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.
wallpaper llena de amor kristel
REEF�
06-06 05:28 PM
I voted for those 3 vector ones and mine and a few more lol. I hope the guy who made the 3 vector ones with the birds/monkey thing wins - those are awesome.
binadh
10-03 01:24 PM
No! not with the fargoman. Mine is a small time law firm based in Arlington VA.
2011 llena de amor kristel. buenas
immiusa
06-15 06:01 PM
Your parents do not need A/V letter. They can supplement last 3 months of statements. If you still want to give a try. You can ask bank manager to send a letter with current amount on your A/C to the address mentioned on your A/C. which means, they are sending the information to the addressee on the A/C.
If I were you, I would wait until your job is done. Then, close the A/C with a reason specified "Not happy with service".
It will be helpful if you can mention the bank name on this forum for all our immigrant community.
If I were you, I would wait until your job is done. Then, close the A/C with a reason specified "Not happy with service".
It will be helpful if you can mention the bank name on this forum for all our immigrant community.
more...
a1b2c3
06-15 10:58 PM
Hi,
My parents' and 2 brothers' B2 visas got rejected yesterday. The VO didn't state the refusal reason. He didn't stamp anything on their passports. I got my GC through asylum, and will get married in Nov. 2009. I supplied a formal letter from my pastor about the wedding that it's real. And my parents stated that they are not bringing my youngest brother to the US because he has school. During the interview, the VO asked them about me. He knew that I got my GC through asylum. He asked if I work or go to school. My parents answered honestly that I'm currently working to support myself.
My parents didn't show their bank account, certificate of properties and business because the VO didn't ask for it. Should they show them to VO eventhough he didn't ask to see it?
Now, we're preparing to apply B2 visa for a second time. Here are my questions:
1. When do you think they should apply for the visa again?
2. What can we prepare to show proofs that they will definitely go back to their country? Should we prepare a letter stating reasons why they won't immigrate to US?
3. They are taking care of my elderly grandfather, 80 years old. Should they bring a picture of him?
3. Will they have a better chance if they left all my 3 siblings at home to give more reason they will definitely go back?
My parents definitely don't want to immigrate to the US.
Help...help....please...I really want them to attend my wedding.
Thanks a bunch for all of your advise!
which country are you from?
My parents' and 2 brothers' B2 visas got rejected yesterday. The VO didn't state the refusal reason. He didn't stamp anything on their passports. I got my GC through asylum, and will get married in Nov. 2009. I supplied a formal letter from my pastor about the wedding that it's real. And my parents stated that they are not bringing my youngest brother to the US because he has school. During the interview, the VO asked them about me. He knew that I got my GC through asylum. He asked if I work or go to school. My parents answered honestly that I'm currently working to support myself.
My parents didn't show their bank account, certificate of properties and business because the VO didn't ask for it. Should they show them to VO eventhough he didn't ask to see it?
Now, we're preparing to apply B2 visa for a second time. Here are my questions:
1. When do you think they should apply for the visa again?
2. What can we prepare to show proofs that they will definitely go back to their country? Should we prepare a letter stating reasons why they won't immigrate to US?
3. They are taking care of my elderly grandfather, 80 years old. Should they bring a picture of him?
3. Will they have a better chance if they left all my 3 siblings at home to give more reason they will definitely go back?
My parents definitely don't want to immigrate to the US.
Help...help....please...I really want them to attend my wedding.
Thanks a bunch for all of your advise!
which country are you from?
h1b_forever
08-13 01:52 PM
I have heard for short term consulting projects, they are supposed to provide the duration of a project and say, it is for 3 months, h1 gets approved for 3 months
Next project, get a new h1, so, if you add that up, they can collect 600 Mil
Next project, get a new h1, so, if you add that up, they can collect 600 Mil
more...
rheoretro
09-25 04:51 PM
No one has ever been denied mortgage because their green card is pending, all other things (credit record, finances etc) being equal...that would constitute housing discrimintaion...
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
2010 llena de amor imagenes. house
pd_recapturing
08-22 05:07 PM
I sent u another PM, pls respond whenever u get a chance.
more...
rubinop
04-15 01:46 PM
You are not loosing anything. Continue on H-1B with current salary as long as it satisfies LCA made for H-1B petition.
