53885
05-12 07:44 PM
Sent 610 emails to media organizations in Western states (CA,OR,WA,AZ,NV) through AILA website.
wallpaper Chanca Piedra es la solución
desigun
09-10 12:58 PM
I have a full time offer from a county school (non - profit), that is related to an institution of higher education. (submitted an agreement between the school and the univ)
got an RFE, asking for 'substantiating documentary evidence that the beneficiary is enrolled in the program with the univ' ; This exemption cannot be claimed for other employees of the nonprofit in or through this jointly managed program.
Is it necessary that the beneficiary should be enrolled in agreement or a mere relationship is not sufficient???
Any suggestions....
Thanks
got an RFE, asking for 'substantiating documentary evidence that the beneficiary is enrolled in the program with the univ' ; This exemption cannot be claimed for other employees of the nonprofit in or through this jointly managed program.
Is it necessary that the beneficiary should be enrolled in agreement or a mere relationship is not sufficient???
Any suggestions....
Thanks
inskrish
08-02 12:37 AM
Here is my prediction.
Once all receipting is done by Sept 17th for all late Aug 17th filers, they will immediately start processing all oct 08 current cases.
Do you think by Sep.17th receipting would have been completed? :-)
Regards,
IK
Once all receipting is done by Sept 17th for all late Aug 17th filers, they will immediately start processing all oct 08 current cases.
Do you think by Sep.17th receipting would have been completed? :-)
Regards,
IK
2011 inflamacin Calculos+en+la+
pritibshah
06-24 08:35 PM
Hi,
I recently (one month back) got laid off from the company who filed for my green card. Today i got RFE on my 485 (AOS) requesting "currently dated and original letter from current employerthat specifies dates of employment, current postion, wage, and that the terms and conditions of the empployment petition continue to exist".
I am not working with the company anymore but I am on their payroll till July 21st 2009.
I am still looking for a new job so i don't have any prospective employer yet. I have to reply back before July 19th so I don't have enough time left.
My company said they can't give me employment letter now so my companies lawyer suggested that they will send reply with their own cover letter and my last two months paystubs. 3 years of tax returns.
Do you think it will work and it won't cause any problems to my petition?
What other options do I have ?
Thanks in advance!
I recently (one month back) got laid off from the company who filed for my green card. Today i got RFE on my 485 (AOS) requesting "currently dated and original letter from current employerthat specifies dates of employment, current postion, wage, and that the terms and conditions of the empployment petition continue to exist".
I am not working with the company anymore but I am on their payroll till July 21st 2009.
I am still looking for a new job so i don't have any prospective employer yet. I have to reply back before July 19th so I don't have enough time left.
My company said they can't give me employment letter now so my companies lawyer suggested that they will send reply with their own cover letter and my last two months paystubs. 3 years of tax returns.
Do you think it will work and it won't cause any problems to my petition?
What other options do I have ?
Thanks in advance!
more...
sabr
09-18 03:37 PM
If I work little less than 40 hrs will it be considered as part time? Can I use EAD at that time ?
rockstart
06-16 10:06 AM
I think we need the list of new congress men/ women to call as part of phase 4 of the campaign.
more...
cox
October 23rd, 2005, 08:59 AM
Hi Michael, nice shots. It's easy to see that you brought the discipline and hard work of your nature work to the studio. What was your lighting setup? Flash? strobes?...
Thanks, Kevin. I'm somewhat embarassed, as I did not use any lighting setup, so your attribution of hard work is, I fear, a little misplaced. I have this house with full floor-to-ceiling windows, and was using natural morning light, diffused by the fog that has hung over the bay for the last week in the AM. I used the camera's meter, either spot or center weighted, with manual bracketing when I thought that was insufficient, as was the case with the wreath & red roses.
...I would be interested in knowing the shooting parameters of these shots, what lenses used, etc...
