sunny1000
11-27 03:27 PM
Usually I get my Visa stamped in Chennai. I have enough info to survive in Chennai.
This time it is not going to help much as I am going to Mumbai. It is a pain from the first step. I finally got the appointment for 10th Dec. I have to have some body hand deliver documents there in India..Oh well..
I have the appointment at 9:30 AM and was planning to fly out of Mumbai Airport same day at 1:30 PM. Now it looks very ambitious! What do you think? :confused:
I have no idea about lodging near consulate. I tried my luck near the airport many times. It wasn't pretty.
Any recommendation on Hotels and area near consulate ? I am not going near Five star / Rs 10,000 per day.
I am looking at ~ Rs 2,000 for 7 hours..
Any help is appreciated..:)
Waiting Game,
I don't know about Mumbai but, as you know in Chennai, they don't give back the passport until the next day atleast. I got mine 2 days later at Chennai last month, that too by going personally to the VFS office to pick it up. So, you may want to give yourself at least a day for your flight back.
Good luck with your stamping.
This time it is not going to help much as I am going to Mumbai. It is a pain from the first step. I finally got the appointment for 10th Dec. I have to have some body hand deliver documents there in India..Oh well..
I have the appointment at 9:30 AM and was planning to fly out of Mumbai Airport same day at 1:30 PM. Now it looks very ambitious! What do you think? :confused:
I have no idea about lodging near consulate. I tried my luck near the airport many times. It wasn't pretty.
Any recommendation on Hotels and area near consulate ? I am not going near Five star / Rs 10,000 per day.
I am looking at ~ Rs 2,000 for 7 hours..
Any help is appreciated..:)
Waiting Game,
I don't know about Mumbai but, as you know in Chennai, they don't give back the passport until the next day atleast. I got mine 2 days later at Chennai last month, that too by going personally to the VFS office to pick it up. So, you may want to give yourself at least a day for your flight back.
Good luck with your stamping.
wallpaper Adorable white lion cubs for
snathan
06-20 09:45 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
krishmunn
03-27 10:04 AM
I seriously doubt the genuinity of this poster. No authority will hold a valid passport of a foreign country, no country will allow to let one in with a copy of passport heck the airline will not even allow to board without a passport.
This guy may be here just to play some scare tactics.
This guy may be here just to play some scare tactics.
2011 White Lion Cubs – $140000
ash0210
07-18 11:21 AM
My GC is approved but still I want to continue my contribution (in steps of $20) for this good cause....However, I dont see any $20 contributions for last couple of weeks..Is it possible to start contribution of $20 for guy like me who have GC & wants to help for this cause?
more...
knowDOL
05-19 10:22 AM
I agree with GCBy3000. You can't be so straight forward with your employer that you will not work with him after this contract, after all he is sponsoring your future permanent job in United States. That said, you can always act smart and leave company after 6 months filing of I485. Tell him that you will be with him and if your PD is current you should file your I140 and I485 both now. If you are not in good terms with him, there is every possibility that you lose everything you gained including your PD.
If he is not wiling to file I485 even though your PD is current, talk to him and be in good terms with his so he files it, because it is worth it. PD current means a lot. Even if you I140 is approved and if you change company, you can keep the PD but only if he does not use that LC for some one else. Don't create an opening for him to make more money for your position replacing you.
If he is not wiling to file I485 even though your PD is current, talk to him and be in good terms with his so he files it, because it is worth it. PD current means a lot. Even if you I140 is approved and if you change company, you can keep the PD but only if he does not use that LC for some one else. Don't create an opening for him to make more money for your position replacing you.
cox
June 6th, 2005, 09:58 PM
I found a photo from cox on this forum that has a similar light condition.
<Blush> Thanks, Kevin. Skagitswimmer, I often can't use Kevin's technique of getting close, since I am shooting animals most of the time, and they run/fly/swim away. I do something similar though.
If you use the center spot metering mode (the single dot on Canon products), and then pick a subject that is close to you and has a similar albedo (reflectivity/color) as your intended target, you can get a sanity check on exposure. Then take the meter of the real subject, making sure you're not too far off. Then shoot. Then bracket it, a stop up, shoot, and a stop down, shoot. If you're shooting RAW, this will give you enough coverage, and you WILL get the shot since you can adjust exposure again in PS or DPP or whatever you use.
You can get about six stops of range in three frames for a few clicks of a wheel, and that ain't bad. If you're using aperture priority (as I usually am to control DoF) or shutter priority, it's a quick couple of clicks to make the adjustments, and worth the effort. If you're shooting manual, it's a little more effort to decide what to change, but still do-able with stationary subjects. Let us know if these suggestions work for you, or if you come up with a different technique that works better for you. :)
Good Luck!
