raju6855
02-02 09:33 AM
Thx for your reply.
But this wasn't told to me (us) by my company's hr, I guess I got to check that advise for second opinion.
But this wasn't told to me (us) by my company's hr, I guess I got to check that advise for second opinion.
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
tikka
06-03 02:07 AM
Thanks. When you get a chance can you please send web faxes. It is under main menu on the left side.
You can send the faxes to all 50 states. Please update the web fax thread once you are done!
Thank you again!
Keith Ellison, Congressman from MN was in Milwaukee, WI today.
I had a chance to meet with him on a small gathering for his fund raiser.
He is a member of Judiciary commitee.
We asked him questions on how to become more active in Politics, how Congress works etc etc.
He gave a good example:
He said politicians are like a mom with many kids..one kid is labor union asking for help for their issues, other is teachers union etc etc.
And if one kid is shy and does not say anything then he is not going to get anything.
Point is very simple, Congress needs to heard like crazy from legal Immigrants about issues. So please on Mon during lunch call your congressman every day for next week. Send them faxes, emails etc.
So when they vote they know that what are issues for legal immigrants.
If you don't then you won't get anything. It is that simple.
thanks,
engineer
You can send the faxes to all 50 states. Please update the web fax thread once you are done!
Thank you again!
Keith Ellison, Congressman from MN was in Milwaukee, WI today.
I had a chance to meet with him on a small gathering for his fund raiser.
He is a member of Judiciary commitee.
We asked him questions on how to become more active in Politics, how Congress works etc etc.
He gave a good example:
He said politicians are like a mom with many kids..one kid is labor union asking for help for their issues, other is teachers union etc etc.
And if one kid is shy and does not say anything then he is not going to get anything.
Point is very simple, Congress needs to heard like crazy from legal Immigrants about issues. So please on Mon during lunch call your congressman every day for next week. Send them faxes, emails etc.
So when they vote they know that what are issues for legal immigrants.
If you don't then you won't get anything. It is that simple.
thanks,
engineer
vladdrac
06-09 10:32 PM
that looks **** good VD
more...
brahmam
09-04 11:22 AM
OK, now that we all are agonizing over what's gonna happen, I think the following could be a possibility. USCIS has pre-adj almost 150,000 apps and has got nothing more to do now and the new Q1 for 2010 has around 35,000 visa numbers available to be processed.
Would DOS let CIS sit on their bums with not much to do other than process any new 485s that could be filed by ROW or would DOS move the dates to 2008 or 2007 so that any more people that still need to file 485 can do so and CIS stays busy. I think they would want to keep CIS busy. this would of course not mean every one of us will get approved since EB2/3 India and china only have around ~3000 visa numbers available in Q1 2010.
who votes for this russian roulette option? :D
Would DOS let CIS sit on their bums with not much to do other than process any new 485s that could be filed by ROW or would DOS move the dates to 2008 or 2007 so that any more people that still need to file 485 can do so and CIS stays busy. I think they would want to keep CIS busy. this would of course not mean every one of us will get approved since EB2/3 India and china only have around ~3000 visa numbers available in Q1 2010.
who votes for this russian roulette option? :D
anantc
01-29 09:27 AM
Hi,
my wife has received EAD and she also has H4 status. If she travels on H4 and get it stamped in India , can she work on EAD when she comes back?
Kindly request your help,
Anant
my wife has received EAD and she also has H4 status. If she travels on H4 and get it stamped in India , can she work on EAD when she comes back?
Kindly request your help,
Anant
more...
rrajasekar
08-11 09:38 AM
We have written a letter to our congressman asking if he could help expediting the process. They called us yesterday and said that they would try to do their best though they couldn't promise on the outcome.
JazzByTheBay
09-14 03:27 PM
Glad to know we're advertising on the radio station, as one member suggested.
Proof of what we can do collectively, and IV is really an organization driven by members, of the members, for the members, by the members.
GO IV GO!
http://morejazzbythebay.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/sanjoserallybnr4-2.jpg
SAN JOSE WAS THE BEGINNING, DC WILL BE A HUGE MILESTONE!
