Ann Ruben
06-25 10:51 AM
Unfortunately, there are no good solutions to this problem. Humanitarian Parole is possible, but not likely except in extreme cases such as where there is a serious or life threatening illness. You should consider consulting an immigration attorney with expertise in such matters to to determine what if any chance there is for Humanitarian Parole given your family's particular circumstances.
Another strategy might be for your wife to come to the US and immediately apply for asylum in her own right. If she is granted asylum, then she can file an I-730 for your child. This strategy is complicated and could do more harm than good depending again on the particular facts of your situation. Accordingly, before taking any action, I urge you to seek expert legal representation.
Another strategy might be for your wife to come to the US and immediately apply for asylum in her own right. If she is granted asylum, then she can file an I-730 for your child. This strategy is complicated and could do more harm than good depending again on the particular facts of your situation. Accordingly, before taking any action, I urge you to seek expert legal representation.
wallpaper 10-08-2005. The KLEEMANN
dilipb
04-21 04:38 PM
Wow!
amitjoey
02-12 03:09 PM
Thanks. All we need is 800 people like Hari, who can contribute a little amount of money and a little amount of time by inviting other friends.
Is it not true that it only takes about 10 minutes or so to invite other friends by mail to join IV and a $20/month.
Is it not true that it only takes about 10 minutes or so to invite other friends by mail to join IV and a $20/month.
2011 Mercedes-Benz E200 NGT
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
more...
anilsal
08-21 11:54 AM
bumping up??
The attorney gets a copy of the FP notice also. They can forward it to you.
Would it be too much to ask, now that you are happy that your checks are cashed, to show some appreciation for IV by performing tasks at the state chapter level?
Since I lead the IL state chapter, do you want to help out now that you are in Chicagoland region?
The attorney gets a copy of the FP notice also. They can forward it to you.
Would it be too much to ask, now that you are happy that your checks are cashed, to show some appreciation for IV by performing tasks at the state chapter level?
Since I lead the IL state chapter, do you want to help out now that you are in Chicagoland region?
vegasbaby
06-10 09:50 AM
Hello All,
I was reading at some of the posts in this forum and they seem to have been quiet helpful.
My company has decided to go ahead with my GC process.
Its in the very early stage, but my immigration specialist gave me a heads up regarding something.
She said, that as I have a 3 yrs BE degree the USCIS may not recognize me under EB2 category :confused: So I explained her the education system in India, but she said that it depends upon the Credential Evaluation Agency which will process my educational qualification and prepare a report and submit it to USCIS.
Following this USCIS will make a decision whether to grant EB2 or EB3 category.
I am sure many of the members may have faced a similar Dilemma....Is there any specific solution to this?
To be precise I completed my Diploma from Mumbai & Degree from Pune University, followed by MS in US and currently working on H1B.
Please Advice.
Thanks,
Shakti
I have a 3 yrs Diploma from BTE - Mumbai & 3 years B.E. from Univ of Mumbai. In Mumbai, you can do 10 + 3yr Dip + 3yr BE OR you can do 12 + 4yr BE. Eventually 16 yrs of education is more important + there is no difference between the degree awarded to you & someone who does a 4 yrs degree.
I have EB3 pending & have currently labor done under EB2 with no issues.
I was reading at some of the posts in this forum and they seem to have been quiet helpful.
My company has decided to go ahead with my GC process.
Its in the very early stage, but my immigration specialist gave me a heads up regarding something.
She said, that as I have a 3 yrs BE degree the USCIS may not recognize me under EB2 category :confused: So I explained her the education system in India, but she said that it depends upon the Credential Evaluation Agency which will process my educational qualification and prepare a report and submit it to USCIS.
Following this USCIS will make a decision whether to grant EB2 or EB3 category.
I am sure many of the members may have faced a similar Dilemma....Is there any specific solution to this?
To be precise I completed my Diploma from Mumbai & Degree from Pune University, followed by MS in US and currently working on H1B.
Please Advice.
Thanks,
Shakti
I have a 3 yrs Diploma from BTE - Mumbai & 3 years B.E. from Univ of Mumbai. In Mumbai, you can do 10 + 3yr Dip + 3yr BE OR you can do 12 + 4yr BE. Eventually 16 yrs of education is more important + there is no difference between the degree awarded to you & someone who does a 4 yrs degree.
I have EB3 pending & have currently labor done under EB2 with no issues.
more...
tikka
05-29 09:40 PM
I went to the web fax link from the home page and sent out the only web fax that was there.
to all the states right?
i mean you can click on on each state and send one by one
this would really help. we are trying to send 3,000 faxes and your contribution would be be great!
thank you
to all the states right?
i mean you can click on on each state and send one by one
this would really help. we are trying to send 3,000 faxes and your contribution would be be great!
thank you
2010 Intake Manifold vs Kleemann
eb3retro
04-11 09:05 PM
always efiled, never went for finger printing..follow my previous posts for more updates.
more...
english_august
07-18 09:27 AM
And that is the reason why I am saying that this is but a small step in the right direction. It is nowhere near the long term solution that we need to work for. In your euphoria, please don't forget that we have a long struggle in front of us and Immigration Voice needs all the support that you can give.
Remember that IV is the only organization that gives voice to skilled, legal immigrants - please help make it stronger.