<Blush> Thanks, Kevin. Skagitswimmer, I often can't use Kevin's technique of getting close, since I am shooting animals most of the time, and they run/fly/swim away. I do something similar though.
If you use the center spot metering mode (the single dot on Canon products), and then pick a subject that is close to you and has a similar albedo (reflectivity/color) as your intended target, you can get a sanity check on exposure. Then take the meter of the real subject, making sure you're not too far off. Then shoot. Then bracket it, a stop up, shoot, and a stop down, shoot. If you're shooting RAW, this will give you enough coverage, and you WILL get the shot since you can adjust exposure again in PS or DPP or whatever you use.
You can get about six stops of range in three frames for a few clicks of a wheel, and that ain't bad. If you're using aperture priority (as I usually am to control DoF) or shutter priority, it's a quick couple of clicks to make the adjustments, and worth the effort. If you're shooting manual, it's a little more effort to decide what to change, but still do-able with stationary subjects. Let us know if these suggestions work for you, or if you come up with a different technique that works better for you. :)
Good Luck!
more...
franklin
07-20 02:30 PM
AP is a must. If you travel out of the country and your GC gets approved while you're away... your H1 becomes invalid and you cannot use it enter US. The only way to return then is AP.
Sure, but I have been told that you need both EAD and AP to be able to travel, not AP alone. Having H1B and AP is no point.
But, I've just re-read your answer - I understand about the H1B invalidated stuff now :) My point was more that AP and EAD seem to go hand in hand, I don't really understand why you wouldn't get both at the same time, especially if H1B has nearly expired.
Sure, but I have been told that you need both EAD and AP to be able to travel, not AP alone. Having H1B and AP is no point.
But, I've just re-read your answer - I understand about the H1B invalidated stuff now :) My point was more that AP and EAD seem to go hand in hand, I don't really understand why you wouldn't get both at the same time, especially if H1B has nearly expired.
2010 White lion cubs
sunny1000
11-14 01:24 PM
My wife's EAD has not yet been approved. It has been 92 days since the receive date. We had an infopass appointment today. I did not apply for EAD.
The officer we met with mentioned that the EAD is issued only after the biometrics are done. I highly doubt this is the norm. Our FP is scheduled for Nov 21st. he said that the service center will electronically send the photo/fp to nebraska. Only then can I expect to see any movement on the EAD application.
I have heard that your FP/biometrics does not have anything to with EAD. However, this officer gave us information that is totally contrary to what we have seen in recent times. He mentioned that this is the latest procedure. He suggested that we should schedule another infopass appointment only If we do not get the EAD 3-4 weeks after the biometrics.
Any inputs from people with similar experience?
Biometrics is not needed for EAD. I received mine with "NO fingerprint available" marked on the card. Please call them back or get another infopass and this time, you might be lucky to talk to somone who knows what they are saying. Or just may be, they changed the rule on the fly a few days ago regarding biometrics and EAD.
The officer we met with mentioned that the EAD is issued only after the biometrics are done. I highly doubt this is the norm. Our FP is scheduled for Nov 21st. he said that the service center will electronically send the photo/fp to nebraska. Only then can I expect to see any movement on the EAD application.
I have heard that your FP/biometrics does not have anything to with EAD. However, this officer gave us information that is totally contrary to what we have seen in recent times. He mentioned that this is the latest procedure. He suggested that we should schedule another infopass appointment only If we do not get the EAD 3-4 weeks after the biometrics.
Any inputs from people with similar experience?
Biometrics is not needed for EAD. I received mine with "NO fingerprint available" marked on the card. Please call them back or get another infopass and this time, you might be lucky to talk to somone who knows what they are saying. Or just may be, they changed the rule on the fly a few days ago regarding biometrics and EAD.
more...
lazycis
05-07 02:16 PM
are you sure of this ..if yes, then how does one do that ..do you need to show you can make the salary mentioned on your own ??
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Question 8. Can an alien port to self-employment under INA �204(j)?
Answer: Yes, as long as the requirements are met. First, the key is whether the employment is in a "same or similar" occupational classification as the job for which the original I-140 petition was filed.
Second, it may be appropriate to confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues.
Third, as with any portability case, USCIS will focus on whether the I-140 petition represented the truly intended employment at the time of the filing of both the I-140 and the I-485. This means that, as of the time of the filing of the I-140 and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Question 8. Can an alien port to self-employment under INA �204(j)?
