PD. Then we will have more people for the rally because new PD date members would be more motivated to participate in the grassroot effort
more...
smartboy75
07-17 07:49 PM
Not to mention the tons and tons of unnecesary pages and administrative effort involved in maintaing the data.....Everything boils down to price...If we ask relevant question we save space...space saved is money saved..The same money we saved ..can be used for lobbying....Think about it
inskrish
09-01 02:14 AM
Thanks man. I see that there is a different thread going on RFEs on I-485.
Great! Thanks. I hope your case gets cleared as soon as possible.
Great! Thanks. I hope your case gets cleared as soon as possible.
more...
ajkastar
07-27 01:35 PM
Receipt date was Aug 2004, RFE - required both parents names in birth certificate or affidavit will do, employer information was missing.
sagar_nyc
01-26 11:22 AM
I am planning to move to different residence. My 485 application is currently pending.
Has anyone successfully filed change of address form? and have their EAD or other documents deliever to their new address correctly. Reason I am asking my friend changed his residence while his 485 pending and all his document would still come to my address (his old address). He made numerous request to USCIS and files for AR11 etc. His all documents EAD.. even Green card also came back to my address(His old adress). At least he was lucky that I was still staying over there.
Any thoughts much appreciated.
Has anyone successfully filed change of address form? and have their EAD or other documents deliever to their new address correctly. Reason I am asking my friend changed his residence while his 485 pending and all his document would still come to my address (his old address). He made numerous request to USCIS and files for AR11 etc. His all documents EAD.. even Green card also came back to my address(His old adress). At least he was lucky that I was still staying over there.
Any thoughts much appreciated.
more...
gcseeker2002
12-13 12:28 PM
All that matters for the french is your stamping, if your passport stamping is valid(even if you are not on that visa anymore), you dont need. If your stamping expired, you need a transit visa, and you need to go in person for the french transit visa, which is not needed for german and british transit visa.
BharatPremi
11-30 06:05 PM
Guys,
If one IV member moves from State A to B, what would be the process of transferring membership to state chapter?
Will it merely be a deleting datbase record from one state and adding it to another state? Or would it be again filling up survey to new state chapter..?
Thanks.
If one IV member moves from State A to B, what would be the process of transferring membership to state chapter?
Will it merely be a deleting datbase record from one state and adding it to another state? Or would it be again filling up survey to new state chapter..?
Thanks.
more...
GCWhru
12-01 09:48 AM
I believe no group is formed for TN. I am requesting people to reply so that we can count and form something.
Thanks
Thanks
LookingForGC
05-10 10:11 AM
The best is yet to come my friends
more...
tempy
09-22 09:09 AM
Thanks, yes our last names were different.
I told the postman.
Its been more than 2 weeks and I didnt get any response from USCIS after updating the address.It still shows initial review.
Does anyone know how long it would take for the USCIS to resend the card?
I'm in a similar situation and I opened an SR today. Did you see any movement?
Thanks,
I told the postman.
Its been more than 2 weeks and I didnt get any response from USCIS after updating the address.It still shows initial review.
Does anyone know how long it would take for the USCIS to resend the card?
I'm in a similar situation and I opened an SR today. Did you see any movement?
Thanks,
immig4me
11-03 10:08 AM
I don't care much for either party, but I do find "talking points" abhorring as it never considers the practical matters...........
What is it about the immigration debate that makes Republicans in Congress act like children?
In the latest stunt, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee - Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions - have signed a letter asking Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to "detail exactly how much funding" would be needed to "ensure that enforcement of the law occurs consistently for every illegal alien encountered and apprehended."
The answer: A lot.
John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told me that Congress appropriates $2.6 billion each year for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants.
According to Morton, ICE is able to apprehend, process and remove a maximum of about 400,000 immigrants per year. (From October 2009 to September 2010, the Obama administration deported 392,862 people.) This is a record, and yet still only a fraction of the estimated 10.3 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
So to remove 10 million illegal immigrants, it would cost about $65 billion.
There you go, senators. Will that be cash or charge?
