new_horizon
03-06 11:36 AM
There was a change in LUD for both me and my wife on 3/4/09. Then on my wife's, there were LUD ON 3/5 & now 3/6/09 also. When I open the Case Number, it shows the usual information "Current Status: Case received and pending". Any idea what this could mean. Thanks.
wallpaper Free Nature Wallpapers
ArkBird
09-15 04:21 PM
Did you check the grammar of your polling question?
I support this. But might to be able to help with the fee
If this is EB2, I am glad/proud/honor to be EB3
:)
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
I support this. But might to be able to help with the fee
If this is EB2, I am glad/proud/honor to be EB3
:)
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
2011 Download wallpaper
Junky
09-12 08:23 AM
Same loser MF AssHole give me a red with the remark. "gimme red!" for my following post
:D:D:D:D:D
:D:D:D:D:D
more...
satish_hello
10-16 02:20 PM
Hi all,
I am planing to send letter to ombudsman for I-140 , can you some one tell where we should get sign from my employer. i mean which section Employer should sign in that form.
Can we send 7001 form without employer signature.
Thanks
I am planing to send letter to ombudsman for I-140 , can you some one tell where we should get sign from my employer. i mean which section Employer should sign in that form.
Can we send 7001 form without employer signature.
Thanks
vkannan
03-12 11:20 PM
Its not a rumor. This is real. Coming to think abt it, he had filed a labor in 2000/2001 time period and had abandoned it when he switched companies. I am wondering if USCIS takes the oldest one an applicant had ever filed.
There you go.....See thinking does help;-).....anyway seriously dude......do you think USCIS go that level to go pick up your friends abandoned labor.....and do the PD Porting without your friend asking for it.....I will be damned...if this is true.....
There you go.....See thinking does help;-).....anyway seriously dude......do you think USCIS go that level to go pick up your friends abandoned labor.....and do the PD Porting without your friend asking for it.....I will be damned...if this is true.....
more...
irock
09-11 05:12 PM
I'm in.
2010 High Quality Nature wallpapers
Sachin_Stock
08-23 01:02 PM
I don't find anything in this memo that contradicts or radically changes the way EB-2 category has been affected. Correct me if I am wrong.
more...
santb1975
05-25 04:17 PM
with your contributions.
hair Nature Wallpapers. Download
BharatPremi
04-16 02:22 PM
Yes, my status is changed to 'RIR-In Process' from 'TR-In Process' on 04/13/2007. Victim of PBEC
- BharatPremi
EB3-state:MA-PD:July'2003- Original TR-NowRIR
Anyone has their case converted to RIR recently at PBEC ?
Mine pending since Jan 2007.
- BharatPremi
EB3-state:MA-PD:July'2003- Original TR-NowRIR
Anyone has their case converted to RIR recently at PBEC ?
Mine pending since Jan 2007.
more...
hpandey
04-01 08:13 AM
As Ron Gotcher observed, they are still using DOS ( not department of state ! ) programs .
Well they do process millions of applications - H1's , EAD's , GC's ' I-140 , Labor and so many different kinds of visas and other applications . I must say that they are trying even if they are not succeeding. It is probably due to shortage of manpower and experienced personnel. Another problem is that the money that they get from all the application fees which is a very significant amont ( greater than a billion ) some of it is diverted to other programs rather than hiring more workers for USCIS .
I guess we can only make efforts via rallies and other actions that IV does to make them realize the delays and streamline their process but the ultimate decision will always lie with USCIS unless a big political figure steps in .
Well they do process millions of applications - H1's , EAD's , GC's ' I-140 , Labor and so many different kinds of visas and other applications . I must say that they are trying even if they are not succeeding. It is probably due to shortage of manpower and experienced personnel. Another problem is that the money that they get from all the application fees which is a very significant amont ( greater than a billion ) some of it is diverted to other programs rather than hiring more workers for USCIS .
I guess we can only make efforts via rallies and other actions that IV does to make them realize the delays and streamline their process but the ultimate decision will always lie with USCIS unless a big political figure steps in .
hot Compare with Nature Wallpaper
ragz4u
03-16 03:29 PM
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today reached agreement on proposals for a new guest-worker program and a plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to become permanent residents.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
more...
house dresses Nature Wallpaper. free
waitnwatch
09-05 08:06 PM
I remember that in the early nineties it was next to impossible to get a home loan in India. I think the only company which gave out home loans was HDFC and the interest rate was a whopping 16%. Property prices at that time conformed to what people could actually afford as the house had to be either paid in full or you had to take out a loan from your provident fund.