Answer: Yes, as long as the requirements are met. First, the key is whether the employment is in a "same or similar" occupational classification as the job for which the original I-140 petition was filed.
Second, it may be appropriate to confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues.
Third, as with any portability case, USCIS will focus on whether the I-140 petition represented the truly intended employment at the time of the filing of both the I-140 and the I-485. This means that, as of the time of the filing of the I-140 and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
hair White Lion Cubs Wallpaper.
tinamatthew
07-17 04:04 PM
DOS and USCIS are slow. But it would be really helpful if the IV code team can provide some update on our site. I believe over 2.5 hours have passed since the last update regarding some update in 1 hour. I guess we can't do anything if it takes more time but an update always helps! Thank you.
HERE IS THE UPDATE
UPDATE as of 3:18 PM EST 7/17/2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS will be rescinding its July 2 update and the initial July Visa Bulletin will take effect for 31 days � i.e., all employment-based green card categories (except for the �Other Workers� category) will be �current� and CIS will accept applications through August 17.
DHS will issue a press release to this effect later today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by logiclife : Today at 03:02 PM.
HERE IS THE UPDATE
UPDATE as of 3:18 PM EST 7/17/2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS will be rescinding its July 2 update and the initial July Visa Bulletin will take effect for 31 days � i.e., all employment-based green card categories (except for the �Other Workers� category) will be �current� and CIS will accept applications through August 17.
DHS will issue a press release to this effect later today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by logiclife : Today at 03:02 PM.
more...
sbmallik
09-03 02:27 PM
Correct! TSC is bend on approving cases with later PDs ... no other logic holds ...
hot Three White Lion Cubs Looking
Templarian
11-25 01:17 AM
Just wait till the end and vote for the one that's closest to winning.You probably noticed, but that's what he is doing. :dilbert:
Also, good to see people like Stargate and get that reference.
Also, good to see people like Stargate and get that reference.
more...
house One of four baby white lions
sc3
07-12 08:08 PM
It is partly true. You get stuck in name check , somebody get stuck at I-140, All in all this whole system is purposefully created to keep doors locked "legallly". The first and foremost question should be how the hell government has decided 140000 visas not 40000 and not 240000 but only 140000 and why the hell discrimination against people from only 4 countries?
And what is your argument for the numbers to be 40000 or 240000? Everyone will be dissatisfied with whatever number that is alloted (how did they reach 65 for H1B, or how did they decide on 195000 for a few years).
Also there is no discrimination against "only 4 countries", there is a cap on any country taking more than 7% of the visa numbers (ok, I will not go whether such a cap is warranted), which was set way too long ago.
When you throw the "D" word, make sure you have the facts right. We all are frustrated, but it not an excuse for us to throw baseless accusations.
No I am not a USGOV stooge, I am another legal immigrant waiting -- for long enough time -- for his turn.
And what is your argument for the numbers to be 40000 or 240000? Everyone will be dissatisfied with whatever number that is alloted (how did they reach 65 for H1B, or how did they decide on 195000 for a few years).
Also there is no discrimination against "only 4 countries", there is a cap on any country taking more than 7% of the visa numbers (ok, I will not go whether such a cap is warranted), which was set way too long ago.
When you throw the "D" word, make sure you have the facts right. We all are frustrated, but it not an excuse for us to throw baseless accusations.
No I am not a USGOV stooge, I am another legal immigrant waiting -- for long enough time -- for his turn.
tattoo The four white lion cubs were
chanduv23
02-26 09:23 AM
Where is the best place to learn Peoplesoft ? What is future scope of Peoplesoft ? Also where is a good place to learn SAP or Oracle Financials ?
Do local Univ or Community colleges - Computer Science or MIS departments offter these classes ? Does one need to learn C to learn these applications ?
My only prior programming experience is in Basic and Fortran languages eons ago.
A lot of Indian consulting companies offer training prior to marketing yoour resume. Check them out, some medium size ones, big ones have purchased training licences and fulltime trainers in ERP packages like Oracle Finaicials, Peoplesoft, Siebel etc... Though all these are now owned by Oracle.
A good way to enter IT as you have an MBA is try to get into Data warehousing. This woouldd involve a lot of Oracle traning and there are a lot of companies who give beefore they place you on projects. But remember that once you go through consulting companies, andd based on the fact they trained you and placed you, they will pay you a average deceent salary butwill charge the cllient tons of money and client would expect you to work for whhat he gives
Do local Univ or Community colleges - Computer Science or MIS departments offter these classes ? Does one need to learn C to learn these applications ?
