kumar1
12-05 02:04 PM
Mita, before you start your lecture, please explain your following idiotic comment....
You made my day!!!!
I was waiting for someone to spit venom at timesofindia but did not happen till today.
You made my day!!!!
I was waiting for someone to spit venom at timesofindia but did not happen till today.
eb3_nepa
07-29 05:42 PM
As far as I know we HAVE NO STAND on the issue.
Our goal is simple, to seperate ourselves from "undocumented immigrants", we do not call it "illegal immigration" as per our initial IV discussions.
IV stands as an organization for Employment Based Legal Immigration and nothing BUT that. So, again, in short we HAVE no stand on "illegal immigration".
Our goal is simple, to seperate ourselves from "undocumented immigrants", we do not call it "illegal immigration" as per our initial IV discussions.
IV stands as an organization for Employment Based Legal Immigration and nothing BUT that. So, again, in short we HAVE no stand on "illegal immigration".
DSLStart
07-25 09:51 AM
I too received an email couple of days back that my 140 which was approved in Dec 05 has been transfered from VSC to TSC. Wonder whats going on :confused:
jasmin45
02-26 01:20 PM
If you go out of US and while you are out, if your GC is approved, then you can reenter US with that GC only if you have an AP. If you re-enter US with your H4, then USCIS assumes that you are abandoning your GC...This is what my attorney told me. So, it's better to talk to your attorney before going out of US.
This is correct as per my understanding. As soon as your GC is approved you will need AP to re-enter US. IO at POE will have the information about your approved GC. I do not think he will allow you to enter on H4 after the GC Approval.
This is just my understanding. Check with a attorney to get precise information.
This is correct as per my understanding. As soon as your GC is approved you will need AP to re-enter US. IO at POE will have the information about your approved GC. I do not think he will allow you to enter on H4 after the GC Approval.
This is just my understanding. Check with a attorney to get precise information.
more...
enggr
10-04 08:17 AM
They have this in Connecticut (CT) state also . In 2010 Jan I applied for my license transfer and they checked my 797, passport, employment verification letter etc and they said they need to send the verification to USCIS which will take a few hours or a day. they wanted me to come back the next day to collect the license
uma001
07-26 02:30 PM
Go for GC , not career. You can get good career whenever you want, but you cant get GC whenever you want. Once you get GC you can apply for 150k job wherever you want, any company you want. With h1 you cant do that.
more...
guyfromsg
07-17 11:09 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/UpdateDirectFiling062107.pdf
Thanks for the link. My lawyer didn't explain clearly why he filed in Texas. This document says even though direct filing is effective July 30th you can still file to the appropriate service center. I reside in GA and so TSC is the right one. Thanks again.
Thanks for the link. My lawyer didn't explain clearly why he filed in Texas. This document says even though direct filing is effective July 30th you can still file to the appropriate service center. I reside in GA and so TSC is the right one. Thanks again.
santb1975
02-14 05:12 PM
and we can.
Great to see this thread... gotta keep it on top!
TOGETHER, WE SHALL BRING HOME THE TROPHY!
Great to see this thread... gotta keep it on top!
TOGETHER, WE SHALL BRING HOME THE TROPHY!
more...
reddyram
07-18 12:46 PM
First of consult some American Lawyer who is close to labor law , because even lawyers act at times with some point of interest , which need not be yours . There is no such thing as a "bond" in US ( Unless you are on L1 ) so to BOMK , you are fine.
siddar
12-03 05:51 PM
Candidate should be physically present in USA, on the date of AP approval. Otherwise, that AP is not valid. When the candidate try to enter US, the IO will verify this information and may permit accordingly.
I-485 application considers abandoned, if a candidate leaves US without any valid Visa to re-enter. Remember, H1 / H4 cannot be stamped after I-485 approval.
I'm a layman like you, please consult an attorney.
I-485 application considers abandoned, if a candidate leaves US without any valid Visa to re-enter. Remember, H1 / H4 cannot be stamped after I-485 approval.
I'm a layman like you, please consult an attorney.
more...
priti8888
10-02 12:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June/July 2007 they allocated visa numbers to various applications based on RD.
Say Mr A with a PD of 2004 applied for 485 on July 23.
But Mr B with a PD of 2005 applied for 485 in 2005 or anytime before July 2007.
Mr B may be assigned a visa number and you will see his aproval anytime from July-Oct 2007. Since he already applied 485 , his name check, FP, etc is clear and case is pre-adjudicated.