Fast forward to 2000 and beyond. After the Indian rupee became fully convertible and the banking regulations were relaxed every bank or finance company started to make loans. The upshot of that is that everyone could buy a house and car through taking out loans. This of course created this huge demand for new housing from the middle class which translated into a steep increase in land and property prices.
This may not exactly be a total bubble as loans are there to stay. What is happening though is that home construction is going on at a rapid pace and at some point Indian cities and their suburbs may be overbuilt. At that point you would be stuck with your house and not be able to sell as is happening in the US. Of course some markets will correct but I donot think Bombay, Bangalore or Hyderabad will.
I'm a a total layman regarding such issues and I am just trying to reason this through.
Is is sad. All these NRIs are going to learn a very valuable lesson. Speculation is not a good strategy for investing. A lot learned that in the past few months here in USA. In a year we will be seeing the full blown post bubble correction in India. If one can rent an apartment for 15,000 why would one buy it for 50 lakhs. The interest alone on 50 lakhs is 50,000 every month. It is like buy and rent it and loose money. Instead why don't they deposit in a bank and get 50,000 every month:confused:
Fast forward to 2000 and beyond. After the Indian rupee became fully convertible and the banking regulations were relaxed every bank or finance company started to make loans. The upshot of that is that everyone could buy a house and car through taking out loans. This of course created this huge demand for new housing from the middle class which translated into a steep increase in land and property prices.
This may not exactly be a total bubble as loans are there to stay. What is happening though is that home construction is going on at a rapid pace and at some point Indian cities and their suburbs may be overbuilt. At that point you would be stuck with your house and not be able to sell as is happening in the US. Of course some markets will correct but I donot think Bombay, Bangalore or Hyderabad will.
I'm a a total layman regarding such issues and I am just trying to reason this through.
Is is sad. All these NRIs are going to learn a very valuable lesson. Speculation is not a good strategy for investing. A lot learned that in the past few months here in USA. In a year we will be seeing the full blown post bubble correction in India. If one can rent an apartment for 15,000 why would one buy it for 50 lakhs. The interest alone on 50 lakhs is 50,000 every month. It is like buy and rent it and loose money. Instead why don't they deposit in a bank and get 50,000 every month:confused:
tattoo Free HD Nature Wallapers
gotgc?
07-19 09:22 AM
I heard about IV a lot in the last couple of weeks. And I saw the article and I am very impressed. I want to be the proud member of IV. Just contributed $100 one time through paypal. (Receipt Number: 3856-4213-5890-9338). Hope to contribute more in the future.
Go IV!!!
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070718_012859.htm?campaign_id=yhoo
Go IV!!!
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070718_012859.htm?campaign_id=yhoo
more...
pictures wallpaper download nature.
coopheal
12-24 04:01 PM
Lets revive the campaign to remove country limits.
It is hurting EB immigrants from India and China and still people are unwilling to make this an important issue. We have not seen any employer take this up as an issue. However if you see country cap being added to the amnesty bill, the entire lobby of these people will make noise and will not let this happen. So let us stop giving arguments like diversity etc to ourselves because that really is not an argument across the board. So if country cap is an important issue for Indians and Chinese, they need to lobby hard against it. This has not really happened. Instead we get caught up in action items for small things that the community really wants. Imagine if the country caps are removed, the dates will move much faster. There needs to be strong support from the community if country caps were to be removed in CIR next year.
It is hurting EB immigrants from India and China and still people are unwilling to make this an important issue. We have not seen any employer take this up as an issue. However if you see country cap being added to the amnesty bill, the entire lobby of these people will make noise and will not let this happen. So let us stop giving arguments like diversity etc to ourselves because that really is not an argument across the board. So if country cap is an important issue for Indians and Chinese, they need to lobby hard against it. This has not really happened. Instead we get caught up in action items for small things that the community really wants. Imagine if the country caps are removed, the dates will move much faster. There needs to be strong support from the community if country caps were to be removed in CIR next year.
dresses Download Crepuscule Wallpaper
.jpg "free download nature wallpaper")
PD_Dec2002
03-18 07:17 AM
Having said that, since we are non-resident aliens (i.e the ones without green card or US citizenship) will not get a stimulus package?
An overwhelming chunk of all of us are considered resident aliens from IRS's perpective so you are eligible. In fact, I would think every single one of us on this forum is a resident alien since we all fit IRS's definition of a "resident alien" as per their "substantial preference test". The following is copy-paste from IRS:
Topic 851 - Resident and Non–Resident Aliens
You are considered a resident alien if you met one of two tests for the calendar year.
