logiclife
06-22 12:52 PM
"According to Miller, only about 30 percent of applicants are running into such difficulties."
ONLY??!! Since when did 1/3 of something become "only"?
Maybe he should volunteer for a pay cut of 30%. ONLY 30%. See, its trivial little teeny weeny 30%. Its nothing. You wont even feel it. How about that director?
ONLY??!! Since when did 1/3 of something become "only"?
Maybe he should volunteer for a pay cut of 30%. ONLY 30%. See, its trivial little teeny weeny 30%. Its nothing. You wont even feel it. How about that director?
wallpaper LAS VEGAS – MGM Grand is MGM
hoolahoous
03-18 11:20 PM
if H1b withdrawal is mandated then why do most of the employer's do not do it ?
shouldn't it put them in a legal situation ?
here is what I found on one of the murthy's posts
According to Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, an employer must continue to pay the H1B worker until there is a �bona fide� termination of the employment relationship. It is not clear exactly what constitutes a �bona fide termination,� but one viewpoint is that termination occurs on the day the employer notifies the H1B employee that the position has been terminated and all obligations for payment of wages terminate on the date of employment termination. The other viewpoint is that a termination only occurs when the H1B employer notifies the INS of the termination, the H1B petition is cancelled and the employer complies with the return airfare obligation for the employee. Please note that INS does not expressly spell out the options and therefore this is an unclear area of immigration law. As it can take several months for the INS to act on a revocation request, employers generally do not continue to pay wages until INS takes action. The employer usually notifies the employee of the termination date and discontinues any salary or other payments at that time. Thereafter, they notify INS.
shouldn't it put them in a legal situation ?
here is what I found on one of the murthy's posts
According to Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, an employer must continue to pay the H1B worker until there is a �bona fide� termination of the employment relationship. It is not clear exactly what constitutes a �bona fide termination,� but one viewpoint is that termination occurs on the day the employer notifies the H1B employee that the position has been terminated and all obligations for payment of wages terminate on the date of employment termination. The other viewpoint is that a termination only occurs when the H1B employer notifies the INS of the termination, the H1B petition is cancelled and the employer complies with the return airfare obligation for the employee. Please note that INS does not expressly spell out the options and therefore this is an unclear area of immigration law. As it can take several months for the INS to act on a revocation request, employers generally do not continue to pay wages until INS takes action. The employer usually notifies the employee of the termination date and discontinues any salary or other payments at that time. Thereafter, they notify INS.
leoindiano
08-03 11:48 AM
Guys,
From what i gathered, It seems these 2 things could effect your processing apart from PD....
Both can be done, if you take a infopass at your local office....
1) I-485 fingerprints
2) A# Mismatch on i-485 receipt, i- 140 approval notice
For me, i didnt get FP notice from USCIS, i had to go to local office and get that done in feb. 2008.
A# also didntnt match, So, i called POJ and they said, they open a ticket to consolidate. If i dont see an LUD in a week, i will have to go to a local office and try again...
In July 2007, when they received 1000's of apps, for most 485 cases, they generated a new A# instead of attaching A# from your I-140 receipt/approval. Your lawyer will say 2 A#'s not a problem. But, this is definitely a problem ACCORDING TO
Others RD, ND, namecheck which we have no control of even though you did everything right.
From what i gathered, It seems these 2 things could effect your processing apart from PD....
Both can be done, if you take a infopass at your local office....
1) I-485 fingerprints
2) A# Mismatch on i-485 receipt, i- 140 approval notice
For me, i didnt get FP notice from USCIS, i had to go to local office and get that done in feb. 2008.
A# also didntnt match, So, i called POJ and they said, they open a ticket to consolidate. If i dont see an LUD in a week, i will have to go to a local office and try again...
In July 2007, when they received 1000's of apps, for most 485 cases, they generated a new A# instead of attaching A# from your I-140 receipt/approval. Your lawyer will say 2 A#'s not a problem. But, this is definitely a problem ACCORDING TO
Others RD, ND, namecheck which we have no control of even though you did everything right.
2011 Hotels in Las Vegas radiate
alterego
09-17 11:16 PM
go to ECGFMG.org, you will get a lot more info and more accurate info there.
more...
Maverick_2008
02-22 10:14 PM
I'm sure you know the logic why it goes backwards but your comment did bring a smile on my face. Isn't it interesting that arguably, the most progressive country is working backwards? :)
Maverick_2008
How the hell can these service centers move processing time backwards? I don't get it. Do they work backwards?