(San Jose rally pictures and videos, and Aman's messages from Milpitas, CA meeting can be found at http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com (http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com/))
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/20/99/22609920.jpg
cheers, and see ya'll in DC!
jazz
He is the best - I am at work - but will listen to the radio.
Way to go logiclife - we are with you
Proof of what we can do collectively, and IV is really an organization driven by members, of the members, for the members, by the members.
GO IV GO!
http://morejazzbythebay.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/sanjoserallybnr4-2.jpg
SAN JOSE WAS THE BEGINNING, DC WILL BE A HUGE MILESTONE!
(San Jose rally pictures and videos, and Aman's messages from Milpitas, CA meeting can be found at http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com (http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com/))
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/20/99/22609920.jpg
cheers, and see ya'll in DC!
jazz
He is the best - I am at work - but will listen to the radio.
Way to go logiclife - we are with you
more...
mysticblue
08-17 12:31 AM
I'm on a H1B status and was initially working for Company A, with an approved Visa. I joined Company B and initiated a H1 transfer to them. I am on their pay role, however am on bench since i joined them. Its been 5 months and my visa transfer with Company B is still in Pending. Now, I have an offer from Company C, and am thinking about joining them.
Meanwhile, since Company B has not been able to find work, they have indicated a termination of my employment if i'm not placed in the project by end of this month. I think i have no other optiion but to join Company C before my visa with Company B is cancelled. I have been advised to go for a premium processing of H1 to Company C, so that by the time i'm out of Company B, i have a good chance of having approved visa from Company C.
1. Is it legal to transfer my Visa to Company C while my Visa with Company B is still in progress. Note that I have worked with Company B for about 5 months.
2. Can I use approval notice from Company A and pay stubs from Company B to initiate premium transfer with Company C ?
3. If i initiate a transfer with Company C, and later Company B terminates my employment, what will happen to my pending visa with Company C?
4. Will H1 transfer with Company C get affected if USCIS gets to know that my pending transfer with Company B has been cancelled?
5. Will it make any difference if I resign from Company B (after initiating transfer with Company C), before Company B terminates my employment.? Are termination and resignation cases treated in the same way by USCIS ?
Please help, as i'm in a bit of a crisis about what decision to take. Any kind on response for the above would be appreciated.
Meanwhile, since Company B has not been able to find work, they have indicated a termination of my employment if i'm not placed in the project by end of this month. I think i have no other optiion but to join Company C before my visa with Company B is cancelled. I have been advised to go for a premium processing of H1 to Company C, so that by the time i'm out of Company B, i have a good chance of having approved visa from Company C.
1. Is it legal to transfer my Visa to Company C while my Visa with Company B is still in progress. Note that I have worked with Company B for about 5 months.
2. Can I use approval notice from Company A and pay stubs from Company B to initiate premium transfer with Company C ?
3. If i initiate a transfer with Company C, and later Company B terminates my employment, what will happen to my pending visa with Company C?
4. Will H1 transfer with Company C get affected if USCIS gets to know that my pending transfer with Company B has been cancelled?
5. Will it make any difference if I resign from Company B (after initiating transfer with Company C), before Company B terminates my employment.? Are termination and resignation cases treated in the same way by USCIS ?
Please help, as i'm in a bit of a crisis about what decision to take. Any kind on response for the above would be appreciated.
up_guy
04-12 11:00 PM
I also have the same question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
when I check 2 yrs old EAD application my attorney had used (c)(0)(9)
Is that right or it should be (c)(9) or
it should be (c) (09)
Please help folks
Please suggest.
when I check 2 yrs old EAD application my attorney had used (c)(0)(9)
Is that right or it should be (c)(9) or
it should be (c) (09)
Please help folks
more...
aau
08-08 10:34 AM
Sorry to hear about your friend's situation.
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Ppl please at least give a disclaimer. This sentence, said with such authority is completely false! The ONLY way you are not counted against the annual H1B quota is if you are RENEWING your existing H1B (and you have years left on it of course).
Think before you write..
