saurav_4096
06-16 10:00 PM
How does AC21 will come into play when a person files I-485 with the letter from employer that employment will be availabe once green card is issued.
Does person has to join the employer after green card is issued ? As Green card will be availabe only after 180 days of filing.
Gurus, if someone knows such please reply.
Thanks
Saurav
Does person has to join the employer after green card is issued ? As Green card will be availabe only after 180 days of filing.
Gurus, if someone knows such please reply.
Thanks
Saurav
wallpaper Funny Wallpapers For Computer.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
eb3_nepa
07-20 05:29 PM
if your wife has no time left on her H visa, and she is a phd. .. she can do research on J1 visa. She can work and also apply for greencard.
Also why dont you apply in EB1 Thru your wife in parallel to ur own GC. PhDs dont need an employer to sponsor them.
Also why dont you apply in EB1 Thru your wife in parallel to ur own GC. PhDs dont need an employer to sponsor them.
2011 Funny Backgrounds For Your
gchopefull
10-02 04:04 PM
what do u mean by
"There also could be a difference in impact of appeal vs MTR on your I-485 application (which will be denied soon)".
does this means that if company files for appeal the 485/ead will be denied and revoked?
or if company files for mtr the 485/ead will be denied and revoked respectively?
thanks
"There also could be a difference in impact of appeal vs MTR on your I-485 application (which will be denied soon)".
does this means that if company files for appeal the 485/ead will be denied and revoked?
or if company files for mtr the 485/ead will be denied and revoked respectively?
thanks
more...
neel_gump
05-22 12:02 PM
FAQs seems to be a great idea people.
greencardvow
07-18 08:02 PM
Does anyone know what happens when the original hard copy of PERM is lost. Can one file 140 with just the copy that you can get online from DOL site.
I believe that you do not have to refile just because you lost the hard copy...
This is not a lottery ticket that if you lose, you are left with nothing..
There must a procedure to get the same certificate reissued from DOL..
Please do the research and let is know...
I believe that you do not have to refile just because you lost the hard copy...
This is not a lottery ticket that if you lose, you are left with nothing..
There must a procedure to get the same certificate reissued from DOL..
Please do the research and let is know...
more...
angelfire76
06-10 06:58 PM
I was wondering if anyone here who had a canadian PR (i.e. did a landing), got GC later has travelled again to Canada again?
We got canadian PR in 2005 and did a landing while we were waiting for our GC. We got a our GC last year and are planning to visit canada using our GC. Are there going to be any issue in entering canada?
Also, we travelled to India last year and received new I-94 when we got back into US using AP. Very soon (days) we received our GC's. I am not sure what do with these I-94's when we leave US. Do we still need to surrender these as in the past?
For some grilling by both CBP in the US and also their Canadian counterpart. You should've surrendered the Canadian PR or US GC based on where you wanted to live permanently. It's not illegal to be a PR of both countries, but if the Canadians know and if you've claimed any sort of health insurance in Canada, they'll send you a bill for it. All this is not to scare you, but first hand experience of my cousin who lives on the border and works for a Detroit based company.
We got canadian PR in 2005 and did a landing while we were waiting for our GC. We got a our GC last year and are planning to visit canada using our GC. Are there going to be any issue in entering canada?
Also, we travelled to India last year and received new I-94 when we got back into US using AP. Very soon (days) we received our GC's. I am not sure what do with these I-94's when we leave US. Do we still need to surrender these as in the past?
For some grilling by both CBP in the US and also their Canadian counterpart. You should've surrendered the Canadian PR or US GC based on where you wanted to live permanently. It's not illegal to be a PR of both countries, but if the Canadians know and if you've claimed any sort of health insurance in Canada, they'll send you a bill for it. All this is not to scare you, but first hand experience of my cousin who lives on the border and works for a Detroit based company.
2010 funny wallpapers for computer.
Munna Bhai
01-07 11:23 AM
can Employer with draw I-140 if they want after 180 days of pending 485 if any body changes his/her job with out notifying USCIS(AC21).
thanks for your replies.
Yes,but it has no effect on your GC.
thanks for your replies.
Yes,but it has no effect on your GC.
more...
puskeygadha
07-08 02:47 PM
is this becuase of arranged marriage? immigrants like us have to
go back home find girl quickly and get married..its just like
similar way we get screwed in the hopes of green card..
i believe arranged marriage can be hard but we can grow together
given time and patience
go back home find girl quickly and get married..its just like
similar way we get screwed in the hopes of green card..
i believe arranged marriage can be hard but we can grow together
given time and patience
hair Funny Backgrounds For Computer
somegchuh
06-10 06:45 PM
I was wondering if anyone here who had a canadian PR (i.e. did a landing), got GC later has travelled again to Canada again?
We got canadian PR in 2005 and did a landing while we were waiting for our GC. We got a our GC last year and are planning to visit canada using our GC. Are there going to be any issue in entering canada?
Also, we travelled to India last year and received new I-94 when we got back into US using AP. Very soon (days) we received our GC's. I am not sure what do with these I-94's when we leave US. Do we still need to surrender these as in the past?
We got canadian PR in 2005 and did a landing while we were waiting for our GC. We got a our GC last year and are planning to visit canada using our GC. Are there going to be any issue in entering canada?
Also, we travelled to India last year and received new I-94 when we got back into US using AP. Very soon (days) we received our GC's. I am not sure what do with these I-94's when we leave US. Do we still need to surrender these as in the past?
more...
new_horizon
10-26 07:20 AM
Can someone give the website where I can check the case status? thanks.
hot Humor Funny Wallpapers
raamskl
07-07 12:40 PM
Done..
Good luck to ur son.
Good luck to ur son.
more...
house funny wallpapers for computer
acecupid
08-21 05:51 PM
Did you file directly to NSC or TSC?
DAte, time etc.
Thanks in advance!
Applied at NSC and was received on 16th July at 9:30am
DAte, time etc.
Thanks in advance!
Applied at NSC and was received on 16th July at 9:30am
tattoo funny wallpapers for computer.
gc_bulgaria
10-09 06:26 PM
This is very useful information. So it is the Job Classification code that is important right??
Thats my understanding as well. The information on salary is a little confusing though...
Thats my understanding as well. The information on salary is a little confusing though...
more...
pictures funny wallpapers for computer.
lacrossegc
07-30 03:44 PM
Dude ,
to clarify: my question was after you submit all the forms 1485, EAD, AP et all.... when does USCIS send out FP notices .... given the huge volume even receipts will take longer
Within 4-10 days, after the USCIS sent the FP notice. :mad:
to clarify: my question was after you submit all the forms 1485, EAD, AP et all.... when does USCIS send out FP notices .... given the huge volume even receipts will take longer
Within 4-10 days, after the USCIS sent the FP notice. :mad:
dresses Funny wallpapers for computer
chunky
07-26 03:17 PM
Can one change status without AOS receipt. I saw I 539 (change of status) form and It is written to gove more specifics if you applied for permanent residency
more...
makeup 2010 funny wallpapers for
b_boy
10-14 02:43 PM
Basic Thumb rule is none of the insurance for visitors cover any pre-existing conditions, so the insurance you buy mainly covers accidental injuries (falling down from stairs / falling in bath tub / auto accident etc.) and bare minimal medical illness (very basics such as fever / cold etc. believe me if it's some thing else the doctors would relate it to a pre-existing condition)
you have 2 types, one is comprehensive coverage just like how it works for you and me and the other is limited coverage, neither of the coverage cover any pre-existing conditions.
you can go the links suggested which gives more info, think twice if you want to get it from India, my friend had a very bad experience with claims from one of the Indian insurance providers.
you have 2 types, one is comprehensive coverage just like how it works for you and me and the other is limited coverage, neither of the coverage cover any pre-existing conditions.
you can go the links suggested which gives more info, think twice if you want to get it from India, my friend had a very bad experience with claims from one of the Indian insurance providers.
girlfriend funny pictures wallpapers
txh1b
08-20 04:35 PM
The whole concept of democracy is taxation with representation.
Democracy gives votes for the citizens. You aren't even close to being one to even speak up. You are still an Alien. If you don't like it, feel free to be a citizen of the country that you are from.
Just because you pay tax, no one is answerable from the government to you, forget an apology. Taxation has got nothing to do with your right to vote. Right to vote is what is important in a democracy so that if the majority of the people don't like what is happening, they can make the change happen by their vote when the time comes.
Apology from USCIS???? For what? USCIS is just an agency. They do not even make the laws. They just process the applications as per the law.
Democracy gives votes for the citizens. You aren't even close to being one to even speak up. You are still an Alien. If you don't like it, feel free to be a citizen of the country that you are from.
Just because you pay tax, no one is answerable from the government to you, forget an apology. Taxation has got nothing to do with your right to vote. Right to vote is what is important in a democracy so that if the majority of the people don't like what is happening, they can make the change happen by their vote when the time comes.
Apology from USCIS???? For what? USCIS is just an agency. They do not even make the laws. They just process the applications as per the law.
hairstyles funny wallpapers for computer.
vani
08-26 02:49 AM
Hi,
I applied for H1B through a company for year 2010. I am currently on H4. As per this company, my application reached USCIS on April 7th. We have not got any receipt for this so far as per what the company says. My question is, is it possible that USCIS will take this long to issue the receipt number ? Is there a way to find out whether USCIS have received my application indeed. When I call the company who applied the H1, they keep saying we haven't heard back anything from USCIS. Can you help in answering my questions ?
Greatly appreciate your reponse.
Rgds,
Vani
I applied for H1B through a company for year 2010. I am currently on H4. As per this company, my application reached USCIS on April 7th. We have not got any receipt for this so far as per what the company says. My question is, is it possible that USCIS will take this long to issue the receipt number ? Is there a way to find out whether USCIS have received my application indeed. When I call the company who applied the H1, they keep saying we haven't heard back anything from USCIS. Can you help in answering my questions ?
Greatly appreciate your reponse.
Rgds,
Vani
GC_1000Watt
12-03 04:26 PM
The simple reply to this question I could think of is that Dream Act is not meant to benefit Legal immigrants, however Visa recapture will directly benefit all the Employment based legal immigrants.
Thanks.
Why do we need Recapture more than DREAM ACT or with DREAM ACT?
What makes recapture an important issue as mush as DREAM ACT issue?
Is the question asked to me when I communicated with someone in favor of DREAM act. We need good answers when asked this question.
I was looking at posts to respond back and write to all reporters writing on DREAM ACT. Can someone post convincing answers?
Thanks.
Why do we need Recapture more than DREAM ACT or with DREAM ACT?
What makes recapture an important issue as mush as DREAM ACT issue?
Is the question asked to me when I communicated with someone in favor of DREAM act. We need good answers when asked this question.
I was looking at posts to respond back and write to all reporters writing on DREAM ACT. Can someone post convincing answers?
augustus
08-21 10:32 AM
Please see above
No comments:
Post a Comment