vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
ssss
01-10 06:43 PM
My husband's case was transferred from CSC to TSC. We haven't received the FP notice yet. USCIS status "The I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS was transferred and is now pending standard processing at a USCIS office". when we called customer service cust service rep informed that we need to wait 180 days after the transfer for FP
Pineapple
03-06 03:23 PM
I just faxed the letter from USCIS asking for $ 5000. (I had received it yesterday)
gparr
January 5th, 2005, 06:56 AM
Like this one a lot. I agree with Queen that it would be interesting to see one of the pots colored. Might try rotating the image so the pipe on the right is vertical. 2 deg. CW did it for me. Squares up the image better. Nice shooting.
more...
joshraj
10-11 10:26 AM
Hi Friends,
We had sent our apps to Nebraska on July 26 but we received a transfer notice for 485 from vermont with a receipt date of Sept 26 and notice date of Oct 3.
I always thought the receipt date of my application is the day when our application reached the center.
Can someone help explaining this....
Thanks,
We had sent our apps to Nebraska on July 26 but we received a transfer notice for 485 from vermont with a receipt date of Sept 26 and notice date of Oct 3.
I always thought the receipt date of my application is the day when our application reached the center.
Can someone help explaining this....
Thanks,
sr77
09-26 11:45 AM
Hello,
The 485 applications for me and wife are still being processed by USCIS in Los Angeles. My priority date (August 1, 2005) became current almost 3 months ago.
We have waited patiently since the priority date became current. There has been no movement except that they wanted to fingerprint us again, which we completed 2 months ago. My lawyer says he put in two referral inquiries but of no avail.
I have already obtained InfoPass for a couple of weeks from now. I will go and check in with the USCIS office here in LA.
1. What should my next steps be? Write to my senator? Or should I wait until after the InfoPass appointment
2. Am I pushing too hard on USCIS? Is it that they are simply backlogged? Should I just wait more?
I am concerned that the dates will retrogress again. Any advice or comments will be helpful.
Thanks,
SR
The 485 applications for me and wife are still being processed by USCIS in Los Angeles. My priority date (August 1, 2005) became current almost 3 months ago.
We have waited patiently since the priority date became current. There has been no movement except that they wanted to fingerprint us again, which we completed 2 months ago. My lawyer says he put in two referral inquiries but of no avail.
I have already obtained InfoPass for a couple of weeks from now. I will go and check in with the USCIS office here in LA.
1. What should my next steps be? Write to my senator? Or should I wait until after the InfoPass appointment
2. Am I pushing too hard on USCIS? Is it that they are simply backlogged? Should I just wait more?
I am concerned that the dates will retrogress again. Any advice or comments will be helpful.
Thanks,
SR
more...
abracadabra
06-15 01:43 PM
It is law that he has to give the experience letter from previous employer
loudobbs
10-09 05:40 PM
This is very useful information. So it is the Job Classification code that is important right??
I agree - the post is a little erroneous. I'll try change it.
Cant change the thread title ... Sorry
I agree - the post is a little erroneous. I'll try change it.
Cant change the thread title ... Sorry
more...
amsgc
08-07 09:55 PM
why is name check still an issue? I thought the Feb memo spelt it out in no uncertain terms.
kaisersose
07-24 11:21 PM
Good news is that I'm working again. While I was out of a job, I converted from H1 to EAD under my previous employer (consultancy).
Now, I've finally found a job although this is a full time opportunity. I'm going to be using my EAD / AC21 .
Question: Since I'm no longer working for my previous employer, they are going to be revoking my I140 next month. I believe this is not a problem since my case has been pending for more than 180 days so that's a good thing.. What I do want to know is whether my status is in any jeopardy since I haven't generated any income for about 3 months?
Thanks for any replies. I really need to find out the answer to this. A lot of forum info suggests that I'm ok but I'd very much like to hear any / all viewpoints on this issue.
No. You are fine. If you are absolutely sure that your 140 will be revoked, then you may want to consider notifying CIS about your job change. It is not mandatory, but there is a chance that it may help avoid the nuisance of CIS making a mistake and denying the 485 and you having to reverse their decision through an MTR.
Now, I've finally found a job although this is a full time opportunity. I'm going to be using my EAD / AC21 .
Question: Since I'm no longer working for my previous employer, they are going to be revoking my I140 next month. I believe this is not a problem since my case has been pending for more than 180 days so that's a good thing.. What I do want to know is whether my status is in any jeopardy since I haven't generated any income for about 3 months?
Thanks for any replies. I really need to find out the answer to this. A lot of forum info suggests that I'm ok but I'd very much like to hear any / all viewpoints on this issue.
No. You are fine. If you are absolutely sure that your 140 will be revoked, then you may want to consider notifying CIS about your job change. It is not mandatory, but there is a chance that it may help avoid the nuisance of CIS making a mistake and denying the 485 and you having to reverse their decision through an MTR.
more...
WillIBLucky
11-17 01:56 PM
That brings up a good point, why do you think all the PDs are moving except India?
Is there really that many applicants from India than China
The problem is even CIS layed off many people since 2004 and now are left with few people to work on. The left out people are not "like Indians in USA" kind of people.
And further more they cannot offshore processing to India as well. So what do they do......hmm lets retrogress Indians. Its working for them.
Is there really that many applicants from India than China
The problem is even CIS layed off many people since 2004 and now are left with few people to work on. The left out people are not "like Indians in USA" kind of people.
And further more they cannot offshore processing to India as well. So what do they do......hmm lets retrogress Indians. Its working for them.
bkshres
10-20 03:02 PM
My old attorney was appointed by my old employer but after I left my old company, my old attorney was working as my personal attorney and her contract with my old company was also over. and I kind of have good understanding with him. He was helpful in general scenarios as well.