I was using the 1DMII, and three lenses; the 50mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and my newly purchased 16-35mm f/2.8L. Most important was the Manfrotto tripod that allows nearly infinite positioning flexibility. As I said before, I made a cheesy PVC pipe frame and welders clips to hang backgrounds (<10 min fabrication time, <$10). All cases used low f stops, 2-6, & long exposures at low ISO for better quality. I was using the low f stops to help hide the imprefections in the background and give the soft focus effect the customer is looking for.
Good luck! I'm off to the Islands for a week.
I hope islands far from caribbean hurricanes!!
Thanks for the input, all. I suppose that I ought to look at getting some lights... Since I was using natural light, we (customer & I) didn't finish yesterday, and I will have to do the last pieces today (about 2 dozen total). That will also allow me to go over contact sheets with her.
Thanks, Kevin. I'm somewhat embarassed, as I did not use any lighting setup, so your attribution of hard work is, I fear, a little misplaced. I have this house with full floor-to-ceiling windows, and was using natural morning light, diffused by the fog that has hung over the bay for the last week in the AM. I used the camera's meter, either spot or center weighted, with manual bracketing when I thought that was insufficient, as was the case with the wreath & red roses.
...I would be interested in knowing the shooting parameters of these shots, what lenses used, etc...
I was using the 1DMII, and three lenses; the 50mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and my newly purchased 16-35mm f/2.8L. Most important was the Manfrotto tripod that allows nearly infinite positioning flexibility. As I said before, I made a cheesy PVC pipe frame and welders clips to hang backgrounds (<10 min fabrication time, <$10). All cases used low f stops, 2-6, & long exposures at low ISO for better quality. I was using the low f stops to help hide the imprefections in the background and give the soft focus effect the customer is looking for.
Good luck! I'm off to the Islands for a week.
I hope islands far from caribbean hurricanes!!
Thanks for the input, all. I suppose that I ought to look at getting some lights... Since I was using natural light, we (customer & I) didn't finish yesterday, and I will have to do the last pieces today (about 2 dozen total). That will also allow me to go over contact sheets with her.
2010 piedras en la vesícula,
moonrah
06-13 06:03 PM
does it mean, it was not discussed at all and it is going to be discussed next week?
more...
gc28262
07-12 12:31 AM
Are all these paper based filings or e-filings?
I e-filed EAD/AP renewals on May 25th, 2009. Applications are at TSC. My AP got approved on June 19th and I received the AP documents on June 20th. However, my EAD application is still pending since May 25th. I think most, if not all, EAD e-files receive a FP notice and they take a picture as well as FP when we go to the ASC. I haven't received FP notice either so far. From what I am seeing, EAD paper based filing is being processed much faster (2-3 weeks) than e-filings. Anyone who e-filed EAD could pls let us know how long it took for FP notice and EAD approval.
Mine was an e-filing. However my FP scheduling was quite weird.
I had my FP scheduled for 11/13
but my Card Production was Ordered on 11/12
I still went ahead and gave my FP on 11/13.
I e-filed EAD/AP renewals on May 25th, 2009. Applications are at TSC. My AP got approved on June 19th and I received the AP documents on June 20th. However, my EAD application is still pending since May 25th. I think most, if not all, EAD e-files receive a FP notice and they take a picture as well as FP when we go to the ASC. I haven't received FP notice either so far. From what I am seeing, EAD paper based filing is being processed much faster (2-3 weeks) than e-filings. Anyone who e-filed EAD could pls let us know how long it took for FP notice and EAD approval.
Mine was an e-filing. However my FP scheduling was quite weird.
I had my FP scheduled for 11/13
but my Card Production was Ordered on 11/12
I still went ahead and gave my FP on 11/13.
hair La vesícula biliar es un
iv_only_hope
02-16 09:47 PM
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
more...
dehradoon
02-10 04:55 PM
Hi all,
I have received my EAD in oct 07 and my AP last month, with my spouse being primary applicant. Currently I am on h1b, however, I have a better offer at hand thro another employer who does not sponsor h1b. I was searching for posts on comparing h1b vs ead..but could not locate one.