Maverick_2008
How the hell can these service centers move processing time backwards? I don't get it. Do they work backwards?
cgs
08-21 10:54 AM
Enjoy and Please visit us:)
more...
iamlost
07-24 10:37 PM
HI,
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
I am wondering if this has anything to do with the erroneous 140 approvals from TSC. So, they revised all the approvals to pending status ... and my 2.5 old approved case also got in midst of it ... Hmmm !!! This is killing man .... No peace even after GC !
TSC Erroneously Issues I-140 Approval eMails on Premium Processing Cases
�MurthyDotCom
The Texas Service Center (TSC) advised in late July 2009 that eMail notifications have incorrectly been sent, which indicate approvals of Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-140) cases. These eMails are originating from the Premium Processing Unit due to a technical problem. The system is issuing these eMails in error shortly after the transmission of the eMail receipt.
�MurthyDotCom
Erroneous I-140 Approval eMails do not have a Priority Date
�MurthyDotCom
The erroneous eMail does not contain a priority date or EB classification for the case. TSC is working to address the technical problem. Employers who are unsure about any such communication received from the TSC Premium Processing Unit can contact that unit at the eMail address or phone number provided on the I-140 receipt notice.
�MurthyDotCom
Conclusion
�MurthyDotCom
This likely is annoying and frustrating to individuals who believed their I-140 approvals were received in record time, only to find out that the approval eMail notification was erroneous. Although not specifically stated in the information released by TSC, it appears that this problem has been limited to eMail notifications. There was no indication that any hard-copy approval notices have been issued in error. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers will be advised of any further information on this topic, when it is made available.
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
I am wondering if this has anything to do with the erroneous 140 approvals from TSC. So, they revised all the approvals to pending status ... and my 2.5 old approved case also got in midst of it ... Hmmm !!! This is killing man .... No peace even after GC !
TSC Erroneously Issues I-140 Approval eMails on Premium Processing Cases
�MurthyDotCom
The Texas Service Center (TSC) advised in late July 2009 that eMail notifications have incorrectly been sent, which indicate approvals of Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-140) cases. These eMails are originating from the Premium Processing Unit due to a technical problem. The system is issuing these eMails in error shortly after the transmission of the eMail receipt.
�MurthyDotCom
Erroneous I-140 Approval eMails do not have a Priority Date
�MurthyDotCom
The erroneous eMail does not contain a priority date or EB classification for the case. TSC is working to address the technical problem. Employers who are unsure about any such communication received from the TSC Premium Processing Unit can contact that unit at the eMail address or phone number provided on the I-140 receipt notice.
�MurthyDotCom
Conclusion
�MurthyDotCom
This likely is annoying and frustrating to individuals who believed their I-140 approvals were received in record time, only to find out that the approval eMail notification was erroneous. Although not specifically stated in the information released by TSC, it appears that this problem has been limited to eMail notifications. There was no indication that any hard-copy approval notices have been issued in error. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers will be advised of any further information on this topic, when it is made available.
2010 map to MGM Grand Las Vegas
desi3933
09-05 05:53 PM
Thanks, nice reply.
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
The minimum California franchise tax is the amount a California corp must pay the first quarter of each tax year whether it is active, operates at a loss or does not do business. The current minimum tax is $800.
The $800 tax payment is not due during the corporation's FIRST tax year. The first $800 minimum tax is due on the 15th day of the 4th month of the corporation's SECOND tax year.
Please note that LLCs are liable for the minimum franchise tax in all years (no two year exemption for LLCs).
Please check details with California Franchise Tax Board. The web site is http://www.ftb.ca.gov
*** Disclaimer - This is general info and use it at your own risk *****
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
The minimum California franchise tax is the amount a California corp must pay the first quarter of each tax year whether it is active, operates at a loss or does not do business. The current minimum tax is $800.
The $800 tax payment is not due during the corporation's FIRST tax year. The first $800 minimum tax is due on the 15th day of the 4th month of the corporation's SECOND tax year.
Please note that LLCs are liable for the minimum franchise tax in all years (no two year exemption for LLCs).
Please check details with California Franchise Tax Board. The web site is http://www.ftb.ca.gov
*** Disclaimer - This is general info and use it at your own risk *****
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
more...
agupta_13
04-22 07:32 PM
I am employeed in IT consultancy, and wants to change my employement as a permenent employee of the client.