Therefore, inspite of the fact that Mr B 's PF is not current, you will still see approvals in August, sept, oct.
In June/July 2007 they allocated visa numbers to various applications based on RD.
Say Mr A with a PD of 2004 applied for 485 on July 23.
But Mr B with a PD of 2005 applied for 485 in 2005 or anytime before July 2007.
Mr B may be assigned a visa number and you will see his aproval anytime from July-Oct 2007. Since he already applied 485 , his name check, FP, etc is clear and case is pre-adjudicated.
Therefore, inspite of the fact that Mr B 's PF is not current, you will still see approvals in August, sept, oct.
logiclife
12-01 03:33 PM
The job description is the key. Titles dont matter. My official title at my company is "programmer level 3".( I am an Oracle programmer)
That doesnt mean anything to anyone OUTSIDE of my company. Does it mean that I am top-level programmer? or does it mean that I am 3rd level junior programmer?
But the JOB DESCRIPTION must be accurate.(As much as possible, there is a limit to how much 10 lines can do in describing your job).
As far as resume is concerned, didnt your lawyer look at your resume before filing labor? I remember my lawyer consulting my HR, my boss and my resume before writing the job description on my labor so that its accurate. Anyways, resume is something that is subject to change all the time and I dont think USCIS expects you to have your resume in line with your job desc on labor. Resume is about your qualifications and abilities - which may or may not be the same thing that your actually perform at your work.
That doesnt mean anything to anyone OUTSIDE of my company. Does it mean that I am top-level programmer? or does it mean that I am 3rd level junior programmer?
But the JOB DESCRIPTION must be accurate.(As much as possible, there is a limit to how much 10 lines can do in describing your job).
As far as resume is concerned, didnt your lawyer look at your resume before filing labor? I remember my lawyer consulting my HR, my boss and my resume before writing the job description on my labor so that its accurate. Anyways, resume is something that is subject to change all the time and I dont think USCIS expects you to have your resume in line with your job desc on labor. Resume is about your qualifications and abilities - which may or may not be the same thing that your actually perform at your work.
more...
sledge_hammer
02-07 01:14 PM
hammer, here is another poll very similar at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1671
Thanks whoever,
I asked people on the EB3 poll thread where I can find the poll for EB2. Never got an answer, hence this thread.
Admin can delete this thread ...
Thanks whoever,
I asked people on the EB3 poll thread where I can find the poll for EB2. Never got an answer, hence this thread.
Admin can delete this thread ...
Anogar
03-05 02:12 AM
I think I misread the OP about moving from the flash IDE to flex builder although I strongly prefer both FD and FDT to flex builder..
and no Jeff, it wasn't directed at you although I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about either :P
You didn't misread it, he said:
I think it's natural to switch from Flash Studio to Flex Builder in the some point of time.
Never mind...
And I also disagree. Flex has some strong points, but ultimately there isn't much you can't accomplish with Flex that you couldn't have done with Flash + Flash Develop, or FDT, or something like that. Obviously no one uses the Flash IDE to code once they reach a certain point, but that doesn't mean the only (or best) option is to move to Flex Builder. I find Flex Builder to be sort of cumbersome, and for working with artists, which I'm always doing, I much prefer using the Flash IDE.
and no Jeff, it wasn't directed at you although I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about either :P
You didn't misread it, he said:
I think it's natural to switch from Flash Studio to Flex Builder in the some point of time.
Never mind...
And I also disagree. Flex has some strong points, but ultimately there isn't much you can't accomplish with Flex that you couldn't have done with Flash + Flash Develop, or FDT, or something like that. Obviously no one uses the Flash IDE to code once they reach a certain point, but that doesn't mean the only (or best) option is to move to Flex Builder. I find Flex Builder to be sort of cumbersome, and for working with artists, which I'm always doing, I much prefer using the Flash IDE.
more...
jonty_11
12-03 02:15 PM
I cannot comment specifically to ur case...but when me n my spouse travelled on AP...going to India - no one looked at AP...we just turned in our I94 to the airline....
I think the relevance of AP is only when you re-enter US, hopefully by that time u already have AP in hand for urself and her.
I think the relevance of AP is only when you re-enter US, hopefully by that time u already have AP in hand for urself and her.
adobe howm
09-23 11:50 AM
09/22/2008: USCIS Ombudsman Assistance Available for EAD Delay Cases
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
Thanks for the effort. this indeed reaches where it suppose to be - helping someone with similar need. appreciated. not sure how to give you my green though.
