Ann Ruben
05-15 03:53 PM
In this circumstance it is fine to file an H-1 petition while the L-1B appeal is pending.
wallpaper Stock lack bird tattoo.
deardar
09-17 01:53 PM
Dear folks,
I tried to help your mission. I offered my talent, time, and my experience of delivering messages.
Written to the forum and called in several times, was promised to get a call back.
And was not contacted, nor called.
And here is my message for you:
You do not care about immigration reform - you care about your own green cards. You care ONLY about daisy consultants, such as yourselves, and you are not ready to address issues at large.
You do not speak on behalf of me, nor you speak on behalf of the mainstream any employment based immigrant.
Best of luck.
Sir,
Was there any specific information that you needed ?
I tried to help your mission. I offered my talent, time, and my experience of delivering messages.
Written to the forum and called in several times, was promised to get a call back.
And was not contacted, nor called.
And here is my message for you:
You do not care about immigration reform - you care about your own green cards. You care ONLY about daisy consultants, such as yourselves, and you are not ready to address issues at large.
You do not speak on behalf of me, nor you speak on behalf of the mainstream any employment based immigrant.
Best of luck.
Sir,
Was there any specific information that you needed ?
chinna2003
03-11 05:21 PM
This is a very subjective question of intent? If the employer has no problem and willing to support the petition and a job offer when the RFE arrives, how will the UCSIS ever determine intent.
Lets assume the greencard is approved and can it be revoked if i never work for the employer.
And will the fac that i worked for them in the past and resigned before filing a I 14o be a negative factor for adjudication.
Its 100% fraud and abuse. I'm suprised you even thought of asking about this. The answer is in your question.
Lets assume the greencard is approved and can it be revoked if i never work for the employer.
And will the fac that i worked for them in the past and resigned before filing a I 14o be a negative factor for adjudication.
Its 100% fraud and abuse. I'm suprised you even thought of asking about this. The answer is in your question.
2011 ird, lack dragon
immigrationvoice1
12-09 10:00 PM
My immigration status is H1 (485 pending EB2/INDIA). I am on the verge of completing my 2 year Masters in Computer Information Systems (MS-CIS) from Missouri State in Springfield, Missouri. Its a distance education Masters program with one week of on-campus residency every semester. The program is geared towards working IT professionals and its accredited by AACSB. The quality of education is excellent and fees is very nominal. I even got my employer to reimburse me for the tuition. Please see the following website for additional information on the program.
http://missouristate.edu/
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/default.asp
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/applicationprocess.asp
Please email me at arshstl@gmail.com for additional information.
Thanks for sharing the information!
http://missouristate.edu/
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/default.asp
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/applicationprocess.asp
Please email me at arshstl@gmail.com for additional information.
Thanks for sharing the information!
more...
sammyb
11-16 04:21 PM
Oh, I nearly forgot, AND pigs must fly!
yes thats true .... but I guess only pig is not enough ... we need the whole animal kingdon fly before ....:D
yes thats true .... but I guess only pig is not enough ... we need the whole animal kingdon fly before ....:D
chanduv23
06-30 07:59 AM
Chanduv23,
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
Yes, RFEs could be a part of preadjudication. But at times people do receive random RFEs too. If you are lucky, you can get the answer from a officer on whether your case is preadjudicated or not.
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
Yes, RFEs could be a part of preadjudication. But at times people do receive random RFEs too. If you are lucky, you can get the answer from a officer on whether your case is preadjudicated or not.
more...
Quest99
09-14 03:30 PM
Here is my story:
I work for Company A. Got an offer from Company B who is a consulting company. Got placed in a project which is like 1.5 hrs away from my home (I accepted this opportunity for my GC and everything was fine). Company B filed for my LCA for the H1-B transfer. They accepted to pay all the H1-B transfer fees.
Here is my problem:
1 week after my LCA was filed, I came to know that my wife was pregnant. As per the doctor she needs some close attention and care because of her health condition(atleast for 2 months). Also, I have to take her for tests minimum once per week at a hospital which is quite opposite in direction where company B placed me (2hrs ride).
I came to a conclusion not to take this opportunity because of my wife's health and also keeping in mind how the new job will treat me (in terms of flexibility. leaving early, WFH etc - for my wife's treatment). I felt this was a genuine reason from my side.
I informed Company B about this change of plan because I cannot commute such a long distance having these constraints in mind (not good for me as well as not good for the new project).
Company B is asking me pay $3000 for some damages and they say that it is as per the contract.
To my true knowledge I did not sign any kind of contract with them neither the recruiter told me anything. Now Company B is saying that minimum 3 months is required or I have to pay for H1-B transfer and all other fees.
The offer letter that I signed clearly stated that the employment is "At Will" in nature which when asked now, Company B is saying that is for GC and Citizens (which is not mentioned anywhere in the offer letter).
