kinvin
02-12 02:46 PM
Hi GCWaitforever,
I am wondering that did they have to do the advertisements for the Non-RIR case of yours.
In TR cases the advts were done later, but now after a "half-a-decade" wait does the Dept of Labor still want the advts for Backlogged cases.
Thanks,
I am wondering that did they have to do the advertisements for the Non-RIR case of yours.
In TR cases the advts were done later, but now after a "half-a-decade" wait does the Dept of Labor still want the advts for Backlogged cases.
Thanks,
wallpaper Happy Birthday Gemini! Free
Suva
04-10 03:01 PM
Hi pappu, I am contributing $5/month from 2007. This is $60 for every year. Am I eligible for donar forum? I am sending the checks from 2007 till now by bill pay from my bank.
AllVNeedGcPc
10-21 09:32 PM
... for example:
Step 1: File EB2 Perm labor (6-10 months)
Step 2: File 140 (2 days to 4 months)
:
And when should you interfile / port your EB3 date? Should you do it when you apply for 140 or should you do it after 140 approval when you apply for 485?
Thanks in advance
Step 1: File EB2 Perm labor (6-10 months)
Step 2: File 140 (2 days to 4 months)
:
And when should you interfile / port your EB3 date? Should you do it when you apply for 140 or should you do it after 140 approval when you apply for 485?
Thanks in advance
2011 make 50th irthday card free
vkannan
03-03 06:41 PM
That is not true, my lawyer who is very influential and he has some good contacts he told me that this year spill-over would be different form last year. I was stupid so didn�t believe him about July 2007, and paying it for now for not having EAD.
I know this is hard to believe especially if something comes from lawyer.
Thank's
MDix
Buddy, you are scaring EB2 folks a bit there with your comment (including self...) anyways I truly feel ppl. who applied before me should get their GC....it doesn't matter which category they are in.....anyways buddy your profile says you have a PD in 2008, why do u say you missed 2007 fiasco???:confused:
I know this is hard to believe especially if something comes from lawyer.
Thank's
MDix
Buddy, you are scaring EB2 folks a bit there with your comment (including self...) anyways I truly feel ppl. who applied before me should get their GC....it doesn't matter which category they are in.....anyways buddy your profile says you have a PD in 2008, why do u say you missed 2007 fiasco???:confused:
more...
vkotval
07-17 11:57 PM
I think priority date is important only for using a visa number for a 485 application which has been adjudicated. What is the use of a 485 application pending processing even if the visa numbers are available for that PD.
485Mbe4001
08-18 04:42 PM
^^ bump ^^
more...
somegchuh
01-03 04:16 PM
It really depends on who you ask. But my point is if you decide to stay in US in the long run, aren't immigrant divided between their kids and their parents?
I dont think one is necessarily doing kids a dis-service by electing to go back. On the contrary, kids experience tremendous personal growth through interaction with extended family which is not possible in a foreign land.
qualified_trash,
In your case I think the decision is very clear cut. Also, it works really well for you, in the sense that you are not "divided". If your parent and siblings have already left the country you have no reason to go back ever.
yes they are indeed. I took care of this as my sisters and parents have immigrated to New Zealand, work and live happily there and will be covered by a great social security system.
also, they do not need a visa to visit me after they get their citizenship (in the next year or so) and I will not need one to visit them after I get mine in the next decade or so.......... :-))
I dont think one is necessarily doing kids a dis-service by electing to go back. On the contrary, kids experience tremendous personal growth through interaction with extended family which is not possible in a foreign land.
qualified_trash,
In your case I think the decision is very clear cut. Also, it works really well for you, in the sense that you are not "divided". If your parent and siblings have already left the country you have no reason to go back ever.
yes they are indeed. I took care of this as my sisters and parents have immigrated to New Zealand, work and live happily there and will be covered by a great social security system.
also, they do not need a visa to visit me after they get their citizenship (in the next year or so) and I will not need one to visit them after I get mine in the next decade or so.......... :-))
2010 Best irthday card e free
Green.Tech
06-20 03:19 PM
Please contribute.
more...
Saburi
03-09 03:34 PM
Hello Friends:
As i was expecting, this happened exactly like that its nothing to be shocked of when some thing does not move for 4 months in a row for EB3 I then what do you expect to get this move so fast looking at the patern right now i think the next month and for the next 3 months atleast it will be the same dates and if we are lucky then it might move and be Dec 2001 after few months.
My PD is Dec 2001 6th Dec 2001 to be very exact so may be after Jul 2009 my PD will be current but look at people who are EB3 I and thier PD is 2003 to 2007 forget about GC this 10 years, unless there is a big releaf given by Mr. Change (Obama) which is unlikely to happen atleast for 2 years from now as he has lot of other important issues to resolve such as terrorisim, Economy, and much more bigger issues.
The only way we can make somebody look at us is having a big protest on the streets of Washington DC and doing some massive campaign such as writing to Obama, just imagine if every one of us writes to Obama about our pain there will be atleast 500000 letters or email he might be receiving with a big rally in Washington, this might make this look like a big problem for everybody even Mr Chnage will have to pay attention to this we are not asking for amnesty or favaouring Illegal immigration and i am sure every body will agree or atleast won't dis agree to the fact of our demands to get more visas or atleast have the recaptured visa make available for EB3 I.
I am not a big time voluntier or have participate in any rallies so far but would not mind to do if this could resolve everybody's problem, as mentioned above my PD is Dec 2001 and would be very soon out of this atleast would not have to wait for years and years for this PD to be current but the cause of doing this is once i get my GC i will be not visiting this site more frequently, and the number people in this forum will be far lesser that what we are now, atleast 500000 people.
If this does not sound a good advice please excuse me but if this does sounds good please if somebody can draft a letters and post it so everybody can email this to the president.
And please do not ask me for any contribution finialcailly as i am broke and tring to recover from my debts, finally have got a secured job but since its a bad economy not getting paid much that i can contribute any dollars towards this nobel cause.
As mentioned earlier please forgive me if this sounds too lenghty and stupid to even read this.
As i was expecting, this happened exactly like that its nothing to be shocked of when some thing does not move for 4 months in a row for EB3 I then what do you expect to get this move so fast looking at the patern right now i think the next month and for the next 3 months atleast it will be the same dates and if we are lucky then it might move and be Dec 2001 after few months.
My PD is Dec 2001 6th Dec 2001 to be very exact so may be after Jul 2009 my PD will be current but look at people who are EB3 I and thier PD is 2003 to 2007 forget about GC this 10 years, unless there is a big releaf given by Mr. Change (Obama) which is unlikely to happen atleast for 2 years from now as he has lot of other important issues to resolve such as terrorisim, Economy, and much more bigger issues.
The only way we can make somebody look at us is having a big protest on the streets of Washington DC and doing some massive campaign such as writing to Obama, just imagine if every one of us writes to Obama about our pain there will be atleast 500000 letters or email he might be receiving with a big rally in Washington, this might make this look like a big problem for everybody even Mr Chnage will have to pay attention to this we are not asking for amnesty or favaouring Illegal immigration and i am sure every body will agree or atleast won't dis agree to the fact of our demands to get more visas or atleast have the recaptured visa make available for EB3 I.
I am not a big time voluntier or have participate in any rallies so far but would not mind to do if this could resolve everybody's problem, as mentioned above my PD is Dec 2001 and would be very soon out of this atleast would not have to wait for years and years for this PD to be current but the cause of doing this is once i get my GC i will be not visiting this site more frequently, and the number people in this forum will be far lesser that what we are now, atleast 500000 people.
If this does not sound a good advice please excuse me but if this does sounds good please if somebody can draft a letters and post it so everybody can email this to the president.
And please do not ask me for any contribution finialcailly as i am broke and tring to recover from my debts, finally have got a secured job but since its a bad economy not getting paid much that i can contribute any dollars towards this nobel cause.
As mentioned earlier please forgive me if this sounds too lenghty and stupid to even read this.
hair free e belated irthday cards
soda
08-11 03:15 PM
If I had my I-485 applications mailed on July 2nd and had it postmarked on July 2nd, but reached USCIS on July 3rd, according to USCIS, does that mean that my application was filed on July 2nd?
more...
conundrum
03-12 02:42 PM
It will be great if everyone who comes to IV contributes. That would be the ideal case scenario. But I think if there were specific donation drives like the one that is on going, then I believe a lot of people who believe in that cause would contribute and others who dont, wont!
Now, in this donor's only club that IV is proposing to have, what does the core have in mind. Is that going to be a forum where exclusive information is provided? What is the incentive for a "donor" to visit the general public forum? If the "donor"s dont visit the general forum arent you effectively killing off the general forum?
Like I had posted earlier, what stops a donor from making whatever is there in the donors only forum made available to everyone? Isnt this going to cause more divisions within IV?
Instead of forum for donors wouldnt it make more sense to have additional features made available to donors? Say, like having the ability to ask questions to a immigration lawyer or if any lawmaker is ready to answer quetions, the ability to post questions to them. I am all for donors getting a little bit of extra perks, but to have seperate forum... I am not sure if that is the best way for IV to go abt.
Yes. I agree. We had to do this because we saw that even after running a drive for FOIA that helps every member we could not reach the goal yet. This data will be sought by all of us but if we are not ready to support the effort, it will be tough to invest in it. The subscriptions will help us continue IV initiatives with more zeal and we will know that a lot of members support us.
Now, in this donor's only club that IV is proposing to have, what does the core have in mind. Is that going to be a forum where exclusive information is provided? What is the incentive for a "donor" to visit the general public forum? If the "donor"s dont visit the general forum arent you effectively killing off the general forum?
Like I had posted earlier, what stops a donor from making whatever is there in the donors only forum made available to everyone? Isnt this going to cause more divisions within IV?
Instead of forum for donors wouldnt it make more sense to have additional features made available to donors? Say, like having the ability to ask questions to a immigration lawyer or if any lawmaker is ready to answer quetions, the ability to post questions to them. I am all for donors getting a little bit of extra perks, but to have seperate forum... I am not sure if that is the best way for IV to go abt.
Yes. I agree. We had to do this because we saw that even after running a drive for FOIA that helps every member we could not reach the goal yet. This data will be sought by all of us but if we are not ready to support the effort, it will be tough to invest in it. The subscriptions will help us continue IV initiatives with more zeal and we will know that a lot of members support us.
hot irthday card free in free
walking_dude
07-06 12:35 AM
IV does not need a change in leadership. We have a very effective leadership that is working hard behind the scenes to bring about a positive change to the community. If we have not been noticing major changes, it's due to the passive (chaltha hai chalne do) nature of our community, who don't even lift a finger to swat a fly, until and unless they receive a RFE/NOID/Rejection letter from the USCIS.
No change in leadership will bring about any change, unless the community changes it's mentality, raises above narcissism, and becomes actively involved in the movement. This requires a "person with the face", a person ready to expose himself as a leader of the movement to motivate others; subjecting himself/herself to death threats (and other threats) from anti-immigrant goons like ITGrunt and others. Our fearless Aman Kapoor has made that bold sacrifice for the ungrateful community which blames him for all our collective failures.
So before proposing a change in leadership, I request Mr. Bawa to post his personal picture in the IV profile and/or publish a YouTube video of his ideas for the movement ( just like Aman's video on Immigration Voice). I can't vote for a faceless leader hiding behind anonymity. I need a real life person with real ideas. Do we have such New fearless leaders in our community?
No change in leadership will bring about any change, unless the community changes it's mentality, raises above narcissism, and becomes actively involved in the movement. This requires a "person with the face", a person ready to expose himself as a leader of the movement to motivate others; subjecting himself/herself to death threats (and other threats) from anti-immigrant goons like ITGrunt and others. Our fearless Aman Kapoor has made that bold sacrifice for the ungrateful community which blames him for all our collective failures.
So before proposing a change in leadership, I request Mr. Bawa to post his personal picture in the IV profile and/or publish a YouTube video of his ideas for the movement ( just like Aman's video on Immigration Voice). I can't vote for a faceless leader hiding behind anonymity. I need a real life person with real ideas. Do we have such New fearless leaders in our community?
more...
house searchquot;123 irthday free
GC08
06-02 02:57 PM
Who knows what is going to happen? Look at the mess we have now... who can tell that they are not going to create more mess this time ... esp. for those who stay in the line and wait, wait, wait ... forever!
I have to agree with what someone on this forum said before... being legal, being patient and being nice does not pay. :(
Look at the whole immigration debate, all the amendments proposed and all the special interests group... where were we put? Those stuck in the backlogs were never paid attention to.
Sorry for being pessimistic and negative... but if history provides any indication of the future, it definitely has clearly shows the imcompetence of all the government agencies involved (at best)... at worst, it is a total scam/conspiracy... be it government agencies (have you heard fee increases, wasted visa #s, forever renewals?), employers (have you heard blood-sucking employers), and even some lawyers.
Don't know about you. But I have lost confidence about the whole green card thing. :(
I have to agree with what someone on this forum said before... being legal, being patient and being nice does not pay. :(
Look at the whole immigration debate, all the amendments proposed and all the special interests group... where were we put? Those stuck in the backlogs were never paid attention to.
Sorry for being pessimistic and negative... but if history provides any indication of the future, it definitely has clearly shows the imcompetence of all the government agencies involved (at best)... at worst, it is a total scam/conspiracy... be it government agencies (have you heard fee increases, wasted visa #s, forever renewals?), employers (have you heard blood-sucking employers), and even some lawyers.
Don't know about you. But I have lost confidence about the whole green card thing. :(
tattoo free e irthday cards
Macaca
09-14 01:05 PM
Bush Counting on Tougher Enforcement To Carry Revived Bill (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=89800&postcount=475) By DAVID ROGERS (david.rogers@wsj.com) | The Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2007
High-Tech Titans Strike Out on Immigration Bill (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=89882&postcount=481) By ROBERT PEAR (rpear@nytimes.com) | New York Times, June 25, 2007
Revised Bill to Add Fuel To Immigration Debate (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=90213&postcount=492) By DAVID HALL (david.hall@wsj.com) |THE WALL STREET JOURNAL,
June 25, 2007
High-Tech Titans Strike Out on Immigration Bill (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=89882&postcount=481) By ROBERT PEAR (rpear@nytimes.com) | New York Times, June 25, 2007
Revised Bill to Add Fuel To Immigration Debate (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=90213&postcount=492) By DAVID HALL (david.hall@wsj.com) |THE WALL STREET JOURNAL,
June 25, 2007
more...
pictures free xrated irthday card
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
dresses irthday card free greeting
immi_seeker
10-01 05:46 PM
After the july fiasco, USCIS need not have to worry about recieving huge applications if they move the dates forward. Since almost all the folks (except for folks stuck at BEC) would have turned in the applications uscis should be able to move the dates forward for FY08 to a big extent , so that visa numbers are not wasted.
but again it all depends on how they view this.These are cry from our end..
but again it all depends on how they view this.These are cry from our end..
more...
makeup free birthday cards that you
dhirajgrover
01-14 12:11 PM
There are 2 options in my opinion.
1. Secure an appointment with the local ASC and have them expedite this case if you want to travel early. They may require some supporting documents. The appointment can be made via Infopass at http://infopass.uscis.gov/index.php
2. Call USCIS at the number on your receipt notice. Select a series of numbers as per the prompts to talk to a Service Rep. Tell them your urgency to travel and they will expedite your case. It will take 5 business days from the date the request gets expedited to get a response back from USCIS.
HTH.
1. Secure an appointment with the local ASC and have them expedite this case if you want to travel early. They may require some supporting documents. The appointment can be made via Infopass at http://infopass.uscis.gov/index.php
2. Call USCIS at the number on your receipt notice. Select a series of numbers as per the prompts to talk to a Service Rep. Tell them your urgency to travel and they will expedite your case. It will take 5 business days from the date the request gets expedited to get a response back from USCIS.
HTH.
girlfriend Birthday Free Stuff
ps57002
07-28 07:18 PM
are u sure it was atlanta center? they seem to be moving but 2 day approval would be so hard to believe.... not doubting you....just my own ears..well eyes in this case cause am reading
hairstyles googl irthday free cards
Sakthisagar
02-24 01:15 PM
As Ron Gotcher (imminfo.com) predicted Jobs bill passed at Senate.
Senate Votes 70-28 to Approve $15 Billion Jobs Bill
Though modest in scope, the bill was hailed by Democrats as evidence that the parties could work together.
Read Further.
Senate Votes 70-28 to Approve $15 Billion Jobs Bill - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/politics/25jobs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)
Senate Votes 70-28 to Approve $15 Billion Jobs Bill
Though modest in scope, the bill was hailed by Democrats as evidence that the parties could work together.
Read Further.
Senate Votes 70-28 to Approve $15 Billion Jobs Bill - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/politics/25jobs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)
wa_Saiprasad
09-01 09:25 AM
Priority date: May 2002 Eb3.
Same company
Same h1b
Same labour.
Same company
Same h1b
Same labour.
rkotamurthy
01-18 06:47 PM
I don't think there was a Conf Call in '07. Does anyone know when the next call is scheduled?
Does anyone communicate with the "Core Team" and get updates ? Could somebody explain how IV works?
Does anyone communicate with the "Core Team" and get updates ? Could somebody explain how IV works?
No comments:
Post a Comment