You do not have to say anything to DOL. Your LC might be approved after the audit process. Then comes I-140, where the ability to pay comes into question. This could be difficult to get approved based on the situation you described.
If you have more time on H-1B, try to switch to different employer and restart the Greencard process.
Yes, if my LC will get approved in the iterim, I might be safe, but with no time left on the H1-B, and with the reduction of salary that will be applied very soon, I don''t think this is going to happen. Unless, as you said, I won't be lucky enough to get approved really soon.
You do not have to say anything to DOL. Your LC might be approved after the audit process. Then comes I-140, where the ability to pay comes into question. This could be difficult to get approved based on the situation you described.
If you have more time on H-1B, try to switch to different employer and restart the Greencard process.
Yes, if my LC will get approved in the iterim, I might be safe, but with no time left on the H1-B, and with the reduction of salary that will be applied very soon, I don''t think this is going to happen. Unless, as you said, I won't be lucky enough to get approved really soon.
hair llena de amor kristel. llena de amor kristel. triunfo
sac-r-ten
02-26 04:56 PM
Sorry for your situation. Its better to look for H1 transfer soon. Also expose such body shopper here, so that future H1B are aware of such dingy fly by night operators.
Nothing more anybody can do here on this forum, because everyone is sitting tight and holding on to their seats in this economy.
Good luck man.
Nothing more anybody can do here on this forum, because everyone is sitting tight and holding on to their seats in this economy.
Good luck man.
more...
reddymjm
12-04 04:52 PM
I am also flying to Chennai in 2 days.
hot house llena de amor kristel
ItIsNotFunny
06-11 12:45 PM
You idiot, this is your third post in last 10 minutes about your deleted post. Big deal! if your question was deleted, or, if you are not able to find your post???
It seems you want others to spoon feed you everything. Stop this bickering and stop complaining. Stop taking offense from nonsensical things, grow-up and look at the bigger picture.
Over reaction by "reno" without checking the thread shifting was not good. But under any circumstances we should avoid using wrong words. This creates a wrong impression and indirectly hurts the organization. We have some examples in past.
I appreciate Pappu's maturity to tackle the issue and his explanation.
It seems you want others to spoon feed you everything. Stop this bickering and stop complaining. Stop taking offense from nonsensical things, grow-up and look at the bigger picture.
Over reaction by "reno" without checking the thread shifting was not good. But under any circumstances we should avoid using wrong words. This creates a wrong impression and indirectly hurts the organization. We have some examples in past.
I appreciate Pappu's maturity to tackle the issue and his explanation.
more...
house llena de amor kristel.
flexi
04-04 01:55 PM
... for your help! Now, what do you guys think about getting paid until the end of June by the 1st employer (but at the same time starting to work inofficially i.e. observing only for the 2nd employer) and then going back to work for a couple of weeks for the 1st employer but staring to get paid by the 2nd so that it's fair for both? Would that be legal? If not, there really isn't a good way to deal with this since the new H1Bs are valid not before Oct (if i'd apply for 2 H1Bs), right? I obviously don't want to jeopardize my visa to make my old employer happy so don't want to do anything that's not completely OK in that regard....
In regards to the timing of a petition for a transfer (leaving all the other stuff above aside for a moment), let's say i'd like to start at the new employer 1st of July - to be on the safe side I should get a lawyer, plan a week for them to get the petition ready and then i'd have to wait a couple weeks for the receipt notice (which then allows me to work for the new employer, correct?) - so that would make it 3 weeks?
Thanks again!
PS: more complicated now???
PPS: germany.... not india.... but would love to go there on the way back :cool:
In regards to the timing of a petition for a transfer (leaving all the other stuff above aside for a moment), let's say i'd like to start at the new employer 1st of July - to be on the safe side I should get a lawyer, plan a week for them to get the petition ready and then i'd have to wait a couple weeks for the receipt notice (which then allows me to work for the new employer, correct?) - so that would make it 3 weeks?
Thanks again!
PS: more complicated now???
PPS: germany.... not india.... but would love to go there on the way back :cool:
tattoo llena de amor kristel.
thandan
03-17 06:07 PM
For sure, I will be consulting with an attorney, but just wanted to get as much information as possible. From what I have seen, the lawyers who reply to these posts here give some very valid points which can then be the basis of further discussions
more...
pictures llena de amor kristel. llena de amor wallpaper. llena de amor wallpaper.
h1techSlave
09-27 09:59 AM
The article says: "After all, if the legal process was more efficient and less daunting, perhaps the illegal immigration problems wouldn't be quite so bad."