Of course, there are also the ancillary costs. First, if the federal government were to cast the net wide enough to apprehend large numbers of suspected illegal immigrants, perhaps by substituting skin color for probable cause (see: Arizona), it's likely to ensnare a good number of U.S.-born Latinos who would probably file a flurry of lawsuits for racial profiling, and thus run up the tab. Second, in the time that it takes to detect, detain and deport 10 million illegal immigrants, many of those who had already been removed would come back - and then have to be re-deported at an additional cost. And third, by spending that much more money on enforcement, federal immigration officials would surely inspire smugglers on the other side of the border to raise their prices. This would only enrich and empower the bad guys to bring in still more illegal immigrants.
Then, there is another problem. As incredible as it sounds, deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be disruptive to Americans' way of life. As Morton pointed out, there would likely be massive and debilitating labor shortages, especially in those industries that currently depend more heavily than they should on illegal immigrant labor.
"No one is talking about letting people go on their way with no punishment whatsoever," Morton said. "But we need a rational discussion of the proper sanction in light of the circumstances."
Republicans are really in no position to talk about seriousness. When serious leadership is called for, they offer only theatrics and chest-thumping. They have to realize that, as a practical matter, ICE can't deport every illegal immigrant it comes in contact with. But they don't care. They only want attention.
The GOP has a lot invested in spinning the yarn that the border can be secured and millions of illegal immigrants expelled through a strategy of enforcement only. Once you adopt this line of thinking, the way to explain the fact that there are still millions of illegal immigrants in the United States is to somehow argue that the Obama administration has been slow to deport them.
This was a harmless delusion when Republicans were in the minority in Congress. But now that they are gaining seats, it could become a real nuisance as politicians proceed to lecture law enforcement officials about the best way to enforce the law.
As the country's top immigration enforcement official, Morton is critical of an enforcement-only approach.
"You have to be much more precise than simply saying 'deport them all'," he said. "That kind of attitude doesn't make sense in the context of how you deal with 10.3 million people."
There you have it. Right on cue, seven Republican senators have stopped making sense.
Read more: Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL#ixzz14ETlnYgq)
Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL)
What is it about the immigration debate that makes Republicans in Congress act like children?
In the latest stunt, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee - Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions - have signed a letter asking Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to "detail exactly how much funding" would be needed to "ensure that enforcement of the law occurs consistently for every illegal alien encountered and apprehended."
The answer: A lot.
John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told me that Congress appropriates $2.6 billion each year for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants.
According to Morton, ICE is able to apprehend, process and remove a maximum of about 400,000 immigrants per year. (From October 2009 to September 2010, the Obama administration deported 392,862 people.) This is a record, and yet still only a fraction of the estimated 10.3 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
So to remove 10 million illegal immigrants, it would cost about $65 billion.
There you go, senators. Will that be cash or charge?
Of course, there are also the ancillary costs. First, if the federal government were to cast the net wide enough to apprehend large numbers of suspected illegal immigrants, perhaps by substituting skin color for probable cause (see: Arizona), it's likely to ensnare a good number of U.S.-born Latinos who would probably file a flurry of lawsuits for racial profiling, and thus run up the tab. Second, in the time that it takes to detect, detain and deport 10 million illegal immigrants, many of those who had already been removed would come back - and then have to be re-deported at an additional cost. And third, by spending that much more money on enforcement, federal immigration officials would surely inspire smugglers on the other side of the border to raise their prices. This would only enrich and empower the bad guys to bring in still more illegal immigrants.
Then, there is another problem. As incredible as it sounds, deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be disruptive to Americans' way of life. As Morton pointed out, there would likely be massive and debilitating labor shortages, especially in those industries that currently depend more heavily than they should on illegal immigrant labor.
"No one is talking about letting people go on their way with no punishment whatsoever," Morton said. "But we need a rational discussion of the proper sanction in light of the circumstances."
Republicans are really in no position to talk about seriousness. When serious leadership is called for, they offer only theatrics and chest-thumping. They have to realize that, as a practical matter, ICE can't deport every illegal immigrant it comes in contact with. But they don't care. They only want attention.
