needhelp!
03-12 03:16 PM
We cannot expect core members to be online all the time, and we cannot expect to see lobbying related information unless a bill actually comes out. I think what we CAN do is keep the average members like me who want to do something, engaged with things that are within reach.
FOIA campaign was a great example of this.
However, I am very sad to report that only 3 other members from Texas Chapter participated. With such level of participation, I am not even sure that such campaigns are meaningful. Lobbying seems the best option, where we can pay and then be lazy the rest of the time, but the drawback is that updates will be once in 6 months or a year depending on when bill is being introduced.
With all due respect to the selfless hard work of IV core, I concur with ItIsNotFunny. There are many members who feel this way. IV core should be more open to members. I feel a cloud of secrecy always surrounding IV. Of course they cannot be public about all their activities, but more needs to be done on this front. You will see more members actively participating if core is more open.
FOIA campaign was a great example of this.
However, I am very sad to report that only 3 other members from Texas Chapter participated. With such level of participation, I am not even sure that such campaigns are meaningful. Lobbying seems the best option, where we can pay and then be lazy the rest of the time, but the drawback is that updates will be once in 6 months or a year depending on when bill is being introduced.
With all due respect to the selfless hard work of IV core, I concur with ItIsNotFunny. There are many members who feel this way. IV core should be more open to members. I feel a cloud of secrecy always surrounding IV. Of course they cannot be public about all their activities, but more needs to be done on this front. You will see more members actively participating if core is more open.
wallpaper logo-print Louis Vuitton
PD_Dec2002
06-02 10:27 PM
Ironical, isn't it? This diatribe coming from someone whose handle is "BigLoser"!! From which mushrooom did you crawl under?
Thanks, but no thanks!
Jayant
Thanks, but no thanks!
Jayant
div_bell_2003
02-10 08:52 PM
OMG , what an utterly disgusting attitude !!! and on top of it, you are trying to "summarize" ???
I tried to stop myself from posting on this thread since it's based on one guy's circumstances and though I feel sorry for him ( the same way I feel sorry for all the wives and their families being extorted huge sum of money in the name of marriage ) , it's hard to judge these things knowing only one side of the story.
To each his own , but do you think your parents spent their whole lives bringing you up only to know that you think it's "legally" not right to help them monetarily ???? I guess, they should have not spent that extra money to send you to a good school/college or spend it on your tution classes and kicked you out of their house once you reach the age of 18 , like some parents do here ??? Man, it's hard for me to imagine how one can think like that about their parents.
When someone gets married they should be grown up enough to handle the money matters and put their foot down in case of any unreasonable demands, it applies to both husband and wife. The intricacies of the "Indian arranged marriage" are difficult to understand and the equations vary from case to case, so it's better not to come to a judgement and come out with something utterly nonsensical.
I'm sorry if my post is a bit rude , what rude comments beget rude reactions !
To summarize the root causes now that we discussed:
1. Parental interference to control their own child even after marriage. This is cause no 1 of this kind of tensions.
2. Immaturity on the part of children, to let their parents control their feelings. (This is partly due to in arranged marriages, children are closer to parents than the spouse in initial years). This is no 2 issue. Children simply fail to understand they are no more part of their parents family. I honestly feel these people are not really ready for marriage or understand what marriage is.
3. Money transactions. One side expecting money from other side which is not really acceptable. I will elaborate this point a bit more.
4. In cases of couples settled in US/UK, parents know that couples are making a LOT more than by Indian standards. Hence to secure their own old age comfort, everyone tries to exert influence.
On no 3, let us separate our "legal" obligations from "moral".
Morally it is right to send money to parents, but legally it is not. As you can strive but, you wont be fair to either set of parents. Hence I believe "money" should not be sent to parents. Your parents should have planned their own future, including humanitarian needs. Only if your other half agrees, then only you should send money. Otherwise, it is your and your spouse's money.
If your parents needed monetary support then that they should have made clear to other parents at the time of marriage. Not after marriage. If its a love marriage, then the boy/girl should have clearly told this requirement to the other half.