But I am not sure whether I should switch the attorney. My worry is what if I tell my old attorney that I am doing G28 to new attorney from new employer and G28 form never reach USCIS file? then all the correspondence will goto my old attorney.... what will happen in those scenario?
Thanks,
BK
But I am not sure whether I should switch the attorney. My worry is what if I tell my old attorney that I am doing G28 to new attorney from new employer and G28 form never reach USCIS file? then all the correspondence will goto my old attorney.... what will happen in those scenario?
Thanks,
BK
more...
jonty_11
07-16 03:28 PM
please also post ur details, PD, Country ND, RD etc...
sanjay02
07-28 02:47 AM
Hi
My PD is Nov 2005 , I had I-485 interview in Feb 2009, because dates werent current I was given a letter saying "Your case has been continued because of VISA unavailability"
My question is if I claim unemployment insurance would I have issues in GC adjucation? ( Since my case is already pre-adjucated)?
Thnks
My PD is Nov 2005 , I had I-485 interview in Feb 2009, because dates werent current I was given a letter saying "Your case has been continued because of VISA unavailability"
My question is if I claim unemployment insurance would I have issues in GC adjucation? ( Since my case is already pre-adjucated)?
Thnks
more...
eldrick
08-16 04:44 PM
Thanks that made feel better. Thank you again guys for your help.
EkAurAaya
03-19 06:43 PM
no ones ever sold a house on H1B or EAD? :confused:
more...
tonyHK12
01-11 10:08 AM
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
Yes true, it still has amnesty for anyone who entered below 13 and didn't break the - they would get PAV immediately.
I was refering to blogfeed that inspite, says the second part is bad - "few ideas - such as introducing a new extremely cumbersome process to get the green card after ten years - are really bad."
It sounds like a haggling game, whoever makes more noise gets their due.
Yes true, it still has amnesty for anyone who entered below 13 and didn't break the - they would get PAV immediately.
I was refering to blogfeed that inspite, says the second part is bad - "few ideas - such as introducing a new extremely cumbersome process to get the green card after ten years - are really bad."
It sounds like a haggling game, whoever makes more noise gets their due.
andy garcia
07-30 02:54 PM
but we do get the original FP notice , right?
That is correct. I meant Lawyers get copies. we get the originals.
That is correct. I meant Lawyers get copies. we get the originals.
newbie2020
03-21 06:07 AM
When we had our baby, There was lot of insistence from parents to have the baby born in India. Me and my wife had a discussion and we decided it is best interest of the baby to be born in US. We didn't want him to go through the same pain of H1,H4, EAD, GC etc and opted to have him born in US. Yes i know it is little tough since you need your parents to come and stay for few months once baby is born But i would advise go for having your baby born in US than in India. We always thought this was one of best gifts we were giving to our baby when he was born.
As far as your case is concerned being on EAD will not help if baby is born in India. You will either need to change your status to H1 and get baby on H4 and subsequently EAD or be prepared to have the baby grow in India until your priority dates become current. So choice is yours.
As far as your case is concerned being on EAD will not help if baby is born in India. You will either need to change your status to H1 and get baby on H4 and subsequently EAD or be prepared to have the baby grow in India until your priority dates become current. So choice is yours.
TomPlate
12-12 03:56 PM
I am there file in July 2007.
michael_trs
05-12 02:51 PM
Please review my ETA 9089, it must fit EB2.
H.3. Job title: SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER
H.4. Education: minimum level required: MASTER'S
H.4-B. Major field of study: COMPUTER SCIENCE
H.5. Is training required in the job opportunity? NO
H.6. Is experience in the job offered required for the job? YES
H.6-A. If Yes, number of months experience required: 12
7. Is there an alternate field of study that is acceptable? NO
H.8. Is there an alternate combination of education and experience that is acceptable? NO
H.11. Job duties:
Analyze, design, coordinate and supervise the development of software systems.....
Design and develop programming systems making specific determinations....
Responsible for development of new programs, analyzes...
Responsible for analysis of current programs including performance�.
Review and repair legacy code�.
H.12. Are the job opportunity's requirements normal for the occupation? YES
H.14. Specific skills or other requirements: EMPTY
I am not quite sure about H.6, H.6-A. My understanding is that a senior s/w developer position requires experience, at least 1 year. On the other hand Masters�s degree + 12 months of experience may exceed SVP.
Thank you,
H.3. Job title: SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER
H.4. Education: minimum level required: MASTER'S
H.4-B. Major field of study: COMPUTER SCIENCE
H.5. Is training required in the job opportunity? NO
H.6. Is experience in the job offered required for the job? YES
H.6-A. If Yes, number of months experience required: 12
7. Is there an alternate field of study that is acceptable? NO
H.8. Is there an alternate combination of education and experience that is acceptable? NO
H.11. Job duties:
Analyze, design, coordinate and supervise the development of software systems.....
Design and develop programming systems making specific determinations....
Responsible for development of new programs, analyzes...
Responsible for analysis of current programs including performance�.
Review and repair legacy code�.
H.12. Are the job opportunity's requirements normal for the occupation? YES
H.14. Specific skills or other requirements: EMPTY
I am not quite sure about H.6, H.6-A. My understanding is that a senior s/w developer position requires experience, at least 1 year. On the other hand Masters�s degree + 12 months of experience may exceed SVP.
Thank you,
Did you know that you can make money by locking special sections of your blog / website?
ReplyDeleteSimply open an account with AdscendMedia and use their Content Locking widget.