I say, it is not perhaps, it is a given. When there is a legal remedy for any issue (not just immigration), then 9 out of 10 people would not go the illegal way.
I say, it is not perhaps, it is a given. When there is a legal remedy for any issue (not just immigration), then 9 out of 10 people would not go the illegal way.
dresses llena de amor kristel.
ragz4u
04-13 10:52 AM
Will IV be trying to campaign/lobby against the 180 day delay?
90 days is a US law for every bill. Again, I don't see what IV has to do with that!
The other 90 days is because of amendment. Unfortunately this amendment was unanimously approved by the SJC. Can't see how IV can campaign against something like this too! And I think its prudent to wait 3 more months than rankle some lawmaker about this. We need publicity, but not negative publicity!
In any case, we will stick ONLY to our agenda.
90 days is a US law for every bill. Again, I don't see what IV has to do with that!
The other 90 days is because of amendment. Unfortunately this amendment was unanimously approved by the SJC. Can't see how IV can campaign against something like this too! And I think its prudent to wait 3 more months than rankle some lawmaker about this. We need publicity, but not negative publicity!
In any case, we will stick ONLY to our agenda.
more...
makeup llena de amor kristel. llena de amor kristel. llena de amor kristel.
masterji
10-20 01:19 AM
I think it is best to get your H1B stamped in India and also carry AP with you (if possible) as a back up. Stamping in home country is the BEST and SAFEST. I do not know why so many people get it stamped in Mexico and Canada. Previously, when you could still enter US from Canada with a refused visa,it made sense, but now if they reject your visa you need to fly to India!!!
But, once you enter using your AP, can you switch back to H1B or you have to use your EAD?
Not a lawyer.
But, once you enter using your AP, can you switch back to H1B or you have to use your EAD?
Not a lawyer.
girlfriend hair gretel llena de amor. llena de llena de amor kristel. llena de amor
H1B-GC
04-10 04:41 PM
163,000 applns for general and more than 31,200 applns for advanced degree.
How come Freaking 'Loudoggs' say 400K Applications were received by USCIS on his show . Freaking lier.
How come Freaking 'Loudoggs' say 400K Applications were received by USCIS on his show . Freaking lier.
hairstyles llena de amor kristel. llena de amor kristel
leoindiano
02-06 01:04 PM
looks like this is what happening...
They have 100's of 1000's of cases....thrown in one dark room.
They have this Q on their computers, with cases approved Namecheck, background check, I-140, FP complete....
Now, when they are assigned with a case, they will try to find the file....Just imagine its not easy to find the case, but USCIS doesnt put any effort to sort them either.
So, he will leave that case there, go to next one...This is just my guess...
They have 100's of 1000's of cases....thrown in one dark room.
They have this Q on their computers, with cases approved Namecheck, background check, I-140, FP complete....
Now, when they are assigned with a case, they will try to find the file....Just imagine its not easy to find the case, but USCIS doesnt put any effort to sort them either.
So, he will leave that case there, go to next one...This is just my guess...
smuggymba
03-24 06:32 PM
I am looking for some serious help and advice here , I hate to see any non-immigrant in US in my circumstances .Here some information about it , My company has sponsored my work visa , soon I entered into they customs and Immigration there is some mistake with my paper work , and they charged me and later deported me .In the middle we came to know the company has sponsored some other people B/J visas for their own benefits and officers acted so racially .when i got deported they never issued my passport back , I keep on calling them now , they always say , They can't hear , some times they mention call after 5 mins , 1hr .I am so vexed with all they do , I felt so victim in this . Please advice me can i get my passport back, and my case is in pending appeal , before I got deported
how did u travel back to your home country? All airlines check passport before issuing a boarding pass.
how did u travel back to your home country? All airlines check passport before issuing a boarding pass.
moonlight
06-20 12:54 PM
Better check with your lawyer. Becuase when you apply for 485 and get approved your wife's H4 status becomes illegal. So don't know exactly about H1 or H4 on advanced parole. Lawyer is the best person for your case.
No comments:
Post a Comment