When i told this to my employeer he is telling me that he can file a lawsuite against my Client(New Employeer) on the bases of Small Business Administantion laws, stated below
Although the contract does not specifically state that the client cannot hire the contractor (you) on a permanent job, it also does not state that the client can. Current Employeer comes under the category of the 'Small Business Administration' under the State and the Federal Governments. Both governments fully support the growth and looks after the interests of small businesses in the country. They have always done it and are even more supportive lately as a result of the struggle small businesses are undergoing in these bad economic times. I have been advised by the company attorney that I contracted you to the client purely on professional and ethical grounds for the benefit of Current Employeer business. If a giant company like Client just takes you away to their advantage, it may not be looked upon favorably by a small business court.
Below is what is in the contract between my Employeer and Client.
1. This agreement is for the sole purposes of providing the services of the Contractor�s employee XXX to (Client).
2. Contractor will be an independent contractor of Company and will work on a Client assignment.
3. Company will pay $XX.00 per hour to Contractor for all the hours of work and expenses approved by Client.
4. All time and expenses should be entered into client�s system and should be approved by the concerned manager or project manager.
5 Company will not pay contractor for any time and expenses not authorized and not approved by Client.
6. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the quality of work performed.
7. Payment terms shall be XX days net and will be made on a bi-weekly basis.
8. The start date and the length of assignment will be determined by Client, and Company shall let the Contractor know in writing before the date on which the consultant starts working for the Client.
9. Contractor reserves the right to offer consultant�s services to other clients until such time the Company and the Contractor executes this agreement as well as a project work order.
10. This is the only agreement between the Contractor and the Company. Changes can be made in writing only and have to be signed by both parties to be effective.
11. This agreement is subject to the laws of the State of Texas.
12. Either party can terminate this contract by giving 2 week�s written notice, via email or physical mail. The notifying party must obtain proof of delivery of such notification to the other party.
Can any one tell if there is any possibility of that
When i told this to my employeer he is telling me that he can file a lawsuite against my Client(New Employeer) on the bases of Small Business Administantion laws, stated below
Although the contract does not specifically state that the client cannot hire the contractor (you) on a permanent job, it also does not state that the client can. Current Employeer comes under the category of the 'Small Business Administration' under the State and the Federal Governments. Both governments fully support the growth and looks after the interests of small businesses in the country. They have always done it and are even more supportive lately as a result of the struggle small businesses are undergoing in these bad economic times. I have been advised by the company attorney that I contracted you to the client purely on professional and ethical grounds for the benefit of Current Employeer business. If a giant company like Client just takes you away to their advantage, it may not be looked upon favorably by a small business court.
Below is what is in the contract between my Employeer and Client.
1. This agreement is for the sole purposes of providing the services of the Contractor�s employee XXX to (Client).
2. Contractor will be an independent contractor of Company and will work on a Client assignment.
3. Company will pay $XX.00 per hour to Contractor for all the hours of work and expenses approved by Client.
4. All time and expenses should be entered into client�s system and should be approved by the concerned manager or project manager.
5 Company will not pay contractor for any time and expenses not authorized and not approved by Client.
6. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the quality of work performed.
7. Payment terms shall be XX days net and will be made on a bi-weekly basis.
8. The start date and the length of assignment will be determined by Client, and Company shall let the Contractor know in writing before the date on which the consultant starts working for the Client.
9. Contractor reserves the right to offer consultant�s services to other clients until such time the Company and the Contractor executes this agreement as well as a project work order.
10. This is the only agreement between the Contractor and the Company. Changes can be made in writing only and have to be signed by both parties to be effective.
11. This agreement is subject to the laws of the State of Texas.
12. Either party can terminate this contract by giving 2 week�s written notice, via email or physical mail. The notifying party must obtain proof of delivery of such notification to the other party.
Can any one tell if there is any possibility of that
hair the MGM Grand Hotel in Las
parimmigv
08-10 03:23 PM
I searched for $20 but the link is no where found.
more...
hoolahoous
03-18 04:36 PM
anyone ?
hot MGM Grand Hotel Las Vegas
waiting4gc
04-15 04:42 PM
Its nice to see good news from more and more people. Enjoy your new found freedom!!
Hi folks,
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
Hi folks,
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
more...
house Las Vegas MGM Grand Hotel
knowDOL
08-24 10:32 AM
These may be the GC visas issued from consulates in India. THere is one more list for AOS and the numbers for India for 2005 for 1st, 2nd and 3rd pref employment category are as follows.