The first test is the "green card test." If at any time during the calendar year you were a lawful permanent resident of the United States according to the immigration laws, and this status has not been rescinded or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned, you are considered to have met the green card test.
The second test is the "substantial presence test". For the purposes of this test, the term United Stated includes the following areas:
All 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The territorial waters of the United States.
The seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas that are adjacent to U.S. territorial waters and over which the United States has exclusive rights under international law to explore and exploit natural resources. The term does not include U.S. possessions and territories or U.S. airspace.
To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count all of the days you were present in the current year, and one–third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and one–sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. Do not count any day you were present in the United States as an "exempt individual" or commute from Canada or Mexico to work in the United States on more than 75% of the workdays during your working period.
For more information, see the IRS guidance: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
Regards,
Jayant
P.S.: Since taxes are inevitable, here's hoping we soon pass the first "green card test" as well. :)
An overwhelming chunk of all of us are considered resident aliens from IRS's perpective so you are eligible. In fact, I would think every single one of us on this forum is a resident alien since we all fit IRS's definition of a "resident alien" as per their "substantial preference test". The following is copy-paste from IRS:
Topic 851 - Resident and Non–Resident Aliens
You are considered a resident alien if you met one of two tests for the calendar year.
The first test is the "green card test." If at any time during the calendar year you were a lawful permanent resident of the United States according to the immigration laws, and this status has not been rescinded or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned, you are considered to have met the green card test.
The second test is the "substantial presence test". For the purposes of this test, the term United Stated includes the following areas:
All 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The territorial waters of the United States.
The seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas that are adjacent to U.S. territorial waters and over which the United States has exclusive rights under international law to explore and exploit natural resources. The term does not include U.S. possessions and territories or U.S. airspace.
To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count all of the days you were present in the current year, and one–third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and one–sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. Do not count any day you were present in the United States as an "exempt individual" or commute from Canada or Mexico to work in the United States on more than 75% of the workdays during your working period.
For more information, see the IRS guidance: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
Regards,
Jayant
P.S.: Since taxes are inevitable, here's hoping we soon pass the first "green card test" as well. :)
more...
makeup Free Wallpaper Downloads
gc_wow
03-05 11:10 AM
My case did not recieve a LUD
girlfriend Nature Wallpapers. Download
PD_Dec2002
03-18 07:43 AM
The upper limit should be on a per state basis, at the very least. 150K AGI in CA is not much of a deal. Pretty much all double income families will cross that limit, and quite a few single income ones. Bummer!!:mad:
BTW, you can barely afford a Condo or a low end home in Bay Area for 150k AGI.
I agree with you completely. But note that the amount of rebate starts phasing as your AGI goes north of 150K. I'm in a similar situation and not getting the rebate at all. But the way to approach this is (at least that's how I am consoling myself) "Because we make a lot of money, we are not getting this rebate. Would we prefer to make less money just to get this itsy-bitsy one-time rebate?"*
And anyway rebate-on-a-per-start-basis would be a logistical nightmare for IRS given how competent federal goverment bodies are... ^^^ detect heavy dose of sarcasm here ^^^
Don't even think of proposing that idea to IRS. The next thing you know, these rebates will be backlogged. And in 2012, there will be a TaxRebateVoice.com suggesting administrative fixes/law changes to get the 2007 rebate! :D
Regards,
Jayant
*The only exception is the AMT where people in the middle-income group are being unfairly snared because the antiquated 70s law was not pegged to inflation.
BTW, you can barely afford a Condo or a low end home in Bay Area for 150k AGI.
I agree with you completely. But note that the amount of rebate starts phasing as your AGI goes north of 150K. I'm in a similar situation and not getting the rebate at all. But the way to approach this is (at least that's how I am consoling myself) "Because we make a lot of money, we are not getting this rebate. Would we prefer to make less money just to get this itsy-bitsy one-time rebate?"*
And anyway rebate-on-a-per-start-basis would be a logistical nightmare for IRS given how competent federal goverment bodies are... ^^^ detect heavy dose of sarcasm here ^^^
Don't even think of proposing that idea to IRS. The next thing you know, these rebates will be backlogged. And in 2012, there will be a TaxRebateVoice.com suggesting administrative fixes/law changes to get the 2007 rebate! :D
Regards,
Jayant
*The only exception is the AMT where people in the middle-income group are being unfairly snared because the antiquated 70s law was not pegged to inflation.