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Ppl please at least give a disclaimer. This sentence, said with such authority is completely false! The ONLY way you are not counted against the annual H1B quota is if you are RENEWING your existing H1B (and you have years left on it of course).
Think before you write..
Berkeleybee
05-24 11:33 PM
To reinforce our fax campaign, we should start calling the senators and start reinforcing our message to them. Please do not hesitate or be shy of doing this. Now is the time that you can make a difference.
Please stick to directions and talking points, stay on message and be calm, polite. Avoid sarcasm and rhetoric at all costs even if they disagree with you completely.
Here are the instructions of what you should do
Call the Washington DC Phone numbers of the following Senators. Check this post during the day because we may add to this list:
We want to reach them as early as possible before the vote on the Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and 4182 take place. The Senate reconvenes at 9:15 am tomorrow (May 25, Thursday), we do not know at when the vote on these amendments will take place, so call as early as possible:
• John Cornyn (TX) - 202-224-2934
• Ed Kennedy (MA) – 202-224-4543
• Arlen Specter (PA) – 202-224-4254
• John McCain (AZ) – 202-224-2235
• Larry Craig (ID)– 202-224-2752
• Lindsey Graham (SC) –202-224-5972
• Jeff Bingaman (NM) - (202) 224-5521
• Dick Durbin (IL) – 202-224-2152
WHY IT IS OK TO CALL SENATORS WHO ARE NOT FROM YOUR STATE
Even if a senator is not from your state and if that questions comes up during phone call, explain the reason for calling by saying that "Since Immigration laws are federal laws and every senator's vote affects us in all 50 states, your time and the senators support would be highly appreciated".
Once they pick up the phone:
1. Introduce yourself
My name is _______ I am a member of a volunteer organization called Immigration Voice which advocates legislative changes for improving the GC processing for legal immigrants.
I have been a legal resident of the USA for x years and my employer is sponsoring me for a greencard.
2. Ask for the Immigration Counsel/ Staffer
3. Talking Points
• Very Briefly Express Overall Support for the Bill
Request the Senator to support the Comprehensive Immigration Bill, especially those provisions that support the highly skilled immigrants. Reiterate that all of us are LEGAL immigrants and have obeyed the laws of immigration at all times. Reiterate the fact that many of us have been waiting here for more than 5 years to get our green cards.
• Oppose the Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and S.A. 4182
At present the CIR bill has a provision of not counting dependents against the cap. This is the way it should be because employment based visa quotas are properly meant for essential highly skilled workers, they shouldn’t be wasted on their dependents. After all the American business that is trying to stay competitive by hiring this workers is petitioning to get a skilled worker, not a dependent child.
The Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and S.A. 4182 try to once again include dependents in the calculations of the annual quota for employment based highly skilled workers. This is harmful for American competitiveness, and will waste visas meant for highly skilled essential workers on their dependents.
Urge the Senator to vote against these amendments. Remind them that Sen Bingaman’s own PACE Education bill (S. 2198) does not include dependents in the calculation of the annual quota for high skilled workers.
• Thank the staffer for their time.
Post Here. Once you have called these senators, post back here so that it will motivate others to do the same.
Please stick to directions and talking points, stay on message and be calm, polite. Avoid sarcasm and rhetoric at all costs even if they disagree with you completely.
Here are the instructions of what you should do
Call the Washington DC Phone numbers of the following Senators. Check this post during the day because we may add to this list:
We want to reach them as early as possible before the vote on the Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and 4182 take place. The Senate reconvenes at 9:15 am tomorrow (May 25, Thursday), we do not know at when the vote on these amendments will take place, so call as early as possible:
• John Cornyn (TX) - 202-224-2934
• Ed Kennedy (MA) – 202-224-4543
• Arlen Specter (PA) – 202-224-4254
• John McCain (AZ) – 202-224-2235
• Larry Craig (ID)– 202-224-2752
• Lindsey Graham (SC) –202-224-5972
• Jeff Bingaman (NM) - (202) 224-5521
• Dick Durbin (IL) – 202-224-2152
WHY IT IS OK TO CALL SENATORS WHO ARE NOT FROM YOUR STATE
Even if a senator is not from your state and if that questions comes up during phone call, explain the reason for calling by saying that "Since Immigration laws are federal laws and every senator's vote affects us in all 50 states, your time and the senators support would be highly appreciated".