6,336
16,687
23,250
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf
I dunno from where they come upwith number. From the same site look at this link
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableI.pdf - This is given at foreign out post.
EB - 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
43129 39289 29712 28624 21290
and compare with
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableII.pdf
and compare with below data.
6,336
16,687
23,250
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf
I dunno from where they come upwith number. From the same site look at this link
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableI.pdf - This is given at foreign out post.
EB - 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
43129 39289 29712 28624 21290
and compare with
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableII.pdf
and compare with below data.
tattoo MGM Grand - Las Vegas Hotel
nousername
04-07 01:56 PM
gcformeornot: In your previous post you stated that "substitution is no longer valid".. I apologize as I am not very good with law jargon and definitions and no clue since when substitution was kicked out of the immigration law book.
Additional details will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
it affects the ORIGINAL applicant. AAO says the burden is on original applicant to prove wrongdoing by either employer or substituted new employee...
"applicant failed to establish that the substituted alien improperly adjusted status"
Additional details will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
it affects the ORIGINAL applicant. AAO says the burden is on original applicant to prove wrongdoing by either employer or substituted new employee...
"applicant failed to establish that the substituted alien improperly adjusted status"
more...
pictures the MGM Grand Hotel/Casino
bigsky
10-18 11:06 AM
Thanks a lot for your advice Pappu and I don't think it has anything to do with my employer, there were four other Labor Certification�s applied during the same time period and three of them already certified and mine was the only one which got screwed. I will consult with the lawyer about my situation.
Thanks for your input nycgal369.
Thanks for your input nycgal369.
dresses Why Book This Hotel
H1B-GC
04-10 04:41 PM
163,000 applns for general and more than 31,200 applns for advanced degree.
How come Freaking 'Loudoggs' say 400K Applications were received by USCIS on his show . Freaking lier.
How come Freaking 'Loudoggs' say 400K Applications were received by USCIS on his show . Freaking lier.
more...
makeup the MGM Grand Hotel in Las
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.
girlfriend MGM Grand Hotel amp; Casino found
CCC
07-05 06:33 PM
First off, thanks for the response guys.
So how do i get the copy of the I-140 from the company. Is it my legal right to get this or do i have to beg :) ? Also, company B is a startup and they are willing to file a new Perm application. Is there a big risk of Perm applications being reject from these type of small startup companies?
So how do i get the copy of the I-140 from the company. Is it my legal right to get this or do i have to beg :) ? Also, company B is a startup and they are willing to file a new Perm application. Is there a big risk of Perm applications being reject from these type of small startup companies?
hairstyles Luxury Living At The MGM Grand
akred
03-26 08:30 PM
Remember, all immigrants no matter where they came from, are ultimately legal immigrants once they pass through the system.
ambals03
01-11 11:24 AM
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr43ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr43ih.pdf
redddiv
07-16 08:53 PM
I agree with this idea.
I think IV did great today. BUT
lets not act as children and pick fights with AILA. Please remember, due to their vested interest, there is NO ONE else who is more PRO-immigrant than AILA.. not even tech-employers..
So if they are saying situation might be fluid and if they are saying not to spread rumours.. then so BE it..
I hope I am wrong but seems like tiny access and frustration is causing few IV core members BIG heads ..
This is time to be calm, AND YES DISCREET!!!!
Before people start dumping on me.. please note.. we are among friends here and one of the ways to keep in check these things is to call upon friends when you feel they made a mistake.. and I FEEL IV made a mistake.. NOT in disclosing the knowledge but making an issue out of AILA warning and picking fights with them..! So lets take that out.. we know you stand by.. why keep it..?
I think IV did great today. BUT
lets not act as children and pick fights with AILA. Please remember, due to their vested interest, there is NO ONE else who is more PRO-immigrant than AILA.. not even tech-employers..
So if they are saying situation might be fluid and if they are saying not to spread rumours.. then so BE it..
I hope I am wrong but seems like tiny access and frustration is causing few IV core members BIG heads ..
This is time to be calm, AND YES DISCREET!!!!
Before people start dumping on me.. please note.. we are among friends here and one of the ways to keep in check these things is to call upon friends when you feel they made a mistake.. and I FEEL IV made a mistake.. NOT in disclosing the knowledge but making an issue out of AILA warning and picking fights with them..! So lets take that out.. we know you stand by.. why keep it..?
No comments:
Post a Comment