My only prior programming experience is in Basic and Fortran languages eons ago.
A lot of Indian consulting companies offer training prior to marketing yoour resume. Check them out, some medium size ones, big ones have purchased training licences and fulltime trainers in ERP packages like Oracle Finaicials, Peoplesoft, Siebel etc... Though all these are now owned by Oracle.
A good way to enter IT as you have an MBA is try to get into Data warehousing. This woouldd involve a lot of Oracle traning and there are a lot of companies who give beefore they place you on projects. But remember that once you go through consulting companies, andd based on the fact they trained you and placed you, they will pay you a average deceent salary butwill charge the cllient tons of money and client would expect you to work for whhat he gives
more...
pictures Rare white lion cubs have
BharatPremi
07-15 11:11 PM
Guys,
Just recently moved from Milwaukee, WI to Plano, TX (DFW) area. Just let me know what need to be done from my side. Awaiting eagerly.
- BharatPremi
Just recently moved from Milwaukee, WI to Plano, TX (DFW) area. Just let me know what need to be done from my side. Awaiting eagerly.
- BharatPremi
dresses White+lion+cubs+photo
Nil
11-10 02:54 PM
^^^^
more...
makeup White Lion Cub, Mogo Zoo
lj_rr
11-24 12:19 PM
I had the same issue with Country of Citizenship.
So when sending supporting docs, I attached a page in front (with super large font and different color paper) requesting this correction for Country of Birth. Everything went through fine and got EAD.
@sameer2730 :
So when you made the mistake "Country Of Citizenship" on your EAD eFile, how did you get that corrected? Did you send in a "Request For Correction" along with your supporting documentation to USCIS? Did they send you an RFE or did they accept your docs and approved your EAD?
Sent the request for correction with my supporting documents.
-- I have done the same mistake, so can you please tell what exactly you did. I mean did you call the helpline and is there any format in which we need to "Request for correction".
And once you sent the "Request for Correction", was it ok. Or is there any problem with the correction.
Please help me with your advice. I am completely in dilemma as to what needs to done..
Thanks in advance..
Vinay
So when sending supporting docs, I attached a page in front (with super large font and different color paper) requesting this correction for Country of Birth. Everything went through fine and got EAD.
@sameer2730 :
So when you made the mistake "Country Of Citizenship" on your EAD eFile, how did you get that corrected? Did you send in a "Request For Correction" along with your supporting documentation to USCIS? Did they send you an RFE or did they accept your docs and approved your EAD?
Sent the request for correction with my supporting documents.
-- I have done the same mistake, so can you please tell what exactly you did. I mean did you call the helpline and is there any format in which we need to "Request for correction".
And once you sent the "Request for Correction", was it ok. Or is there any problem with the correction.
Please help me with your advice. I am completely in dilemma as to what needs to done..
Thanks in advance..
Vinay
girlfriend The white lion is not a
sanju
02-05 03:58 PM
Cris,
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
I guess, thats what Chris was asking :D
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
I guess, thats what Chris was asking :D
hairstyles Three rare white lion cubs,
jungalee43
03-01 08:19 PM
Is our fax campaign continuing or on hold for the time being?
We have learnt some lessons at the time of S1932. Our campaign was dead after HR4241 was passed and we were waiting for conference committe to be announced. This was the period when the campaign of NumbersUSA and FAIR actually peaked. They in fact advised members to stop faxes two days before the conference committee was announced. Their organizers knew how the conferences work and they finished work before the committee was formally announced.
Of course with QGA guiding us this time we are not going to repeat that mistake. Our campaigns should focus on senate and house separately & exactly when it is needed and must reach peak just at right time. With limited options available to us as 'aliens', actually meeting representitives or their staff should be the approach. One meeting is equal to ten faxes.
We have learnt some lessons at the time of S1932. Our campaign was dead after HR4241 was passed and we were waiting for conference committe to be announced. This was the period when the campaign of NumbersUSA and FAIR actually peaked. They in fact advised members to stop faxes two days before the conference committee was announced. Their organizers knew how the conferences work and they finished work before the committee was formally announced.
Of course with QGA guiding us this time we are not going to repeat that mistake. Our campaigns should focus on senate and house separately & exactly when it is needed and must reach peak just at right time. With limited options available to us as 'aliens', actually meeting representitives or their staff should be the approach. One meeting is equal to ten faxes.
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.
helmet
01-15 08:37 PM
I think they will send the results with in a week time. you have to mail them the original results certificate with in 120days.
No comments:
Post a Comment