Once they pick up the phone:
1. Introduce yourself
My name is _______ I am a member of a volunteer organization called Immigration Voice which advocates legislative changes for improving the GC processing for legal immigrants.
I have been a legal resident of the USA for x years and my employer is sponsoring me for a greencard.
2. Ask for the Immigration Counsel/ Staffer
3. Talking Points
• Very Briefly Express Overall Support for the Bill
Request the Senator to support the Comprehensive Immigration Bill, especially those provisions that support the highly skilled immigrants. Reiterate that all of us are LEGAL immigrants and have obeyed the laws of immigration at all times. Reiterate the fact that many of us have been waiting here for more than 5 years to get our green cards.
• Oppose the Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and S.A. 4182
At present the CIR bill has a provision of not counting dependents against the cap. This is the way it should be because employment based visa quotas are properly meant for essential highly skilled workers, they shouldn’t be wasted on their dependents. After all the American business that is trying to stay competitive by hiring this workers is petitioning to get a skilled worker, not a dependent child.
The Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and S.A. 4182 try to once again include dependents in the calculations of the annual quota for employment based highly skilled workers. This is harmful for American competitiveness, and will waste visas meant for highly skilled essential workers on their dependents.
Urge the Senator to vote against these amendments. Remind them that Sen Bingaman’s own PACE Education bill (S. 2198) does not include dependents in the calculation of the annual quota for high skilled workers.
• Thank the staffer for their time.
Post Here. Once you have called these senators, post back here so that it will motivate others to do the same.
more...
arihant
05-22 06:27 AM
For those of us who will not have access to the press release, kindly post the transcript (or even a brief summary) of the findings when it becomes available.
Good luck, Aman and Shilpa! Do not know how you guys managed to be invited to the event, but in any case, your efforts are to be commended on the whole.
Good luck, Aman and Shilpa! Do not know how you guys managed to be invited to the event, but in any case, your efforts are to be commended on the whole.
americandesi
08-11 06:32 PM
On exploring this topic further, I found that, at times, DOL conducts an audit to check if the employer paid the proffered wage to the beneficiary after GC approval. In case of a violation, DOL bans the employer from processing further H1’s or GC’s.
On rare occasions, USCIS revokes previously approved GC’s in case of fraud.
Also during naturalization, USCIS checks the duration of employment with the GC position after I-485 approval. Naturalization might be denied if the duration of employment is very short.
On rare occasions, USCIS revokes previously approved GC’s in case of fraud.
Also during naturalization, USCIS checks the duration of employment with the GC position after I-485 approval. Naturalization might be denied if the duration of employment is very short.
more...
ireddy
08-11 02:01 PM
I applied for passport renewal (Chicago consulate) without name change form. In the Online application, I splitted the name as needed (earlier my name was under Given name). The renewal passport was sent to me with the way I entered the name (splitting) without any additional forms or affidavits.
svr_76
06-16 03:22 PM
hi,
I am going for an InfoPass appointment tomorrow and thought of asking the members is the following questions seem appropriate. I dont expect the officer to answer all/any of them..but just thought of listing them..incase I get lucky and get a helpful officer.
- Is my case with an IO desk?
- Since when is it with an IO desk?
- if and when my background check updated?
- is background check same as IBIS check? If not then is IBIS check complete?
- if and when my FBI name check completed?
- is review awaiting some response from external agency
(Consulate post/FBI/BCP)?
- If under "additional review" What kind of "additional review" is it under?
- Expected time-frame for the additional review to be complete?
- Is it being actively worked on or just assigned to an officer and not updates?
- Is it being transferred to other/local office? Is any interview being planned?
I am going for an InfoPass appointment tomorrow and thought of asking the members is the following questions seem appropriate. I dont expect the officer to answer all/any of them..but just thought of listing them..incase I get lucky and get a helpful officer.
- Is my case with an IO desk?
- Since when is it with an IO desk?
- if and when my background check updated?