I tried to stop myself from posting on this thread since it's based on one guy's circumstances and though I feel sorry for him ( the same way I feel sorry for all the wives and their families being extorted huge sum of money in the name of marriage ) , it's hard to judge these things knowing only one side of the story.
To each his own , but do you think your parents spent their whole lives bringing you up only to know that you think it's "legally" not right to help them monetarily ???? I guess, they should have not spent that extra money to send you to a good school/college or spend it on your tution classes and kicked you out of their house once you reach the age of 18 , like some parents do here ??? Man, it's hard for me to imagine how one can think like that about their parents.
When someone gets married they should be grown up enough to handle the money matters and put their foot down in case of any unreasonable demands, it applies to both husband and wife. The intricacies of the "Indian arranged marriage" are difficult to understand and the equations vary from case to case, so it's better not to come to a judgement and come out with something utterly nonsensical.
I'm sorry if my post is a bit rude , what rude comments beget rude reactions !
To summarize the root causes now that we discussed:
1. Parental interference to control their own child even after marriage. This is cause no 1 of this kind of tensions.
2. Immaturity on the part of children, to let their parents control their feelings. (This is partly due to in arranged marriages, children are closer to parents than the spouse in initial years). This is no 2 issue. Children simply fail to understand they are no more part of their parents family. I honestly feel these people are not really ready for marriage or understand what marriage is.
3. Money transactions. One side expecting money from other side which is not really acceptable. I will elaborate this point a bit more.
4. In cases of couples settled in US/UK, parents know that couples are making a LOT more than by Indian standards. Hence to secure their own old age comfort, everyone tries to exert influence.
On no 3, let us separate our "legal" obligations from "moral".
Morally it is right to send money to parents, but legally it is not. As you can strive but, you wont be fair to either set of parents. Hence I believe "money" should not be sent to parents. Your parents should have planned their own future, including humanitarian needs. Only if your other half agrees, then only you should send money. Otherwise, it is your and your spouse's money.
If your parents needed monetary support then that they should have made clear to other parents at the time of marriage. Not after marriage. If its a love marriage, then the boy/girl should have clearly told this requirement to the other half.
2011 the Louis Vuitton Monogram
deardar
09-14 08:33 AM
Thank you IV for all your work.
Here is a small contribution of $100 for the rally.
Google Order #953612264434952
Thank you guys!
Thanks Claudia- I have noted it for our records-
Here is a small contribution of $100 for the rally.
Google Order #953612264434952
Thank you guys!
Thanks Claudia- I have noted it for our records-
more...
quizzer
08-20 05:11 PM
My wife's DL renewal is pending for more than 2 months...When we contacted DMV they said its pending clearance from DHS (homeland security) and it could take take 120+ days to get their approval.
Has anybody encountered this recently?
Thanks
Has anybody encountered this recently?
Thanks
r2i2009
06-10 02:44 PM
I am EB3...good news is the two-year EAD...a bit relieved.
Y2K bought in thousands of Desis(including me) and now we are in a USCIS Theater queue. House Full...I will wait for another show.....so what?
Love to relax....or learn it now
Y2K bought in thousands of Desis(including me) and now we are in a USCIS Theater queue. House Full...I will wait for another show.....so what?
Love to relax....or learn it now
more...
eb3_nepa
07-14 03:37 PM
Hello everyone who contributed and will contribute. As an added favour, if you could update your signatures with a Link back to this thread, that would REALLY help matters.
2010 read about Louis Vuitton
makemygc
10-25 11:59 PM
I've sent the mails and strongly encourage everyone to come out and take an early action before this gets worse. Even if you are not affected right now, support the cause to make sure that you will not be affected in the future.
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
more...
lazycis
11-20 04:26 PM
Thank you 'lazycis' for reconfirming this. Just 2 weeks back I used to think that keep working on H1B is lot safer than using EAD :o
H1B petition can be revoked automatically if a) employer notifies USCIS that the petition is withdrawn or b) employer goes out of business. See 8 CFR 214.2.(b)(11). So yes, EAD is much safer in this regard. Revoked H1B petition cannot be used for transfer/extension. It's nice to have H1B as a fallback, but it's not a safe heaven.