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
Thanks for the effort. this indeed reaches where it suppose to be - helping someone with similar need. appreciated. not sure how to give you my green though.
more...
GCPagla
03-15 02:07 PM
Hi,
I would like to get you expert's opinion, before I pull the final string. My GC had been filed in EB2 with PD on Feb 26 2007. My 140 has been approved on April 2008. My 485 was filed during 2007 fiasco. I work for one of the big 3car company in Detroit as a consultant and situation is changing fast here, compelling me to search shelter somewhere else.
Luckily I got an offer from a new employer which is enticing me two pull the trick of Ac21. But before I do so, I would like to get your kind advise on the following points.
a) My Job title is programmer Analyst with my current employer but in the offer letter of the future employer is is given as "Sr. java developer". Does this title change matters? The new employer has agreed to give me the Ac21 letter with same job duty description.
b) The salary increase in the job is almost 50%. Do you think this causes any red flag.
c) The company size of the new employer is much small than the current employer. Is this OK.
I am really depending on you people's expertise. Any help will really make me confident about this change.
Regards
I would like to get you expert's opinion, before I pull the final string. My GC had been filed in EB2 with PD on Feb 26 2007. My 140 has been approved on April 2008. My 485 was filed during 2007 fiasco. I work for one of the big 3car company in Detroit as a consultant and situation is changing fast here, compelling me to search shelter somewhere else.
Luckily I got an offer from a new employer which is enticing me two pull the trick of Ac21. But before I do so, I would like to get your kind advise on the following points.
a) My Job title is programmer Analyst with my current employer but in the offer letter of the future employer is is given as "Sr. java developer". Does this title change matters? The new employer has agreed to give me the Ac21 letter with same job duty description.
b) The salary increase in the job is almost 50%. Do you think this causes any red flag.
c) The company size of the new employer is much small than the current employer. Is this OK.
I am really depending on you people's expertise. Any help will really make me confident about this change.
Regards
coopheal
07-26 11:39 AM
I have added my experience on wiki. Please add the banks you used here..
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Sending_Money_to_India
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Sending_Money_to_India
newbie2020
08-17 04:13 AM
PA DMV requires atleast one document which has a later expiry to issue license, Take a letter from her employer stating she will be working in PA until a later date (Say 12/31/2011 eg). Show it to them and they will issue license.
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.
pitha
02-27 04:47 PM
It is worse than your estimates below because when green card is issued spouse and children are also counted in the quota unlike the h1 where spouse and children are not counted in the quota. Even if we assume each green card applicat has only one child, there would be 3 visa numbers used for each GC applicant. Going by that India has a demand for 150K GC as per the perm statistics but it gets only about 10000 per year. At this rate people from India who applied for GC in 06 and 07 would have to wait about 15 years and 30 years respectively to get the GC!!!!!!!!
About 25,000 PERM labors were approved in 2007 for Indian nationals. Assuming a 2.5:1 ratio of 'GC filed:Labor approved', implies that each year 62,500 GC are demanded by Indians under EB. Since only 10,000 are available (across all EB classes), this implies each year a backlog of 50,000 cases is created for Indians.
Since PD are essentially retrogressed from Nov. 2005, we can assume that since then another 100,000 Indians have joined the GC backlog. It can also be assumed that between 2001 and Nov. 2005 there must be another (atleast) 50,000 waiting for GC.
Assuming these numbers are correct, a person filing for labor today is looking to wait for atleast 15 years before getting a GC (150,000/10,000).
As for those wth PD prior to Nov. 2005 - well..... probably anywhere between 1 to 5 years .....
Comments on the analysis.........?
About 25,000 PERM labors were approved in 2007 for Indian nationals. Assuming a 2.5:1 ratio of 'GC filed:Labor approved', implies that each year 62,500 GC are demanded by Indians under EB. Since only 10,000 are available (across all EB classes), this implies each year a backlog of 50,000 cases is created for Indians.
Since PD are essentially retrogressed from Nov. 2005, we can assume that since then another 100,000 Indians have joined the GC backlog. It can also be assumed that between 2001 and Nov. 2005 there must be another (atleast) 50,000 waiting for GC.
Assuming these numbers are correct, a person filing for labor today is looking to wait for atleast 15 years before getting a GC (150,000/10,000).
As for those wth PD prior to Nov. 2005 - well..... probably anywhere between 1 to 5 years .....
Comments on the analysis.........?
No comments:
Post a Comment