Could someone enlighten me on this issue as to what wld be common issues that are raised if one switches to ead (other than the possibility of being out of status). I am presuming that if my spouse stays on h1b I can switch to h4 status if required?
Please advice..I need to make a decision this weekend!!
Thanks
San
Has it been 180 days since your 485 was filed. You can switch if YES, Valid H1B is an extra umbrella when using EAD if something goes wrong with EAD. Honestly, I do not see any benefit of H1B over EAD except that it can be valid for longer period of time where as EAD needs to be extended every year ....
I have received my EAD in oct 07 and my AP last month, with my spouse being primary applicant. Currently I am on h1b, however, I have a better offer at hand thro another employer who does not sponsor h1b. I was searching for posts on comparing h1b vs ead..but could not locate one.
Could someone enlighten me on this issue as to what wld be common issues that are raised if one switches to ead (other than the possibility of being out of status). I am presuming that if my spouse stays on h1b I can switch to h4 status if required?
Please advice..I need to make a decision this weekend!!
Thanks
San
Has it been 180 days since your 485 was filed. You can switch if YES, Valid H1B is an extra umbrella when using EAD if something goes wrong with EAD. Honestly, I do not see any benefit of H1B over EAD except that it can be valid for longer period of time where as EAD needs to be extended every year ....
hot piedras en la vesicula. vesicula purulenta diabeticos
onemorecame
07-25 11:45 AM
Here is the calculation I came up with USCIS processing of our I-485 applications.
USCIS should allocate 140,000 applications in a fiscal year. So, in a month they need to process, at least, 140,000/ 12 = 11,667 applications.
Assuming that they have, at least, 20 working days in a month, they need to process 11,667/ 20 = 584 applications.
So, now the question is, how many employees does USCIS have and are dedicated to the I-485 processing? We don�t know the exact number. Considering that USCIS is getting lot of revenue, they should have, at least, 50 employees doing this work.
So, 584/50 = 12(Approx) applications they need to process in a day, per person.
So, do you think it is viable? Of course, it is�
What they need to process the I-485 application? They are not doing any FBI names check, or background check (Assuming that everything is done by other organization). So, how long does it take to review the I-485 application? Well, when I filled the application, it took me about 1 hour. So, to review it, let�s us say, it takes about 1/2 the time fill the application; that�s about half an hour. Considering the calculation that we made, it takes an about 6 hours to process 12 candidates. With this assumption, they still have 2 hours left to do miscellaneous tasks. Now the question is what the heck they are doing all the time? Why did they process only 80,000 applications in about 8 months? Are they lazy? Don�t they have enough employees (This shouldn�t be; an average Indian consultant company will have at least 20 employees!!). This is really a mystery. Anyways, if the USCIS really and whole heartedly wants to process the applications, they can; but they really don�t care about immigrants or their plights. :rolleyes:
Good Calculation
USCIS should allocate 140,000 applications in a fiscal year. So, in a month they need to process, at least, 140,000/ 12 = 11,667 applications.
Assuming that they have, at least, 20 working days in a month, they need to process 11,667/ 20 = 584 applications.
So, now the question is, how many employees does USCIS have and are dedicated to the I-485 processing? We don�t know the exact number. Considering that USCIS is getting lot of revenue, they should have, at least, 50 employees doing this work.
So, 584/50 = 12(Approx) applications they need to process in a day, per person.