- is background check same as IBIS check? If not then is IBIS check complete?
- if and when my FBI name check completed?
- is review awaiting some response from external agency
(Consulate post/FBI/BCP)?
- If under "additional review" What kind of "additional review" is it under?
- Expected time-frame for the additional review to be complete?
- Is it being actively worked on or just assigned to an officer and not updates?
- Is it being transferred to other/local office? Is any interview being planned?
more...
LostInGCProcess
11-06 02:54 PM
If I renew my H1B can I avoid visa stamping by using the AP travel document.
You can use AP to travel and still be on H status, provided you are working for the same employer.
I still intend to use my H1B as long as I stay with my current employer, but If I want to change employers or take a different job EAD would be the way to go, in that case would my H1B be invalidated?
Yes. However, you can ask the new employer to sponsor you H1b and avoid using EAD.
I am concerned if I use EAD for a future job and 485 gets into trouble can I fall back to my H1B easily?
Its better to maintain H1 status till you get the GC.
You can use AP to travel and still be on H status, provided you are working for the same employer.
I still intend to use my H1B as long as I stay with my current employer, but If I want to change employers or take a different job EAD would be the way to go, in that case would my H1B be invalidated?
Yes. However, you can ask the new employer to sponsor you H1b and avoid using EAD.
I am concerned if I use EAD for a future job and 485 gets into trouble can I fall back to my H1B easily?
Its better to maintain H1 status till you get the GC.
JSimmivoice
01-23 12:28 AM
Thks for the response, but what I read on other sites for e.g murthydot.com and some other site in the Internet it is used even for situations where one did not realised their I-94 has expired and thought its not an issue, also for example such as employer forgot to file and its not application mistake as he was not aware about employers miss and etc. So based on a approved LCA one can get H1 approved and even get the unauthorized employment convert it into a valid employment for any period (based on conditions). I'll do more research on this and update this thread.
Meanwhile anyone with any other opinion is welcome here. Thks all
Meanwhile anyone with any other opinion is welcome here. Thks all
acecupid
08-21 05:45 PM
My checks were cashed on Aug 20th for RD of Jul 16th :)
lost_in_migration
05-15 12:08 PM
I absolutely agree. A good legislation is the only solution. Let us hope that more ppl have that far-sightedness and keep visiting and contributing to IV.
PD current does not gaurentee any thing...
May be people who are short sighted may stop visiting.
But people who are seeing the whole picture would
definitley visit here and contribute to IV.
good luck
babu
PD current does not gaurentee any thing...
May be people who are short sighted may stop visiting.
But people who are seeing the whole picture would
definitley visit here and contribute to IV.
good luck
babu
chunky
07-26 03:21 PM
We are planning to go India in October (after receipt of 185). If I apply for change of status it will be cancelled because she left country before aprooval".
I was thinking if we do not get AP by then she can go to embassy and request for H4 visa. Will it be fine. I am asking too many questions
Quote"As far as I know, if a 485 is pending, a person can continue to be in the US without a visa. So she would not require a H-4.
All the same, I would still get a H-4 as this will be advantageous as,
1. Your receipt has not yet arrived. What if the Application is rejected for initial evidence problem?
2. AP takes a long time to come and she has to make an urgent trip back home?
3. 485 gets denied by mistake. She has to have a valid status to fall back on, so you can file motion to reopen, etc.
The chances of any of the above happening are low, but it is better to anticipate trouble and be as prepared as we can."
I was thinking if we do not get AP by then she can go to embassy and request for H4 visa. Will it be fine. I am asking too many questions
Quote"As far as I know, if a 485 is pending, a person can continue to be in the US without a visa. So she would not require a H-4.
All the same, I would still get a H-4 as this will be advantageous as,
1. Your receipt has not yet arrived. What if the Application is rejected for initial evidence problem?
2. AP takes a long time to come and she has to make an urgent trip back home?
3. 485 gets denied by mistake. She has to have a valid status to fall back on, so you can file motion to reopen, etc.
The chances of any of the above happening are low, but it is better to anticipate trouble and be as prepared as we can."
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar