pritibshah
06-24 11:50 PM
My priority date is Aug 2007. And I have to submit my RFE by 7/19.
Thanks
Thanks
wallpaper stick people holding hands
myimmivoice
04-09 01:01 PM
I think everyone is interested in their interests. We call it vested interest. Everyone is going to work to further their interests just like we are working for our problems. To us, our problems are genuine, but may not be to everyone who we think they should be.
To the extent possible (with in the limits of our resources) in our publicity efforts, it is prudent to make our natural allies more proactive, to turn the people in our favor who are nuetral, and, reduce the impact of groups that are anti-legal immigartion by spreading the positives.
I am not in false hopes that every one is going to change their thinking because we told them our problems, but, we should try to the extent possible. It is not going to harm us.
To the extent possible (with in the limits of our resources) in our publicity efforts, it is prudent to make our natural allies more proactive, to turn the people in our favor who are nuetral, and, reduce the impact of groups that are anti-legal immigartion by spreading the positives.
I am not in false hopes that every one is going to change their thinking because we told them our problems, but, we should try to the extent possible. It is not going to harm us.
eb3_nepa
08-14 02:47 PM
How did you come up with $745? I-485 application fees were $325 + $70 fee for biometrics. That makes it $395 per application or $790 for two applications. Maybe your lawyer gave you incorrect advice about the fees??
$745 is the CORRECT fee for 485+765+131 including the bio-metric fees. The USCIS must have screwed up. How else did one get received correctly and one get messed up!!??
$745 is the CORRECT fee for 485+765+131 including the bio-metric fees. The USCIS must have screwed up. How else did one get received correctly and one get messed up!!??
2011 stick people holding hands in circle. Isolated rainbow colored pipe
sobers
07-14 03:13 PM
Now that Shadegg's SKIL Bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committe...its in the hands of Sensenbrenner.
Shadegg is a top conservative and was supported by Sensenbrenner in his bid for Majority Leader earlier in the year. I found it interesting to read what he said about Shadegg earlier in the year, on the topic of immigration reform. Well, now is Sensenbrenner's chance to act upon it.
========
http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/pr20060118.html
Sensenbrenner Supports Shadegg for House Majority Leader
(Washington, DC) � Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls, WI), Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, announced that he is supporting John Shadegg (R-AZ) for Majority Leader.
Sensenbrenner said:
�I have given careful thought over the past few weeks on the three exceptional candidates running for Majority Leader and what new direction the Republican Conference needs to go. I have decided to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader.
�John Shadegg, as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, has shown leadership on difficult issues, while building a consensus among the Republican Conference. John is the best choice for Majority Leader. I have worked closely with John for many months now on immigration reform, attending numerous unity dinners that John has held, listening to members throughout the Conference. These proved to be a valuable resource and shows that John Shadegg is the person who can listen and lead us in a new direction.�
Shadegg is a top conservative and was supported by Sensenbrenner in his bid for Majority Leader earlier in the year. I found it interesting to read what he said about Shadegg earlier in the year, on the topic of immigration reform. Well, now is Sensenbrenner's chance to act upon it.
========
http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/pr20060118.html
Sensenbrenner Supports Shadegg for House Majority Leader
(Washington, DC) � Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls, WI), Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, announced that he is supporting John Shadegg (R-AZ) for Majority Leader.
Sensenbrenner said:
�I have given careful thought over the past few weeks on the three exceptional candidates running for Majority Leader and what new direction the Republican Conference needs to go. I have decided to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader.
�John Shadegg, as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, has shown leadership on difficult issues, while building a consensus among the Republican Conference. John is the best choice for Majority Leader. I have worked closely with John for many months now on immigration reform, attending numerous unity dinners that John has held, listening to members throughout the Conference. These proved to be a valuable resource and shows that John Shadegg is the person who can listen and lead us in a new direction.�
more...
smartboy75
09-22 11:11 PM
09/22/2008: USCIS Ombudsman Assistance Available for EAD Delay Cases
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
rakeshverma72
03-30 12:44 PM
PD: 06/26/2006
Category: EB2
I140 Approved: 02/14/2006
485 Filed: 07/02/2007 (NSC) -- Pending
H1-B:- 9th year expiring on May 26th 2010
EAD:-Valid till 09/2/2010
AP:- Valid till 09/2/2010
I work for big consulting firm - Lockheed Martin. Where they have different business groups under different VP. And Pretty much my project works as it's own company. And I try to maintain both H1-B and EAD(AP) valid.
While filing my Green card I was filed under Lockheed Martin-Federal(Subsidiary of Lockheed Martin) and also I got my H1-B approved in May 2007(Valid until May 2010) under Lockheed Martin-Federal. End of 2008 my business unit's VP changed and so the name of Subsidiary with different FEIN and from September 2008 I work for Lockheed Martin-S&L(Subsidiary of Lockheed Martin). So for the year 2008 I got two W2 one from Lockheed Martin-Federal and another from Lockheed Martin-S&L. As I was working for Lockheed Martin and the same project since I have filed my Green Card; I never thought my case would be of any issue.
But after reading about AC-21 I have following questions from the community
1) In case above, do I need to file for AC-21. Or will I be okay at the time of my Green Card approval.
2) I have travel plans in the month of June 2010 to Europe. Should I worry about re-entering US with AP.
3) My lawyer is applying for H1-B under new companies name, do you think my H1-B will get approved with the new company name.
Thanks a lot
Category: EB2
I140 Approved: 02/14/2006
485 Filed: 07/02/2007 (NSC) -- Pending
H1-B:- 9th year expiring on May 26th 2010
EAD:-Valid till 09/2/2010
AP:- Valid till 09/2/2010
I work for big consulting firm - Lockheed Martin. Where they have different business groups under different VP. And Pretty much my project works as it's own company. And I try to maintain both H1-B and EAD(AP) valid.
While filing my Green card I was filed under Lockheed Martin-Federal(Subsidiary of Lockheed Martin) and also I got my H1-B approved in May 2007(Valid until May 2010) under Lockheed Martin-Federal. End of 2008 my business unit's VP changed and so the name of Subsidiary with different FEIN and from September 2008 I work for Lockheed Martin-S&L(Subsidiary of Lockheed Martin). So for the year 2008 I got two W2 one from Lockheed Martin-Federal and another from Lockheed Martin-S&L. As I was working for Lockheed Martin and the same project since I have filed my Green Card; I never thought my case would be of any issue.
But after reading about AC-21 I have following questions from the community
1) In case above, do I need to file for AC-21. Or will I be okay at the time of my Green Card approval.
2) I have travel plans in the month of June 2010 to Europe. Should I worry about re-entering US with AP.
3) My lawyer is applying for H1-B under new companies name, do you think my H1-B will get approved with the new company name.
Thanks a lot
more...
Honda
09-08 11:40 PM
Thanks. No LUDs. Just got it in the mail straight. Try contacting your senator or congressperson.
Congrats...
Congrats...
2010 stick people holding hands in circle. Colorful stick figures made of
eager_immi
07-18 11:11 AM
Can you IM a core and ask them to put a link on main page...
we lost a golden oportunity to do a fund drive. Historically during good news period a lot of members participated in the fund drive, but because the IV website is broken and the threads are displayed irratically and not in the latest order the funding drive threads are hidden and irrelevant one post threads are showing up. We might have lost out on a 10 to 20k worth of funding because of this mistake. I request the core team to please fix this immediately. A lot of new members have joined IV and they might not particiapate in the funding drive because of this thread mistake.
we lost a golden oportunity to do a fund drive. Historically during good news period a lot of members participated in the fund drive, but because the IV website is broken and the threads are displayed irratically and not in the latest order the funding drive threads are hidden and irrelevant one post threads are showing up. We might have lost out on a 10 to 20k worth of funding because of this mistake. I request the core team to please fix this immediately. A lot of new members have joined IV and they might not particiapate in the funding drive because of this thread mistake.
more...
GC08
01-28 04:16 PM
Yeah right... he wants your brain, but does not want your body. Got it? :rolleyes:
In case you did not, Americans only want you to come to work for them and then you will need to leave... so that they do not have to pay your social security down the road. Isn't that a good deal?
In case you did not, Americans only want you to come to work for them and then you will need to leave... so that they do not have to pay your social security down the road. Isn't that a good deal?
hair Stick People Holding Hands In
mnkaushik
06-04 04:57 PM
Slightly off topic. But do we need to send our original BC if we are sponsoring someone other than your parents. I am in the process of sponsoring my aunt and would like to know if i need to send my orginal BC. Sorry for going off topic.
more...
dbevis
March 15th, 2004, 11:28 AM
Steven brings up a good point about those camera phones. I fear them to a degree. Someone told me recently that they had read/heard advice that when you're using a credit card at a store make sure you keep the numbers covered up. Apparently, people with camera phones have been known to take a picture of your card to get the numbers and expiration date.
Gary
Yeah, saw that on the news, too. My card has a hologram over the last 4 digits which should help foil (oooh, bad pun) this type of thing. Heck unless the light's just right I can't always read it. :)
I did hear one report where they got a robber's license plate from someone's cam-phone, so there's a good aspect to them, too.
Gary
Yeah, saw that on the news, too. My card has a hologram over the last 4 digits which should help foil (oooh, bad pun) this type of thing. Heck unless the light's just right I can't always read it. :)
I did hear one report where they got a robber's license plate from someone's cam-phone, so there's a good aspect to them, too.
hot in circle. Purplequot; T-Shirt
ram112
09-03 03:52 AM
gc approved on sept 1.
more...
house +of+people+holding+hands two
frostrated
10-26 10:58 AM
i think they are going to do it every quarter. i am thinking that the results in the aug 2009 file were third quarter FY 2009 data. so i am thinking that the data as of sept 2009 will be out in Nov. any other predictions?
tattoo stick people holding hands in
aph0025
11-12 12:21 PM
From the day you file your case you are legal to work with your new employer until its approval or denial. When you file your case (filed in normal processing without including paystub) sometimes they just approve it and sometimes they ask for a current paystub for evidence to close the case as approved. As you start working for your new company you would get a pay stub which can be used for the query.
That's a good point as well. I am planning to go in for premium processing on the safer side. But, if there is a query for pay stubs, they would require my previous employer's pay stubs right (the one from whom I am transferring my H1B visa to begin with)? I hope you are right, and my assumption is wrong. Looking at the responses, a lot is dependant on the immigration officer.
That's a good point as well. I am planning to go in for premium processing on the safer side. But, if there is a query for pay stubs, they would require my previous employer's pay stubs right (the one from whom I am transferring my H1B visa to begin with)? I hope you are right, and my assumption is wrong. Looking at the responses, a lot is dependant on the immigration officer.
more...
pictures Colorful stick figures made of
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.
dresses stick people holding hands in circle. people holding hands d
rnvd
10-30 04:41 PM
Hi rsdang,
Its not with AdvanceParole. Because i had I-94 mistake in the past. It may reflect in their systems but USCIS already apporoved my H1b.
Its not with AdvanceParole. Because i had I-94 mistake in the past. It may reflect in their systems but USCIS already apporoved my H1b.
more...
makeup stick people holding hands in circle. Once your stick figure
h1-b forever
01-24 09:29 AM
This bill is probably stuck in some committee and will not see the light!
Everyone here is talking about the DV if eliminated would benefit the EB, does the FB have a say in it?
Everyone here is talking about the DV if eliminated would benefit the EB, does the FB have a say in it?
girlfriend stick people holding hands in circle. +holding+hands+in+a+
gcadream
02-25 07:54 AM
That is really cool man !!
2 months less in 3 yrs is no big deal...its almost 3 yrs extn for you.
Thanks for sharing with us, lets see how the ball rolls out for me.
2 months less in 3 yrs is no big deal...its almost 3 yrs extn for you.
Thanks for sharing with us, lets see how the ball rolls out for me.
hairstyles stock photo : Stick people boy
Suva
04-15 02:20 PM
It seems they removed April 15 update from the website. Also I do not see any changes in the Occupations under Pressure List.
ARUNRAMANATHAN
06-11 01:54 PM
I am in my 8 yr. Have a H1-B approved Untill 2008 Dec
Have a EB3 Approved Labor and 140 from Company A.
Now as of today if I move to Company B ...
Question :
Can I get a 3 yr Extension based on Company A (140 Approved )
that is from june 2007 to june 2010
OR
Do I get my H1-B untill 2008 Dec ?
----
When I move to Company B is there anything that I have be aware off as
I am planning to pally Eb2 and move the PD from company A
My PD : EB3 Jun 2004
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
Have a EB3 Approved Labor and 140 from Company A.
Now as of today if I move to Company B ...
Question :
Can I get a 3 yr Extension based on Company A (140 Approved )
that is from june 2007 to june 2010
OR
Do I get my H1-B untill 2008 Dec ?
----
When I move to Company B is there anything that I have be aware off as
I am planning to pally Eb2 and move the PD from company A
My PD : EB3 Jun 2004
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
serg
04-06 11:18 PM
that's the official title of the bill, nothing wrong with it.
they still have a cloture motion vote tomorrow morning, so we'll see.
Yes, sure, I'm not going to give up until it will be clear. By the way, they will have almost a night to make some agreements (sure, they don't want to be "last mile" in this bill, both of them). Hope they will bring out something new tomorrow morning :)
they still have a cloture motion vote tomorrow morning, so we'll see.
Yes, sure, I'm not going to give up until it will be clear. By the way, they will have almost a night to make some agreements (sure, they don't want to be "last mile" in this bill, both of them). Hope they will bring out something new tomorrow morning :)
No comments:
Post a Comment