So, do you think it is viable? Of course, it is�
What they need to process the I-485 application? They are not doing any FBI names check, or background check (Assuming that everything is done by other organization). So, how long does it take to review the I-485 application? Well, when I filled the application, it took me about 1 hour. So, to review it, let�s us say, it takes about 1/2 the time fill the application; that�s about half an hour. Considering the calculation that we made, it takes an about 6 hours to process 12 candidates. With this assumption, they still have 2 hours left to do miscellaneous tasks. Now the question is what the heck they are doing all the time? Why did they process only 80,000 applications in about 8 months? Are they lazy? Don�t they have enough employees (This shouldn�t be; an average Indian consultant company will have at least 20 employees!!). This is really a mystery. Anyways, if the USCIS really and whole heartedly wants to process the applications, they can; but they really don�t care about immigrants or their plights. :rolleyes:
Good Calculation
more...
house de recoger las piedras.
ashkam
08-17 08:41 AM
Hi Guys,
I am on H1B and my wife is working using her EAD. Like most people on here we applied in the July 2007 rush.
Now her licence in PA was expiring and we went to renew it and provided ALL necessary documents such as Passport, I-94, current and future EADs. However at the very end after about half an hour of providing documents, the DMV guy said that the system needed "more info" and that he would have to fax everything to Harrisburg who would then contact the INS for the missing info and we would get some "letter" from the DMV.
Has anyone faced a similar issue in PA before? If so how soon after did they receive this letter? Is there anything I can do to expedite the process such as contacting my local Sentator/Congressman's office? We have a small baby and my wife needs to drive to go to work.
Thanks.
Which area of PA are you in? If you're in Southeastern PA near Philly, try the Malvern DMV. They accept I-485 receipts.
I am on H1B and my wife is working using her EAD. Like most people on here we applied in the July 2007 rush.
Now her licence in PA was expiring and we went to renew it and provided ALL necessary documents such as Passport, I-94, current and future EADs. However at the very end after about half an hour of providing documents, the DMV guy said that the system needed "more info" and that he would have to fax everything to Harrisburg who would then contact the INS for the missing info and we would get some "letter" from the DMV.
Has anyone faced a similar issue in PA before? If so how soon after did they receive this letter? Is there anything I can do to expedite the process such as contacting my local Sentator/Congressman's office? We have a small baby and my wife needs to drive to go to work.
Thanks.
Which area of PA are you in? If you're in Southeastern PA near Philly, try the Malvern DMV. They accept I-485 receipts.
tattoo Piedras en la Vesicula
dixie
02-10 07:30 PM
I agree - the UK govt's policy statement, at least on the doctor's issue was clear : "We had a shortage earlier, therefore we needed foreign doctors. The shortage no longer exists, so we no longer need you. Please leave before mm-dd-yyyy". Contrast that with the US govts "we love your brains but hate your bodies policy" .. on one hand corporations cannot do without foreign skilled labor, at the same time folks like Lou FOULMOUTH and his cronies in congress and elsewhere cannot do without bashing them. In the tug-of-war between these two parties, we are left to rot on the sidelines - neither kicked out, nor allowed a rightful place to progress in society. If thats the case, why don't they simply remove the dual intent clause (and all those 1-yr / 3yr dole-outs aka extensions) from the H1-B program ? Thats better than having to live 15 years on an H1-B.
UK is at lease clear what is their immigration policy. I would like to have similar stand from US Govt where they come out and say in clear words "we don't want to in here" OR "Come here, work for 6 years and leave" OR "we cant you to stay and fix the GC process.
UK is at lease clear what is their immigration policy. I would like to have similar stand from US Govt where they come out and say in clear words "we don't want to in here" OR "Come here, work for 6 years and leave" OR "we cant you to stay and fix the GC process.
more...
pictures Estas piedras son una pasada!
senthil
08-08 09:05 AM
roseball, agree. got same resp from my attorney while filing AOS for my wife
1) employment letter ( just sent original & copies too )
2) I-134 ( convinced that they will need this even for H4 dependent )
3) did not ask for W2's or pay stubs
4) of course original medicals in closed envelope
5) all previous H4 approvals + I94's and color photocopy of entire passport
6) photos and required cheque's
hope mrdelhiite is all set ?