Here is an interesting article regarding H1B and employer's obligation to notify the USCIS if employment ends.
http://www.chincurtis.com/pdfs/ccid_1_033007-1.pdf
H1B petition can be revoked automatically if a) employer notifies USCIS that the petition is withdrawn or b) employer goes out of business. See 8 CFR 214.2.(b)(11). So yes, EAD is much safer in this regard. Revoked H1B petition cannot be used for transfer/extension. It's nice to have H1B as a fallback, but it's not a safe heaven.
Here is an interesting article regarding H1B and employer's obligation to notify the USCIS if employment ends.
http://www.chincurtis.com/pdfs/ccid_1_033007-1.pdf
hair Outerwear middot; louis vuitton
gaz
09-12 12:10 PM
three different ways of doing this
1) use a provider - http://www.balloonsbymail.com/
2) leave it to an act of God - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_mail
3) hold a balloon protest (eg. http://washingtonsquarepark.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/report-back-from-washington-sq-park-balloon-protest-313/)
4) others?
Thats is also not a bad Idea. But how the logistic will work. i,e how we will inflate and deliver those balloons
1) use a provider - http://www.balloonsbymail.com/
2) leave it to an act of God - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_mail
3) hold a balloon protest (eg. http://washingtonsquarepark.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/report-back-from-washington-sq-park-balloon-protest-313/)
4) others?
Thats is also not a bad Idea. But how the logistic will work. i,e how we will inflate and deliver those balloons
more...
wolfsappi
09-13 11:53 AM
just made a one time contribution of $100
confirmation number : 1V989630TG1266458
confirmation number : 1V989630TG1266458
hot Louis Vuitton handbag
andy garcia
10-01 10:23 AM
Some unused EB #s were recaptured for families in following year. For example, in 1994 there were 29,430 (column 2) unused EB #s. However, 27,721 (= 253,721 (column 3) - 226,000 (family quota)) of these #s were recaptured for families. Thus, only 29,430 - 27,721 = 1,709 (column 4) were un-recaptured.
Also, 50,000 unused EB #s from 01-04 were recaptured for Schedule A.
Finally, unused EB #s in 99 and 00 were recaptured, hopefully for EB.
Thus, unused EB #s are more important then un-recaptured EB #s (mentioned above) since some of them have not been recaptured for EB.
The unused EB #s is 506,384 (total column 2) - 98,941 (99 recaptured for EB) - 31,098 (00 recaptured for EB) = 376, 345
Annual Report to Congress June 2007 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf)
Macaca;
Here is where the confusion lies with respect to unused, wasted, etc.
The Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) restructured the immigrant categories of admission and made other modifications to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The 1990 Act divided the preference classes into two general categories: family-sponsored(FS) and
employment-based(EB). Limits on the number of visas issued in these two categories are determined annually.
FS limits�The worldwide level for FS preferences is calculated as:
480,000 minus the number of aliens who were issued visas or adjusted to legal permanent residence in the previous fiscal year as
immediate relatives of U.S.citizens
children born subsequent to the issuance of a visa to an accompanying parent
children born abroad to lawful permanent residents on temporary trips abroad
plus unused EB preferences in the previous fiscal year.
The 1990 Act specifies that the family-sponsored limit may not go below a minimum of 226,000 in any year.
EB limits�The 1990 Act specifies that the worldwide limit on EB preference immigrants is equal to 140,000 plus unused FS-preference visas in the previous year.
Also, 50,000 unused EB #s from 01-04 were recaptured for Schedule A.
Finally, unused EB #s in 99 and 00 were recaptured, hopefully for EB.
Thus, unused EB #s are more important then un-recaptured EB #s (mentioned above) since some of them have not been recaptured for EB.
The unused EB #s is 506,384 (total column 2) - 98,941 (99 recaptured for EB) - 31,098 (00 recaptured for EB) = 376, 345
Annual Report to Congress June 2007 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf)
Macaca;
Here is where the confusion lies with respect to unused, wasted, etc.
The Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) restructured the immigrant categories of admission and made other modifications to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The 1990 Act divided the preference classes into two general categories: family-sponsored(FS) and
employment-based(EB). Limits on the number of visas issued in these two categories are determined annually.