The thing is that they are threatening me and they were so rough and hard when I finally spoke to them. They said that they will be sending the vouchers for me to pay them back.
I thank God for not joining this company as I came to know about their true colors now, they are so money minded and the words they spoke were so harmful. I am pretty sure they would have created more problems for some other reasons if I had joined them.
Even though I did not sign any bond, I am really scared by the way they spoke to me. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.
I work for Company A. Got an offer from Company B who is a consulting company. Got placed in a project which is like 1.5 hrs away from my home (I accepted this opportunity for my GC and everything was fine). Company B filed for my LCA for the H1-B transfer. They accepted to pay all the H1-B transfer fees.
Here is my problem:
1 week after my LCA was filed, I came to know that my wife was pregnant. As per the doctor she needs some close attention and care because of her health condition(atleast for 2 months). Also, I have to take her for tests minimum once per week at a hospital which is quite opposite in direction where company B placed me (2hrs ride).
I came to a conclusion not to take this opportunity because of my wife's health and also keeping in mind how the new job will treat me (in terms of flexibility. leaving early, WFH etc - for my wife's treatment). I felt this was a genuine reason from my side.
I informed Company B about this change of plan because I cannot commute such a long distance having these constraints in mind (not good for me as well as not good for the new project).
Company B is asking me pay $3000 for some damages and they say that it is as per the contract.
To my true knowledge I did not sign any kind of contract with them neither the recruiter told me anything. Now Company B is saying that minimum 3 months is required or I have to pay for H1-B transfer and all other fees.
The offer letter that I signed clearly stated that the employment is "At Will" in nature which when asked now, Company B is saying that is for GC and Citizens (which is not mentioned anywhere in the offer letter).
The thing is that they are threatening me and they were so rough and hard when I finally spoke to them. They said that they will be sending the vouchers for me to pay them back.
I thank God for not joining this company as I came to know about their true colors now, they are so money minded and the words they spoke were so harmful. I am pretty sure they would have created more problems for some other reasons if I had joined them.
Even though I did not sign any bond, I am really scared by the way they spoke to me. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.
2010 Black+ird+tattoo+images
GCVivek
04-28 06:08 PM
This is another fake story and push to try to get Congress to do something about easing immigration. 150K entrepreneurs have returned home. Really? I have not seen more than 100 Indian+Chinese NEW companies - worth their name - come up in the last at least 10 years. And about 5000 US firms that are making waves have come up in the US, 90% of which are started by born-Americans.
Moral: those that returned home were not entrepreneurs!
Moral: those that returned home were not entrepreneurs!
more...
pappu
04-16 10:46 AM
Admins,
Now a days I am seeing lots of questions asked by new members. If you have some mechanisms to show whether they have registered with valid data or fake data would help the other members who spend time in answering those questions.
I would request all the new members to contribute to our cause. Join monthly contribution of $20 and help yourselves. Thanks.
We get a lot of people with Alabama as the state. This is because it is the first state in the dropdown. People do not even bother to put their correct state when they create a free membership account. If we do not get correct email address we cannot communicate with you via emails. We also need your name and phone number so that we can call you. There have been times, when core team has called members to tell them about something important. We will sometimes point out on the forum if any poster has not given us full information. It may cause embarresment to some members who are frequently posting on the forums annonymously.
Now a days I am seeing lots of questions asked by new members. If you have some mechanisms to show whether they have registered with valid data or fake data would help the other members who spend time in answering those questions.
I would request all the new members to contribute to our cause. Join monthly contribution of $20 and help yourselves. Thanks.
We get a lot of people with Alabama as the state. This is because it is the first state in the dropdown. People do not even bother to put their correct state when they create a free membership account. If we do not get correct email address we cannot communicate with you via emails. We also need your name and phone number so that we can call you. There have been times, when core team has called members to tell them about something important. We will sometimes point out on the forum if any poster has not given us full information. It may cause embarresment to some members who are frequently posting on the forums annonymously.
hair lack bird tattoo.
DSLStart
12-15 12:51 PM
jayleno: there is nothing funny about this situation so no need to make jokes on him. He just told him about sending wife to India, because that guys uername says Atul which hail from India and not srilanka or pak or bangladesh.
Buddy,
Are you trying to create a problem or solve one? If I were from Sri Lanka, why would I send my wife to India? If we start following your advice, soon many husbands would be leading a single life for being laid off.
Buddy,
Are you trying to create a problem or solve one? If I were from Sri Lanka, why would I send my wife to India? If we start following your advice, soon many husbands would be leading a single life for being laid off.
more...
alterego
04-11 04:59 PM
I would definitely be cautious about the plan you have mentioned. Here is the reason. You applied as an attending/practicing hospitalist through labor for a future job offer and you are moving into a trainee position. Should you be called for an interview or get a RFE at the AOS stage(not that uncommon nowadays), you would have to demonstrate how it is that doing an oncology fellowship better qualifies you to be a future hospitalist. That would be difficult. You could take a chance and get away but know that you will be taking one.