Yes, its good to file I-134 especially when she is on H4. Paystubs and tax returns are not required documents though a lot of people tend to submit them. Just an employment letter from your employer would suffice. You dont need to include your I-20 with your wife's application....However, do include her medicals, though its not part of the initial evidence......
1) employment letter ( just sent original & copies too )
2) I-134 ( convinced that they will need this even for H4 dependent )
3) did not ask for W2's or pay stubs
4) of course original medicals in closed envelope
5) all previous H4 approvals + I94's and color photocopy of entire passport
6) photos and required cheque's
hope mrdelhiite is all set ?
Yes, its good to file I-134 especially when she is on H4. Paystubs and tax returns are not required documents though a lot of people tend to submit them. Just an employment letter from your employer would suffice. You dont need to include your I-20 with your wife's application....However, do include her medicals, though its not part of the initial evidence......
dresses calculos biliares
gctoget
09-10 06:08 PM
Placed a google order for $100
Google Order #570596617489866
Google Order #570596617489866
more...
makeup (piedras en la vesícula
sapota
07-15 10:22 PM
Me am in Austin.
After 2 LCs + 1 substituted labor + 10 years of crawling in this crap hole & no green card yet, the least I can do is participate in something that show our plight. Count me in for any rally.
After 2 LCs + 1 substituted labor + 10 years of crawling in this crap hole & no green card yet, the least I can do is participate in something that show our plight. Count me in for any rally.
girlfriend Calculos en la Vesicula metodo
rongha_2000
10-02 01:17 PM
Thank you.. THis is very helpful.
You do not have to apply for new SSN but do the following taken from SSA website:
If your work eligibility has changed or if have become a U.S. citizen, you must apply for a replacement card. Your replacement card will no longer read �Not Valid for Employment,� but you will retain the same Social Security number.
To get a replacement card:
Complete an Application For A Social Security Card (Form SS-5); and
Show us documents proving your:
Immigration status;
Work eligibility; and
Identity.
Take (or mail) your completed application and documents to your local Social Security office.
All documents must be either originals or copies certified by the issuing agency. We cannot accept photocopies or notarized copies of documents.
We will mail your number and card as soon as we have all of your information and have verified your documents.
For details about the type of evidence you must provide, see Social Security Numbers For Noncitizens (Publication No. 05-10096) or Documents You Need for a Social Security Card.
You do not have to apply for new SSN but do the following taken from SSA website:
If your work eligibility has changed or if have become a U.S. citizen, you must apply for a replacement card. Your replacement card will no longer read �Not Valid for Employment,� but you will retain the same Social Security number.
To get a replacement card:
Complete an Application For A Social Security Card (Form SS-5); and
Show us documents proving your:
Immigration status;
Work eligibility; and
Identity.
Take (or mail) your completed application and documents to your local Social Security office.
All documents must be either originals or copies certified by the issuing agency. We cannot accept photocopies or notarized copies of documents.
We will mail your number and card as soon as we have all of your information and have verified your documents.
For details about the type of evidence you must provide, see Social Security Numbers For Noncitizens (Publication No. 05-10096) or Documents You Need for a Social Security Card.
hairstyles PIEDRAS EN LA VESÍCULA BUEN
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.
seahawks
07-19 12:58 AM
I mean i filed without both of those. Theyare required in the 140 phase , not in 485.
But keep them handy - in case they wants mail by next day air
if you are filing for your spouse and if you are sponsoring your spouse, you have to show evidence of income.. There is a form that you fill with it,.
But keep them handy - in case they wants mail by next day air
if you are filing for your spouse and if you are sponsoring your spouse, you have to show evidence of income.. There is a form that you fill with it,.
seahawks
01-31 11:48 PM
Stay focussed, support IV goals, help raise funds, volunteer, spread the word on retrogression and believe in you and for the same cause! Remember, immigration law is complicated, no matter who provides information or posts reply, always consult a qualified attorney for your own case.
No comments:
Post a Comment