The GOP has a lot invested in spinning the yarn that the border can be secured and millions of illegal immigrants expelled through a strategy of enforcement only. Once you adopt this line of thinking, the way to explain the fact that there are still millions of illegal immigrants in the United States is to somehow argue that the Obama administration has been slow to deport them.
This was a harmless delusion when Republicans were in the minority in Congress. But now that they are gaining seats, it could become a real nuisance as politicians proceed to lecture law enforcement officials about the best way to enforce the law.
As the country's top immigration enforcement official, Morton is critical of an enforcement-only approach.
"You have to be much more precise than simply saying 'deport them all'," he said. "That kind of attitude doesn't make sense in the context of how you deal with 10.3 million people."
There you have it. Right on cue, seven Republican senators have stopped making sense.
Read more: Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL#ixzz14ETlnYgq)
Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL)
more...
voldemar
12-26 12:52 PM
When I am working on H1-B, why should I keep my EAD current?You don't need to keep EAD current if you have H1. It's just easier to get new job with EAD if you want to change job or got laid off.
Jaime
09-06 04:49 PM
I have worked in Europe for 4+ years and i can say that life in US and Europe is the same (cost of living is higher in Europe but social security is better). I was seriously considering a move to UK (despite racism) to gain job/life freedom for me and my family. I have HSMP from UK and got a job offer that paid me better (including 35% raise in cost of living) than current US job with flexibility to change employment, also my wife could take up job any day she wants (unlike H4).
You are a poster child of the U.S. Reverse Brain Drain. Shame on Congress if the United States loses you and your family!
You are a poster child of the U.S. Reverse Brain Drain. Shame on Congress if the United States loses you and your family!
more...
roseball
07-16 05:40 PM
Yes, NSC DOES accept 485 applications....
malibuguy007
10-02 09:40 AM
Many of you would have had the chance to discuss with your better halves yesterday night - ready to contribute now? :D
ita
01-10 05:00 PM
While filling the application online for parents visa interview what would be a better answer for the following questions:
Who Will Pay For Your Trip?
What would be a better answer?
Self.
OR
Children(in U.S)
Does it even matter?
Are Any of The Following Persons in The U.S., or Do They Have U.S. Legal Permanent Residence or U.S. Citizenship? *
Mark YES or NO and indicate that person's status in the U.S. (i.e., U.S. legal permanent resident, U.S. citizen, visiting, studying, working, etc.).
Bother/Sister etc.
Would it be better to say ?
No
OR
Mention about the people(siblings of parents) that are here
Was this Application Prepared by Another Person on Your Behalf? *
(If answer is YES, then have that person complete item 40.)
Should we say
Yes
OR
No (When actually Children are filling the application.)
Please Advice
Thank you.
Who Will Pay For Your Trip?
What would be a better answer?
Self.
OR
Children(in U.S)
Does it even matter?
Are Any of The Following Persons in The U.S., or Do They Have U.S. Legal Permanent Residence or U.S. Citizenship? *
Mark YES or NO and indicate that person's status in the U.S. (i.e., U.S. legal permanent resident, U.S. citizen, visiting, studying, working, etc.).
Bother/Sister etc.
Would it be better to say ?
No
OR
Mention about the people(siblings of parents) that are here
Was this Application Prepared by Another Person on Your Behalf? *
(If answer is YES, then have that person complete item 40.)
Should we say
Yes
OR
No (When actually Children are filling the application.)
Please Advice
Thank you.
pady
06-18 07:17 PM
No, I don't have any agreement with my employer. The only noncompete is between my employer and the vendor. The client is happy to work through different vendor.
rangaswamy
02-12 04:13 PM
Hi,
I am from the Philadelphia region. I should be able to apply for my I-140 in a week or so. Does anyone know approximately how long it would take me if I applied the NON-Premium way?
Thanks
Nebrasaka takes anywhere between 3 to 8 months. Texas takes anywhere from 12 days (in my case) to 2 months.
Texas is much faster.
I am from the Philadelphia region. I should be able to apply for my I-140 in a week or so. Does anyone know approximately how long it would take me if I applied the NON-Premium way?
Thanks
Nebrasaka takes anywhere between 3 to 8 months. Texas takes anywhere from 12 days (in my case) to 2 months.
Texas is much faster.