hairstyles Nature wallpaper hd 2011
Macaca
10-01 11:54 AM
This loss of visas is due to:
gaps in USCIS� accounting of cases;
USCIS not processing enough pending applications in a timely manner; and
the imprecise art of predicting workflows and demand surges at three federal agencies:
Department of Labor (DOL) (approves labor certifications);
USCIS (processes immigration petitions after completion of labor certifications and processes green card applications for applicants in the United States); and
DOS (establishes priority dates and processes immigrant visas from applicants outside the United States).
gaps in USCIS� accounting of cases;
USCIS not processing enough pending applications in a timely manner; and
the imprecise art of predicting workflows and demand surges at three federal agencies:
Department of Labor (DOL) (approves labor certifications);
USCIS (processes immigration petitions after completion of labor certifications and processes green card applications for applicants in the United States); and
DOS (establishes priority dates and processes immigrant visas from applicants outside the United States).
p1234
09-13 08:15 PM
I'm getting red dots now for believing in the right!
Who cares? Give all the red dots in the world...:D
Who cares? Give all the red dots in the world...:D
uma001
05-19 09:59 AM
This is the reply I got form Nevada Senator
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I value the opinions of every Nevadan and am grateful to those who take the time to inform me of their views.
America is a nation of immigrants but also a nation of laws. The national security of the United States depends on an immigration policy that first and foremost secures our borders. Our immigration policy also must demand accountability from those who hire illegal workers by creating a national employee verification system that employers would be required to use to verify the legal status of their employees and imposing severe penalties for employers who hire illegal workers. We should welcome those who want to enter the country legally, learn English, maintain employment, pay taxes, and contribute to our communities. We should not have to accept those who are not working full time; who have committed a crime or may present a danger to American citizens or legal immigrants; or who go on, or are likely to go on, public assistance or become dependent on any other government program.
I think we can all agree that our current immigration system is broken and that our schools, hospitals, and law enforcement are bearing the weight of its failures. Our prison system is overcrowded, and costs incurred from incarcerating criminal aliens continue to rise. The Department of Justice estimates that one in five federal prisoners, and more than one in ten state prisoners in Nevada, are non-U.S. citizens. That is why I support the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiatives that give state and local law enforcement the necessary tools to stem illegal behavior, such as the expansion of the Rapid Removal of Eligible Parolees Accepted for Transfer (REPAT) program. The REPAT program paroles non-violent criminal aliens serving state sentences so they can be deported. In Nevada, 2,560 criminal aliens were flagged for removal in Fiscal Year 2008 and 2,183 in Fiscal Year 2009. Reform is necessary and should be in America's best interests and not encourage additional illegal behavior.
Once again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue. If you should have any further questions or comments or would like to sign up for my monthly newsletter, please feel free to write or e-mail me via my website at John Ensign, United States Senator of Nevada: Home (http://ensign.senate.gov).
Sincerely,
JOHN ENSIGN
United States Senator
JE/RD
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I value the opinions of every Nevadan and am grateful to those who take the time to inform me of their views.
America is a nation of immigrants but also a nation of laws. The national security of the United States depends on an immigration policy that first and foremost secures our borders. Our immigration policy also must demand accountability from those who hire illegal workers by creating a national employee verification system that employers would be required to use to verify the legal status of their employees and imposing severe penalties for employers who hire illegal workers. We should welcome those who want to enter the country legally, learn English, maintain employment, pay taxes, and contribute to our communities. We should not have to accept those who are not working full time; who have committed a crime or may present a danger to American citizens or legal immigrants; or who go on, or are likely to go on, public assistance or become dependent on any other government program.
I think we can all agree that our current immigration system is broken and that our schools, hospitals, and law enforcement are bearing the weight of its failures. Our prison system is overcrowded, and costs incurred from incarcerating criminal aliens continue to rise. The Department of Justice estimates that one in five federal prisoners, and more than one in ten state prisoners in Nevada, are non-U.S. citizens. That is why I support the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiatives that give state and local law enforcement the necessary tools to stem illegal behavior, such as the expansion of the Rapid Removal of Eligible Parolees Accepted for Transfer (REPAT) program. The REPAT program paroles non-violent criminal aliens serving state sentences so they can be deported. In Nevada, 2,560 criminal aliens were flagged for removal in Fiscal Year 2008 and 2,183 in Fiscal Year 2009. Reform is necessary and should be in America's best interests and not encourage additional illegal behavior.
Once again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue. If you should have any further questions or comments or would like to sign up for my monthly newsletter, please feel free to write or e-mail me via my website at John Ensign, United States Senator of Nevada: Home (http://ensign.senate.gov).
Sincerely,
JOHN ENSIGN
United States Senator
JE/RD
No comments:
Post a Comment