See below:
Taken from www.immigration-law.com (http://www.immigration-law.com)
07/18/2007: Reinstatement of Original July Visa Bulletin and Uncertain Impact on Pre-July "Tagged" EB-485 Applications and Processing Time of I-485 Applications in the Future
The other EB-485 waiters will turn out to be a big victim to the DOS/USCIS decision yesterday. Since there will be no visa numbers available until October 1, 2007, the people whose EB-485 applications were "not tagged" before July 1 will experience a tremendous delay in obtaining the green card. When it comes to the delays in obtaining the green card approvals, the new filers in July and those filers before August 17 will also witness a tremendous delays and will have to endure a long and long journey to leave the pipeline of the green card process. Why? As we reported quite earlier in this visa fiasco, we even estimated that approximately 750,000 individual EB-485 applications can be poured into the system during this unusual period of visa number availability as affected by the upcoming filing fee increases and more importantantly the anticipated potential huge visa number retrogression ahead during when they may not be able to file their 485 applications because of the retrogression. After all, the system has only 140,000 numbers for the entire EB categories for each year. Go figure! What would look like the waiting time for the current EB-485 filers and the current EB-485 filers before July 1, 2007!
Remember that IV is the only organization that gives voice to skilled, legal immigrants - please help make it stronger.
See below:
Taken from www.immigration-law.com (http://www.immigration-law.com)
07/18/2007: Reinstatement of Original July Visa Bulletin and Uncertain Impact on Pre-July "Tagged" EB-485 Applications and Processing Time of I-485 Applications in the Future
The other EB-485 waiters will turn out to be a big victim to the DOS/USCIS decision yesterday. Since there will be no visa numbers available until October 1, 2007, the people whose EB-485 applications were "not tagged" before July 1 will experience a tremendous delay in obtaining the green card. When it comes to the delays in obtaining the green card approvals, the new filers in July and those filers before August 17 will also witness a tremendous delays and will have to endure a long and long journey to leave the pipeline of the green card process. Why? As we reported quite earlier in this visa fiasco, we even estimated that approximately 750,000 individual EB-485 applications can be poured into the system during this unusual period of visa number availability as affected by the upcoming filing fee increases and more importantantly the anticipated potential huge visa number retrogression ahead during when they may not be able to file their 485 applications because of the retrogression. After all, the system has only 140,000 numbers for the entire EB categories for each year. Go figure! What would look like the waiting time for the current EB-485 filers and the current EB-485 filers before July 1, 2007!
hair The C63 AMG Mercedes will be
needhelp!
10-10 11:37 AM
perks included..
more...
EkAurAaya
05-22 04:54 PM
at the rate my lawyer is going, i will be lucky if it gets filled before June 30th! :D so rest assured I'm filing after 10th!
hot and have kleemann emblems
superdude
08-15 02:04 PM
eeeee thats painful. Happend so many times. It is like Lotto but at the end we say Samay se pehle or Bhagya se adhik kuch nahi milta (before time and more than your destiny you don't get anything)
Please refrain from using non english languages in the forums
Please refrain from using non english languages in the forums
more...
house courtesy of Kleemann A/S
vin13
03-09 05:30 PM
Stop dreaming and do something:D
tattoo Mercedes-Benz E200 NGT
arunmohan
11-16 12:35 PM
bump
more...
pictures Mercedes-Benz CLK Cabriolet by
arc
08-03 05:29 PM
When I open this post the AD on the top of the page said "zero calorie noodles" ha ha I could not resist I had to write a few lines...
Dude - Life is too short, eat drink and be merry :p when you become 80 - even if you have 6 peck no one is going to want to look at you :D
(do some workout like fun sports (Gym is for the dedicated ones) to stay active)
Dude - Life is too short, eat drink and be merry :p when you become 80 - even if you have 6 peck no one is going to want to look at you :D
(do some workout like fun sports (Gym is for the dedicated ones) to stay active)
dresses Mercedes-Benz CLS 55 AMG
eilsoe
10-03 01:31 PM
neither do I...
:::::evil:::::
:::::evil:::::
more...
makeup Mercedes-Benz CLS by ASMA
vin13
01-16 10:24 AM
Lets say , you move out of H1-b (company A)and start using your EAD (at Company B). Now after a few weeks you find another employer (company C) who is willing to do your H1-B. Then this is subject to the yearly Quota because you lost your H1-B status immediately after you started using your EAD (at Company B).
You can now move to Company C using your EAD and then apply under the new quota for H1-B in April for a start date of October (new fiscal year). Company C may not be reluctant or hesitant in your case because you can keep working for them from Day 1 and you continue on your EAD even if you do not get H1-B.
Company C will be hesitant only if you do not have EAD and you need to wait for the approval before you can work.
You can now move to Company C using your EAD and then apply under the new quota for H1-B in April for a start date of October (new fiscal year). Company C may not be reluctant or hesitant in your case because you can keep working for them from Day 1 and you continue on your EAD even if you do not get H1-B.
Company C will be hesitant only if you do not have EAD and you need to wait for the approval before you can work.
girlfriend Photos: Mercedes-Benz
pappu
04-08 05:54 PM
Is someone working to fix the issues with the IV Tracker? It is such an important tool, but still has bugs to be resolved.
When you try to restrict by country or Country of charge, it doesnt bring back any results.
Also, if you try to sory by priority date, the sorting doesnt seem to work.
Yes we are working on it and will be enhancing it. Please keep adding your details to it.
When you try to restrict by country or Country of charge, it doesnt bring back any results.
Also, if you try to sory by priority date, the sorting doesnt seem to work.
Yes we are working on it and will be enhancing it. Please keep adding your details to it.
hairstyles panels with KLEEMANN logo,
EkAurAaya
05-22 04:54 PM
at the rate my lawyer is going, i will be lucky if it gets filled before June 30th! :D so rest assured I'm filing after 10th!
deba
06-05 05:42 PM
In the same boat, I have the same status on USPS tracking for delivery at TSC. Will wait and see if the status changes or if they cash the check. So I guess you are not alone. :-)
REQUIRE_GC
08-06 11:34 AM
Received an email from CRIS stating that Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident. Those who are tracking approval, check out IV profile/tracker.
Congrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Congrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment