kondur_007
09-23 10:37 AM
I found this on shusterman's regarding obama's views on immigration. Looks like he is all for family based immigration but no mention about employment based.
http://shusterman.com/pdf/obama908.pdf
That's where the "vote bank" is my friend...
I will be little blunt here but will say this:
Ask yourself this question: (assume that you are american born person and are advisor to one of the campaigns): What will help you politically? Supporting skilled EB immigrants (140k per year, who will not be able to vote for at least next five years) or FB immigrants (860k per year, who may also not be able to vote for next five years) or no immigrants (join the part of Loo Doggs and count on may be 1-2 percent of population who may support them which would be 3-6 million votes).
In nutshell, from the perspecitive of politicians, it is never a good deal to support EB immigration; the only incentive for them is the money they get from big companies like microsoft, IBM, google etc. And this is not enough to land us anywhere. Only a very few politician (like sen Lofgren) work for their principles, rest is all vote bank; that's why horses are more important than us.
I am a little bit bitter here, but it is time to understand this reality and consider our strategy accordingly; espeicially for the possible CIR next year.
http://shusterman.com/pdf/obama908.pdf
That's where the "vote bank" is my friend...
I will be little blunt here but will say this:
Ask yourself this question: (assume that you are american born person and are advisor to one of the campaigns): What will help you politically? Supporting skilled EB immigrants (140k per year, who will not be able to vote for at least next five years) or FB immigrants (860k per year, who may also not be able to vote for next five years) or no immigrants (join the part of Loo Doggs and count on may be 1-2 percent of population who may support them which would be 3-6 million votes).
In nutshell, from the perspecitive of politicians, it is never a good deal to support EB immigration; the only incentive for them is the money they get from big companies like microsoft, IBM, google etc. And this is not enough to land us anywhere. Only a very few politician (like sen Lofgren) work for their principles, rest is all vote bank; that's why horses are more important than us.
I am a little bit bitter here, but it is time to understand this reality and consider our strategy accordingly; espeicially for the possible CIR next year.
wallpaper Tupac Shakur
shukla77
06-24 10:19 AM
Lady was very supportive.. Good work guys.
willwin
06-26 08:38 AM
I know IV is doing its best and there are other groups fighting for HR 5882.
But honestly, what are the chances for this bill to succeed this year (before election)?
100% or 75% or 50% or 25% or 0%
Ron Gotcher predicts that none of the individual bills may pass this year.
And also that EB3 I may not move forward even next year!
I am not sure how many EB3 (I) volunteers are there in IV (who are really focussed). Are they getting nothing? The prediction is that EB3 I may go back to Nov 2001 and stay there for a while (or may be for the rest of next year).
Is the efforts of EB3 (I) volunteers being exploited (indirectly, ofcourse)? What are they fighting for?
But honestly, what are the chances for this bill to succeed this year (before election)?
100% or 75% or 50% or 25% or 0%
Ron Gotcher predicts that none of the individual bills may pass this year.
And also that EB3 I may not move forward even next year!
I am not sure how many EB3 (I) volunteers are there in IV (who are really focussed). Are they getting nothing? The prediction is that EB3 I may go back to Nov 2001 and stay there for a while (or may be for the rest of next year).
Is the efforts of EB3 (I) volunteers being exploited (indirectly, ofcourse)? What are they fighting for?
2011 Tupac Shakur and more…
skynet2500
10-29 09:45 AM
Thanks a Bunch. I will send the documentation ASAP.
more...
mshelat
05-16 12:21 PM
let's keep working on it.
Michael chertoff
03-28 08:34 PM
Now Tony, unless you are lacking in any confidence, you wouldn't be acting out like a big baby here. Now shut the trap up and learn to ignore the irrelevant bickerings.
here comes the smartest kid....
here comes the smartest kid....
more...
desi485
10-27 05:41 PM
Are we/employees really supposed to know all the steps involved in the approval of GC process (Perm, 140/EAD/485 etc.)?
I work for one of the fortune 100 companies, to my surprise, none of my European colleagues is aware of all the GC process. All they do is just provide documents what ever the HR department asks for. They don�t pay from their pocket for GC (ideally correct). None of them has clue about priority date etc�.they get communicated by the HR department about their GC process.
So putting your case in perspective. I am assuming that the HR department would just hand over the GC to the employee. Neither the HR (I think) nor the employee (definitely) would worry about the PD being current.
Ideally if a law firm is point of contact for a petition, what would they do? Would they go back to USCIS and tell them that the GC is approved by mistake? I don�t think so but some one can confirm if they had experience otherwise.
I completely agree with what you are saying. We are overly-active community due to monster called 'retrogression', otherwise none of us would be knowing immigration details as much as we do now.
I work for one of the fortune 100 companies, to my surprise, none of my European colleagues is aware of all the GC process. All they do is just provide documents what ever the HR department asks for. They don�t pay from their pocket for GC (ideally correct). None of them has clue about priority date etc�.they get communicated by the HR department about their GC process.
So putting your case in perspective. I am assuming that the HR department would just hand over the GC to the employee. Neither the HR (I think) nor the employee (definitely) would worry about the PD being current.
Ideally if a law firm is point of contact for a petition, what would they do? Would they go back to USCIS and tell them that the GC is approved by mistake? I don�t think so but some one can confirm if they had experience otherwise.
I completely agree with what you are saying. We are overly-active community due to monster called 'retrogression', otherwise none of us would be knowing immigration details as much as we do now.
2010 Tupac “2Pac” Shakur
amitjoey
05-21 05:19 PM
I will match dollar for dollar all contributions for the next 3 hours, if some one from IV will confirm the amount.
Anybody wants to take Sugaur on his offer.
Right now the total to match is $300
Anybody wants to take Sugaur on his offer.
Right now the total to match is $300
more...
kaisersose
07-15 05:16 PM
How we are getting 50k is like this.
1) EB1 Over Flow (50% of EB1 was unused last year) 46k/2= 23k
2) EB2 Over Flow , this number is still fuzzy. But lets say around 10k.
3) EB2 India has quota of 3500.
So approx 40k.
Correct...This is a new thing starting this year. And as long as this interpretation holds good, we will see similar excess numbers available to EB2 India/China - until they become current.
Then these numbers will pass on to EB3 ROW
Then after that category becomes current, numbers will start flowing into EB3 India/China.
But all this is assuming, the number of GC applicants per year is less than 140/2.5 = 56K/Year + their interpretations do not change again.
I for one, would not be surprised to be see EB2 India move to 2007 next year.
1) EB1 Over Flow (50% of EB1 was unused last year) 46k/2= 23k
2) EB2 Over Flow , this number is still fuzzy. But lets say around 10k.
3) EB2 India has quota of 3500.
So approx 40k.
Correct...This is a new thing starting this year. And as long as this interpretation holds good, we will see similar excess numbers available to EB2 India/China - until they become current.
Then these numbers will pass on to EB3 ROW
Then after that category becomes current, numbers will start flowing into EB3 India/China.
But all this is assuming, the number of GC applicants per year is less than 140/2.5 = 56K/Year + their interpretations do not change again.
I for one, would not be surprised to be see EB2 India move to 2007 next year.
hair tupac shakur funeral
mheggade
07-15 05:26 PM
Thanks for the post. However I read testimony that said more than 80% of EB visas have been used up. That leaves only 28k (20% of 140k) at most as spill over for Fiscal 2008. Thoughts?
My understanding is they wait until last quarter to give the spill over. But this time they started giving the numbers in 3rd quarter itself. Keep in mind EB1 is current and Eb2 except I and C is still current.
I expect to see at least 20k visa's issued to EB2 I and C.
My understanding is they wait until last quarter to give the spill over. But this time they started giving the numbers in 3rd quarter itself. Keep in mind EB1 is current and Eb2 except I and C is still current.
I expect to see at least 20k visa's issued to EB2 I and C.
more...
fide_champ
09-29 11:08 AM
I�ve been laid off as of Friday last week.
My employer started laying off people an year ago and there were too many cycles so far. I was immune to all those layoffs until Friday. They eliminated everybody in my team, 15 people in total.
I am in the final stage of my GC and I have 2 year EAD. My H1 is expiring in March and my (ex) employer already paid my Attorney for the 3 year extension. They have decided to extend my H1 and paid for the expenses. But in the mean time, they were forced by the investors to show profitability and hence the layoffs.
My (ex) employer is based in Massachusetts and my Labor Certification was done from this location.
I have received job offers from some of my employer�s clients. However, they are based in other States (CO, OH & WA for instance) and they might not be able to do my H1. One of them is interested in hiring me on a contract basis, since they had frozen new hiring.
Is taking a job outside of Massachusetts impact my pending I-485? or Will it violate my Labor Certification conditions? I couldn�t find an answer for this anywhere.
Also, can I take contract jobs for the time being?
I sent out an email to my Attorney with all these questions. But, he is not available until Tuesday next week.
Please post your answers, comments and suggestions.
Thanks!
As long as your job responsibilities are same or similar, your should be good to go. You are probably confusing between Labor Certification and LCA. If you use your EAD, you can work anywhere in the US. LCA filing is done for H1B and there you could specify the job location but not in a Labor Certification filed for the GC process.
My employer started laying off people an year ago and there were too many cycles so far. I was immune to all those layoffs until Friday. They eliminated everybody in my team, 15 people in total.
I am in the final stage of my GC and I have 2 year EAD. My H1 is expiring in March and my (ex) employer already paid my Attorney for the 3 year extension. They have decided to extend my H1 and paid for the expenses. But in the mean time, they were forced by the investors to show profitability and hence the layoffs.
My (ex) employer is based in Massachusetts and my Labor Certification was done from this location.
I have received job offers from some of my employer�s clients. However, they are based in other States (CO, OH & WA for instance) and they might not be able to do my H1. One of them is interested in hiring me on a contract basis, since they had frozen new hiring.
Is taking a job outside of Massachusetts impact my pending I-485? or Will it violate my Labor Certification conditions? I couldn�t find an answer for this anywhere.
Also, can I take contract jobs for the time being?
I sent out an email to my Attorney with all these questions. But, he is not available until Tuesday next week.
Please post your answers, comments and suggestions.
Thanks!
As long as your job responsibilities are same or similar, your should be good to go. You are probably confusing between Labor Certification and LCA. If you use your EAD, you can work anywhere in the US. LCA filing is done for H1B and there you could specify the job location but not in a Labor Certification filed for the GC process.
hot autopsy,tupac shakur
arihant
03-21 06:57 AM
Fierce Battle Brews Over Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Difficult Road Ahead
Report indicates that the comprehensive immigration reform battles are getting growingly passionate over the illegal immigrant issues among the different political forces and some news agencies question whether the Congress will be able to pass such legislation before this year is over. The real battle is waiting in the House of Representatives and reportedly the restrictionist members of the House are organizing and mobilizing their forces to oppose any bills that will give any relief to the illegal aliens including the temporary guest worker program and the earned adjustment of status of the illegal aliens to permanent residents. There are some indications that some of the House members favor the Frist bill over the Specter bill in the Senate because of the illegal alien immigration issues. The Frist bill does not offer any relief for the illegal aliens and proposes to reinforce the border security and immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, the Specter bill proposes the temporary guest worker program and earned adjustment of status along with reinforcement of the border security and immigration enfocement.
When it comes to the reform of legal immigration, particularly the employment-based immigration, there appears to be no noticeable battle among different political forces. Indeed the Frist bill and the Specter bill agree each other in almost every detail in the direction of the reform. However, the Chinese and Indian immigrant communities are currently battling with these bills over the provision that restricts use of the per country immigrant visa numbers for fear that such bill will not be able to relieve current employment-based visa number retrogressions for India and China regardless of increase of the overall employment-based immigrant visa quota, recapture of unused immigrant visa numbers, and other provisions that exempt several employment-based immigration related groups from the annual numerical limitation, including family members and certain advanced degree holders.
It is our view that the direction of the employment-based immigration system reform should focus on removing the clogs to the pipeline that supplies the needed foreign workers at both high-end and low-end. The reality is that these foreign workers are supplied primarily by certain countries. The statistics reflect that most of the high-end professional workers come from India and China. Considering the fact that it is the sense of the Congress and the nation that this country needs continuing in-flow of foreign brains as reflected in the special provisions relating to the advanced degree foreign worker immigration, the per country limit in the employment-based immigration quota system will work against the achievement of these primary policy goals since it will create another clog to the supply of foreign brains from the primary sources of these brains. It is proposed that the Specter bill is amended to remove the per country limit and the Senate passes the comprehensive immigration reform bill without imposing per country limit in the visa number allocations. In formulating the nation's policy, the Congress cannot contract itself in the same legislation.
Report indicates that the comprehensive immigration reform battles are getting growingly passionate over the illegal immigrant issues among the different political forces and some news agencies question whether the Congress will be able to pass such legislation before this year is over. The real battle is waiting in the House of Representatives and reportedly the restrictionist members of the House are organizing and mobilizing their forces to oppose any bills that will give any relief to the illegal aliens including the temporary guest worker program and the earned adjustment of status of the illegal aliens to permanent residents. There are some indications that some of the House members favor the Frist bill over the Specter bill in the Senate because of the illegal alien immigration issues. The Frist bill does not offer any relief for the illegal aliens and proposes to reinforce the border security and immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, the Specter bill proposes the temporary guest worker program and earned adjustment of status along with reinforcement of the border security and immigration enfocement.
When it comes to the reform of legal immigration, particularly the employment-based immigration, there appears to be no noticeable battle among different political forces. Indeed the Frist bill and the Specter bill agree each other in almost every detail in the direction of the reform. However, the Chinese and Indian immigrant communities are currently battling with these bills over the provision that restricts use of the per country immigrant visa numbers for fear that such bill will not be able to relieve current employment-based visa number retrogressions for India and China regardless of increase of the overall employment-based immigrant visa quota, recapture of unused immigrant visa numbers, and other provisions that exempt several employment-based immigration related groups from the annual numerical limitation, including family members and certain advanced degree holders.
It is our view that the direction of the employment-based immigration system reform should focus on removing the clogs to the pipeline that supplies the needed foreign workers at both high-end and low-end. The reality is that these foreign workers are supplied primarily by certain countries. The statistics reflect that most of the high-end professional workers come from India and China. Considering the fact that it is the sense of the Congress and the nation that this country needs continuing in-flow of foreign brains as reflected in the special provisions relating to the advanced degree foreign worker immigration, the per country limit in the employment-based immigration quota system will work against the achievement of these primary policy goals since it will create another clog to the supply of foreign brains from the primary sources of these brains. It is proposed that the Specter bill is amended to remove the per country limit and the Senate passes the comprehensive immigration reform bill without imposing per country limit in the visa number allocations. In formulating the nation's policy, the Congress cannot contract itself in the same legislation.
more...
house tupac shakur autopsy
Bhadwaj
10-07 04:35 PM
Hi,
Here is our situation. I am on H1 and have 485 pending for me and my wife. Both of us also have a valid EAD.
My wife was on H1 too, however since Oct'08 she relinquished her H1 status and took up another job using her EAD. Currently, we are planning to have her AP filed (her earlier AP expired in Dec'08).
Given all this, I have following questions.
a). Are there any risks associated with filing AP.
b). I presume her status has been valid so far... reason I ask is that we didn't do anything special in terms of communicating any official agency, when she jumped the boat from H1 to EAD. Were we supposed to?
c). Do you think I can get her on H4 while she continues to work using her EAD. I guess H4 option is more expensive? Any thoughts?
Appreciate any help/pointers on this.
Thanks
Here is our situation. I am on H1 and have 485 pending for me and my wife. Both of us also have a valid EAD.
My wife was on H1 too, however since Oct'08 she relinquished her H1 status and took up another job using her EAD. Currently, we are planning to have her AP filed (her earlier AP expired in Dec'08).
Given all this, I have following questions.
a). Are there any risks associated with filing AP.
b). I presume her status has been valid so far... reason I ask is that we didn't do anything special in terms of communicating any official agency, when she jumped the boat from H1 to EAD. Were we supposed to?
c). Do you think I can get her on H4 while she continues to work using her EAD. I guess H4 option is more expensive? Any thoughts?
Appreciate any help/pointers on this.
Thanks
tattoo TUPAC SHAKUR PICTURES
nogc_noproblem
05-22 03:05 PM
I am preparing I131 (AP) renewal application for me and my family. For my son, who is 8 years old, do I need to fill "Part 9. Signature of Person preparing the form, if other than the applicant" since I am preparing this form? OR can I just sign Part 8 on-behalf of my son?
G-28 form says it needs to be filled in case if you use Attorney or Representative. Just wondering whether I need to fill a G-28 form for the above AP renewal application for my son since I am filling Part 9 in his application.
Can somebody clarify? Thanks for your help.
G-28 form says it needs to be filled in case if you use Attorney or Representative. Just wondering whether I need to fill a G-28 form for the above AP renewal application for my son since I am filling Part 9 in his application.
Can somebody clarify? Thanks for your help.
more...
pictures Around the autopsy pictures of
gdilla
02-28 01:14 PM
If an H1 gets layed off, how soon must he leave before he is considered illegal status? And for practical purposes, does it matter (ie, is it ever enforced)? Does having severence extend the period (because you're technically still on payroll)?
Canadian, EB3, in 6th year H1, PD nov 04, 140 approved 2/07.
Canadian, EB3, in 6th year H1, PD nov 04, 140 approved 2/07.
dresses tupac shakur weird Than
gimme_gc_asap
07-09 04:43 PM
They cant refuse to accept a package.They have to see what is in the package before they can decide on it.
more...
makeup Inca priest tupac shakur
prince_charming
12-19 07:34 PM
Hi guys,
Thanks for your help guys.
My MTR has been approved after 70 days and I-485 has been reopened. Though online status has not been changed yet but attorney received an MTR approval notices.
Ram, have u seen any online updates?
Thanks,
Prince
Thanks for your help guys.
My MTR has been approved after 70 days and I-485 has been reopened. Though online status has not been changed yet but attorney received an MTR approval notices.
Ram, have u seen any online updates?
Thanks,
Prince
girlfriend discography tupac shakur
Canadianindian
06-12 08:04 PM
Can anyone confirm if the following is the right source for filing address:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1d17aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
The reason I ask is that the instructions form for 131 has a different address.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-131instr.pdf
Thank you.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1d17aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
The reason I ask is that the instructions form for 131 has a different address.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-131instr.pdf
Thank you.
hairstyles tupac shakur weird Than
Lasantha
06-19 04:48 PM
See the bold text. Because the bill is yanked out, amendments are added to the bill and now it is going to be put back as a new bill.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/2007legislation_2.cfm
The Senate's Second Secret Immigration Bill
by The Heritage Foundation
FYI
For weeks, Americans were told that there are only two options for dealing with the nation's illegal immigration problem: stay with the status quo or accept a "grand bargain"--a tenuous behind-closed-doors deal, first made public by The Heritage Foundation, which contained nearly 800 pages of flawed policies. In the face of overwhelming criticism from all sides, this legislation was withdrawn from the Senate.
Now, an altogether new bill (S. 1639) has been introduced by Senators Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter. It seems to incorporate the previous legislation, with some amendments. After it is read into the Senate calendar on Wednesday, the Majority Leader will be able to proceed to consider this legislation anew at any time; debate is likely to follow later this week, with a final vote very soon thereafter.
This schedule will afford lawmakers even less time for consideration and deliberation than they had before. It will deny them the various procedures long associated with America's deliberative lawmaking process--hearings, testimony, committee debate and amendments, floor debate, and the possibility of further amendments. Instead, according to reports, this legislation will proceed based on an altogether new and expedited procedure designed for the sole purpose of forcing the bill's many ill-conceived policies over legitimate minority objections.
As it has before, for the sake of open deliberation and public education, The Heritage Foundation is making this legislation publicly available to encourage widespread debate and discussion. Heritage Foundation analysts will be reading this legislation and considering its implications--as will everyone outside the confines of the narrow group that conceived it--as quickly as possible.
So if this bill is introduced as a new one with a new bill number, does that May 15th provision still stand? Or is it now gonna be June 19th ?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/2007legislation_2.cfm
The Senate's Second Secret Immigration Bill
by The Heritage Foundation
FYI
For weeks, Americans were told that there are only two options for dealing with the nation's illegal immigration problem: stay with the status quo or accept a "grand bargain"--a tenuous behind-closed-doors deal, first made public by The Heritage Foundation, which contained nearly 800 pages of flawed policies. In the face of overwhelming criticism from all sides, this legislation was withdrawn from the Senate.
Now, an altogether new bill (S. 1639) has been introduced by Senators Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter. It seems to incorporate the previous legislation, with some amendments. After it is read into the Senate calendar on Wednesday, the Majority Leader will be able to proceed to consider this legislation anew at any time; debate is likely to follow later this week, with a final vote very soon thereafter.
This schedule will afford lawmakers even less time for consideration and deliberation than they had before. It will deny them the various procedures long associated with America's deliberative lawmaking process--hearings, testimony, committee debate and amendments, floor debate, and the possibility of further amendments. Instead, according to reports, this legislation will proceed based on an altogether new and expedited procedure designed for the sole purpose of forcing the bill's many ill-conceived policies over legitimate minority objections.
As it has before, for the sake of open deliberation and public education, The Heritage Foundation is making this legislation publicly available to encourage widespread debate and discussion. Heritage Foundation analysts will be reading this legislation and considering its implications--as will everyone outside the confines of the narrow group that conceived it--as quickly as possible.
So if this bill is introduced as a new one with a new bill number, does that May 15th provision still stand? Or is it now gonna be June 19th ?
manub
07-08 11:06 PM
Did any one use Latour and lleras of usvisanews.com mainly lorenzo lleras.I appreciate any reviews on that firm.
chmur
11-15 07:08 PM
I totally understand the push from IV to encourage state chapters and build grassroots strength to this movement.
Join the state chapter : IV does not have a state chapter in the state I live in - Nebraska,: So I thought I would start one and wrote to IV ...after initial response from IV , there has been no progress .
Start contributing: I have already contributed $100 and will contribute further as and when I can.
Volunteer for IV: Volunteered to start the state chapter.
Well I have done my bit so hopefully I will not be disparaged for making comments on this issue,
Singlemost big bottleneck is lack of "Visa Numbers"...
485 applications pending :~340,000( ~ 320,000(recent flood) + ~20,000 SWAG on previously pending ).
visa numbers have been lost in the recent past - ~200,000 (This is the number thrown around)
Visa numbers available if we recapture :~340,000 (200,000 + 140,000 of this years quota)
So, if we had not lost those numbers, retrogression would be minimal/reasonable.
We could have even accommodated the skewness of India & china numbers, because each year India & China would have been benefitted by unused ROW numbers.
From my above understanding, the quota(140,000) fixed seems to be fine/reasonable, though per country quota is extremely unrealistic. But even this will not hurt much as long as unused numbers are used up by year end.
IMHO, demanding recapture is more an easy/winnable/achievable argument than the one to raise the quota itself .
Because the reason the visa numbers were lost is purely due to incompetencies of two federal institutions. State Dept and USCIS.
For two and half years (05 - 07 June) they artificially retrogressed the dates
way back to 1999 - 2001.
This prevented any approvals and new applications even though plenty of visa numbers were available(~ 200,000 cumulative).
For congress/senate it is easy to make their case for recapture citing incompetencies of these institutions rather than making case for "INCREASE" in numbers.
Many ways to achieve this objective- Ask for increase and settle for recapture.
Anyway - My point is Recapture will solve most of our problems and we should channel most of our resources to achieve this objective.
Join the state chapter : IV does not have a state chapter in the state I live in - Nebraska,: So I thought I would start one and wrote to IV ...after initial response from IV , there has been no progress .
Start contributing: I have already contributed $100 and will contribute further as and when I can.
Volunteer for IV: Volunteered to start the state chapter.
Well I have done my bit so hopefully I will not be disparaged for making comments on this issue,
Singlemost big bottleneck is lack of "Visa Numbers"...
485 applications pending :~340,000( ~ 320,000(recent flood) + ~20,000 SWAG on previously pending ).
visa numbers have been lost in the recent past - ~200,000 (This is the number thrown around)
Visa numbers available if we recapture :~340,000 (200,000 + 140,000 of this years quota)
So, if we had not lost those numbers, retrogression would be minimal/reasonable.
We could have even accommodated the skewness of India & china numbers, because each year India & China would have been benefitted by unused ROW numbers.
From my above understanding, the quota(140,000) fixed seems to be fine/reasonable, though per country quota is extremely unrealistic. But even this will not hurt much as long as unused numbers are used up by year end.
IMHO, demanding recapture is more an easy/winnable/achievable argument than the one to raise the quota itself .
Because the reason the visa numbers were lost is purely due to incompetencies of two federal institutions. State Dept and USCIS.
For two and half years (05 - 07 June) they artificially retrogressed the dates
way back to 1999 - 2001.
This prevented any approvals and new applications even though plenty of visa numbers were available(~ 200,000 cumulative).
For congress/senate it is easy to make their case for recapture citing incompetencies of these institutions rather than making case for "INCREASE" in numbers.
Many ways to achieve this objective- Ask for increase and settle for recapture.
Anyway - My point is Recapture will solve most of our problems and we should channel most of our resources to achieve this objective.
No comments:
Post a Comment