FS limits�The worldwide level for FS preferences is calculated as:
480,000 minus the number of aliens who were issued visas or adjusted to legal permanent residence in the previous fiscal year as
immediate relatives of U.S.citizens
children born subsequent to the issuance of a visa to an accompanying parent
children born abroad to lawful permanent residents on temporary trips abroad
plus unused EB preferences in the previous fiscal year.
The 1990 Act specifies that the family-sponsored limit may not go below a minimum of 226,000 in any year.
EB limits�The 1990 Act specifies that the worldwide limit on EB preference immigrants is equal to 140,000 plus unused FS-preference visas in the previous year.
more...
house and quot;Louis Vuittonquot; logos.
diptam
09-16 12:28 PM
My Certified Mail to Ombudsman was actually delivered at DC on Sep 2nd 7:52 AM. Today is Sep 16th , so far no reply.
Will keep you updated if anything happens to my 140 - Anyone else need any help sending 7001 to Ombudsman ?
Feel free to send me a PM
Will keep you updated if anything happens to my 140 - Anyone else need any help sending 7001 to Ombudsman ?
Feel free to send me a PM
tattoo with Louis Vuitton print?,
amsgc
06-24 07:44 PM
I agree with those who say that giving green cards to the three hundred thousand wannabe immigrants will not turn the economy around tomorrow, and perhaps in the short period there doesn't seem to be an apparant advantage. After all, these are the cash cows that are milked everyday by way of taxes and the ever increasing USCIS fees.
However, it is important to consider the larger picture with a view on the next few years. Even if a few thousand people go and buy a house, it will make a difference to the local community, however small it may be. If a few thousand people are able to start their own business, it will lead to the creation of a few more thousand jobs, which is still better than the current number - zero. Even if a few thousand decide to get a higher education, or get promoted, America will be richer in the quality of its people by those many, however small that number may be. And I bet thousands of those high skilled immigrants will demand a higher salary which which will not only level the playing field, but also result in higher pay. And need I mention the effect of higher salaries on the propensity to consume?
I haven't even gotten into the social advantages of having a home where both parents are able to think and work freely, and the effect that has on the upbringing of their children (more than likely US citizens).
Now, what does it really cost the US govt./America to give out the green card? As far as the issue of social security is concerned, these wannabes will be eligible anyway after 10 years, whether they have a green card or not. The USCIS fees for renewal is a about a $1000 per year, which pales in comparison to the the new car that I will buy :) What else, lawyer fees? People are worried about lawyers being displaced! You got to be kidding - immigration law is not the only kind of law practiced in this part of the world. I would be worried more for them if Americans decided not to get divorced.
So, my question is:
Do the costs of giving out green cards to high skilled professionals really outweigh some the benefits mentioned above?
I don't see any good arguments for not giving out a green card sooner than later. And if there aren't any tangible benefits in keeping three hundred thousand people in limbo, then America is losing out on the advantages it will have by making them permanent residents.
However, it is important to consider the larger picture with a view on the next few years. Even if a few thousand people go and buy a house, it will make a difference to the local community, however small it may be. If a few thousand people are able to start their own business, it will lead to the creation of a few more thousand jobs, which is still better than the current number - zero. Even if a few thousand decide to get a higher education, or get promoted, America will be richer in the quality of its people by those many, however small that number may be. And I bet thousands of those high skilled immigrants will demand a higher salary which which will not only level the playing field, but also result in higher pay. And need I mention the effect of higher salaries on the propensity to consume?
I haven't even gotten into the social advantages of having a home where both parents are able to think and work freely, and the effect that has on the upbringing of their children (more than likely US citizens).
Now, what does it really cost the US govt./America to give out the green card? As far as the issue of social security is concerned, these wannabes will be eligible anyway after 10 years, whether they have a green card or not. The USCIS fees for renewal is a about a $1000 per year, which pales in comparison to the the new car that I will buy :) What else, lawyer fees? People are worried about lawyers being displaced! You got to be kidding - immigration law is not the only kind of law practiced in this part of the world. I would be worried more for them if Americans decided not to get divorced.
So, my question is:
Do the costs of giving out green cards to high skilled professionals really outweigh some the benefits mentioned above?
I don't see any good arguments for not giving out a green card sooner than later. And if there aren't any tangible benefits in keeping three hundred thousand people in limbo, then America is losing out on the advantages it will have by making them permanent residents.
more...
pictures louis vuitton. $14.99
GOTGC
07-24 03:46 PM
EB5 doesn't need I-140. In fact EB5 does not apply with I-485, EB5 application# is I-526. Either we are missing out some crucial information on LuckyPaji's case or he is having little fun at our expense. They haven't even completed receipting June 29 cases. This guy is just playing with us or his dates are completely wrong.
Since it is absolutely impossible with EB3 Sep 2006 PD I thought he might have applied in a different category..Do not know the specifics of EB5...Incase what you said is true whatever that guy said is just a JOKE!
Since it is absolutely impossible with EB3 Sep 2006 PD I thought he might have applied in a different category..Do not know the specifics of EB5...Incase what you said is true whatever that guy said is just a JOKE!
dresses Louis Vuitton Black Ballerina
rdoib
07-23 10:33 PM
it is like a lottery..ya it is..noone knows whats comes out out of the matrix...:)
more...
makeup Shoes Women Louis Vuitton
Sri_1975
07-14 02:20 PM
Done.
girlfriend Baby Bag Logo Print Tote
gc_check
01-10 11:58 AM
It is good to see, more and more people (EB3 with older PD's ) switch to EB2 or higher, though the total percentage is small, it is still a significant help for EB3 (C & I). On average each EB Applicant consumes 2-3 Visas. One primary applicant switch means, at least 2 -3 visas freed in EB3 for this category. If qualified for EB2, this is a good move looking at the way EB3 dates are moving.
hairstyles Louis Vuitton Black Ballerina
gc_chahiye
07-24 10:02 AM
Priti..
How can he get a visa number alloted(I suppose you mean he could have got approval)..NO WAY they can approve a person who applies in June.. Do you think they can approve 485 without Biometrics.NameCheck,Security checks etc.. Please do not provide wrong info and rise false hopes in people who already suffered a lot
correct, its going to take atleast 2 months even in the fastest cases of 485 approvals. With a March 2003 PD his best hope is that he becomes current again 6 months or so from now and does not get stuck in namecheck
How can he get a visa number alloted(I suppose you mean he could have got approval)..NO WAY they can approve a person who applies in June.. Do you think they can approve 485 without Biometrics.NameCheck,Security checks etc.. Please do not provide wrong info and rise false hopes in people who already suffered a lot
correct, its going to take atleast 2 months even in the fastest cases of 485 approvals. With a March 2003 PD his best hope is that he becomes current again 6 months or so from now and does not get stuck in namecheck
Pineapple
01-06 09:17 PM
If you have a cogent argument, you can present it. It will be judged by its merits.
Ad hominem arguments and irate calls to close the thread do not go a long way in proving your point (as much as I can make out there is one in the first place)
You seem to be a guy from north India who dislikes anything remotely connected to south, or probably you are envious of the strides that south India has taken, anyways I do not care what YOU or Wadhwa says about the quality of education in some parts of the world.
I do not know how this discussion is going to help our cause.
Moderators, please close this thread. This thread has potrayed India in bad light to the rest of the world and has given enough ammunition to anti immigrants.
Ad hominem arguments and irate calls to close the thread do not go a long way in proving your point (as much as I can make out there is one in the first place)
You seem to be a guy from north India who dislikes anything remotely connected to south, or probably you are envious of the strides that south India has taken, anyways I do not care what YOU or Wadhwa says about the quality of education in some parts of the world.
I do not know how this discussion is going to help our cause.
Moderators, please close this thread. This thread has potrayed India in bad light to the rest of the world and has given enough ammunition to anti immigrants.
pr02
07-20 10:13 AM
Of course the vote had to fail. Senate is Dem controlled and they are anti-legal presently. But the fact that it got voted down by a few votes should give us some optimism.
No comments:
Post a Comment