Even in cases of Physician NIW when you have completed the stipulated 5 yr commitment, lawyers are unwilling to give the all clear to do a fellowship on the EAD. They seem to be in consensus that you can move into another attending internist job but that is as far as they will go.
Even in cases of Physician NIW when you have completed the stipulated 5 yr commitment, lawyers are unwilling to give the all clear to do a fellowship on the EAD. They seem to be in consensus that you can move into another attending internist job but that is as far as they will go.
hot A BEAUTIFUL BIRD TATTOO DESIGN
Karthikthiru
08-01 11:16 PM
We all have to keep assuming like this only. The only way is to lobby and increase the the VISA numbers per year. So we all should show up on the Sep 13th rally and show our strength
Karthik
Karthik
more...
house Black Bird Tattoos
admin
04-08 09:22 AM
I have changed the title of this thread to make it less controversial.
tattoo Black Bird
americandesi
06-18 01:10 PM
All EB priority dates for July 2007 is current. Hence everyone can go for concurrent filing right away.
The scenario I have given explains how to maintain the status after getting permanent residency from both countries, so that you are eligible to apply for citizenship in both countries.
But here is the catch. Some Canadian immigration officers might not consider the commuting days towards the day count for citizenship. It solely depends on the discretion of the officer during Canadian citizenship interview.
The scenario I have given explains how to maintain the status after getting permanent residency from both countries, so that you are eligible to apply for citizenship in both countries.
But here is the catch. Some Canadian immigration officers might not consider the commuting days towards the day count for citizenship. It solely depends on the discretion of the officer during Canadian citizenship interview.
more...
pictures Black Bird Tattoo Gallery
DallasBlue
08-01 11:53 PM
Is there a real need of seperate group other than IV.
Just curious.
we just want to group together locally to meet local lawmakers. Most importantly Senator Cornyn's office in near future and push for our goals.
And it is not any seperate group. join the yahoo group to find out who is doing what in their local cities in Texas.
Just curious.
we just want to group together locally to meet local lawmakers. Most importantly Senator Cornyn's office in near future and push for our goals.
And it is not any seperate group. join the yahoo group to find out who is doing what in their local cities in Texas.
dresses Comments: Bird tattoo. lack
skdskd
09-27 10:02 AM
Hi All,
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
tinoue I will suggest talk to lawyer,
As per my lawyer, If at the time of filing of I-485 , you already have I-140 approved , you are supposed to write A# I-140 on I-485 Application.
Otherwise they might assign New One..
If you remember on I-485 Application there is place for A#.
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
tinoue I will suggest talk to lawyer,
As per my lawyer, If at the time of filing of I-485 , you already have I-140 approved , you are supposed to write A# I-140 on I-485 Application.
Otherwise they might assign New One..
If you remember on I-485 Application there is place for A#.
more...
makeup Black Bird Tattoo
nocomment
09-27 04:41 PM
Why would IRS care how you perform your full time job. IRS's responsibilty is to collect taxes on our earnings, and it doesnt matter you trade 100 or 1000 stocks per day as long as you file schedule D.
Short term trading is gambling, you wont come out of the game until you lose. Long term is the way to make money.
Short term trading is gambling, you wont come out of the game until you lose. Long term is the way to make money.
girlfriend ird tattoo
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.
hairstyles the lack bird tattoos!
saileshdude
07-21 09:56 AM
All you guys,
Take an Infopass appointment and tell them that you have not received FP notice. Sometimes taking infopass appt helps. So you can try that option.
Take an Infopass appointment and tell them that you have not received FP notice. Sometimes taking infopass appt helps. So you can try that option.
Jeff Wheeler
11-27 04:04 AM
I find that Silverlight and related .NET stuff works extremely well cross-platform. Apps like Banshee (http://banshee-project.org/) are cross-platform (really, not like Flash and AIR which suck on Linux and Mac) and work wonderfully on every platform (alright, bad example: there’s not a Windows port at the moment, because of the underlying audio libraries, but it’s all C# stuff).
Mono is implementing a really nice open-source version of Silverlight (I forget its name), and Silverlight works great on Mac.
Mono is implementing a really nice open-source version of Silverlight (I forget its name), and Silverlight works great on Mac.
russiarulez
03-26 07:00 PM
Last 2 years of college I was working full time in my field and going to school full time.
How did you work full time during college for 2 years? Unless you had an off-campus work permit I wouldn't even tell Immigration about that 'experience'.
And AFAIK you have to earn the bachelor's first and then count the years of experience.
How did you work full time during college for 2 years? Unless you had an off-campus work permit I wouldn't even tell Immigration about that 'experience'.
And AFAIK you have to earn the bachelor's first and then count the years of experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment