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.
wallpaper Tv video gt lady spears,
pasupuleti
07-05 12:37 PM
Could someone with privileges update IV in the news Page?
Thanks
Thanks
Voetsjoeba
05-27 01:32 PM
I love this contest :beam::love: I think Festers site is the ugliest although they are all VERY close to eachother.
2011 sexuality is not lady gaga
Dj.Stigma
06-02 02:02 AM
My vote goes to Soul. Though all 3 wwws were very ugly and very user-unfriendly, Soul's 'beauty' (referring to his entry) was the one where i had to wait for the 'content' the longest time and it was very, very painful :hangover:
G... i mean Terrible job everyone ;-)
Peace
G... i mean Terrible job everyone ;-)
Peace
more...
mdforgc
04-14 05:00 PM
Dont the bill have to be placed in federal register after the Prez signs it, for 90 days for it to be law? I remember so from the PERM regulation timeline.
lazycis
04-06 04:48 PM
lazycis, jhaalaa, meridiani - Thanks for your inputs...you guys rock. :cool:
I believe Jhaalaa trying to caution me not to take chances and move to another employer, which could potentially cause RFE to my case. If so, thanks for you concern.
Meridiani thanks for the doc. I will read through it.
One more question, when I first filed my LC, I made x dollars, then I got a promotion and now making x+10K. When I move to a new employer, should I make x dollars? or x+10K? or is it okay to make x-10K? :confused:
See question 5 in the memo.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21intrm051205.pdf
Salary discrepancies do not really matter. It's certainly OK to make x+10 on the new job. Come on, some LC were filed 5 years ago. In my case my salary almost doubled by the time I-485 was approved (and I was working for a new company as well). It's good to be cautious, but you should not be overly concerned with these issues as the law only says that your new occupation has to be same or similar to that mentioned in LC. The USCIS never implemented the regulations regarding portability. And I never heard of the case where I-485 was denied because of the portability issue (if it was invoked after 180 days).
I believe Jhaalaa trying to caution me not to take chances and move to another employer, which could potentially cause RFE to my case. If so, thanks for you concern.
Meridiani thanks for the doc. I will read through it.
One more question, when I first filed my LC, I made x dollars, then I got a promotion and now making x+10K. When I move to a new employer, should I make x dollars? or x+10K? or is it okay to make x-10K? :confused:
See question 5 in the memo.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21intrm051205.pdf
Salary discrepancies do not really matter. It's certainly OK to make x+10 on the new job. Come on, some LC were filed 5 years ago. In my case my salary almost doubled by the time I-485 was approved (and I was working for a new company as well). It's good to be cautious, but you should not be overly concerned with these issues as the law only says that your new occupation has to be same or similar to that mentioned in LC. The USCIS never implemented the regulations regarding portability. And I never heard of the case where I-485 was denied because of the portability issue (if it was invoked after 180 days).
more...
Slowhand
05-08 05:05 PM
What if your old employer cancels your I-140? In that case wouldn't it be better to have informed USCIS that you changed jobs?
2010 Rolling+stone+lady+gaga+
go_guy123
05-02 09:34 AM
If you count the taxes these 150K legal immigrants would have paid if they were in US for a year it is more than 2.5 billion dollars.
There was a recent study claiming that 14 million illegal immigrants pay 1.5 billion dollars a year in taxes (read mostly sales taxes). And thus US should legalize these 14 million people to continue to get 1.5 billion dollars a year.
Now you can compare 150K people vs 14 million people and who pays more.
The study fails to tell that these illegals do not have insurance. So they use hospitals for free. They do not pay federal taxes because they do not have a valid documentation. Even if they are allowed to pay federal tax, many will be below poverty line.
The study did not envision an economic scenario for America if 14 million illegals are legalized. How many will claim unemployment, social security, medicare etc. I can bet the cost to government will be in billions with many zeroes after that. Someone should call the reporter and the pro illegals who created that study to answer these questions.
It is possible for undocumented to pay teh federal and state taxes. They generally usea fake ssn and once the payroll is run taxes get sent to IRS.
There was a recent study claiming that 14 million illegal immigrants pay 1.5 billion dollars a year in taxes (read mostly sales taxes). And thus US should legalize these 14 million people to continue to get 1.5 billion dollars a year.
Now you can compare 150K people vs 14 million people and who pays more.
The study fails to tell that these illegals do not have insurance. So they use hospitals for free. They do not pay federal taxes because they do not have a valid documentation. Even if they are allowed to pay federal tax, many will be below poverty line.
The study did not envision an economic scenario for America if 14 million illegals are legalized. How many will claim unemployment, social security, medicare etc. I can bet the cost to government will be in billions with many zeroes after that. Someone should call the reporter and the pro illegals who created that study to answer these questions.
It is possible for undocumented to pay teh federal and state taxes. They generally usea fake ssn and once the payroll is run taxes get sent to IRS.
more...
Pasquale
03-01 05:04 AM
It could be neat to see a photo comparison to the real thing so the likeness can be observed!
hair lady gaga hermaphrodite is
waitnwatch
04-06 10:41 PM
the bill looks as good as dead unless there is a miracle overnight
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-04-07T031746Z_01_N06381163_RTRIDST_0_USA-IMMIGRATION-UPDATE-4.XML
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-04-07T031746Z_01_N06381163_RTRIDST_0_USA-IMMIGRATION-UPDATE-4.XML
more...
Radhika
07-09 01:38 PM
Was this at TSC, mine is at NSC. My First I140 was approved, My company refiled after acquisition (successor in interest) and later upgraded to Premium
Yes it is at TSC.
Yes it is at TSC.
hot insult to Lady Gaga in his
ItIsNotFunny
09-09 04:20 PM
While on EAD, what type of entity (LLC, S Corp, C Corp) is the best one?
S Corporation. For detailed information visit LegalZoom.com. Make sure you just get information from there, don't go through them.
S Corporation. For detailed information visit LegalZoom.com. Make sure you just get information from there, don't go through them.
more...
house Luc carl, lady lady dating luc
raysaikat
07-24 08:48 AM
firstly, thanks for replying.
I just wanted to be clear about this. So if I maintain my F1 status somehow by enrolling at kaplan/community college and then find a research job which is willing to sponsor for H1B, I can apply any time of the year for this class through non-profit organization/institute of higher education?
do you have any govt. links where I could find more info on this? Any input of yours will be greatly appreciated!!!!
A non-profit organization, such as a University, can hire you any time on H1-B. The job does not have to be a research job.
I just wanted to be clear about this. So if I maintain my F1 status somehow by enrolling at kaplan/community college and then find a research job which is willing to sponsor for H1B, I can apply any time of the year for this class through non-profit organization/institute of higher education?
do you have any govt. links where I could find more info on this? Any input of yours will be greatly appreciated!!!!
A non-profit organization, such as a University, can hire you any time on H1-B. The job does not have to be a research job.
tattoo Lady Gaga - the hermaphrodite
Templarian
11-30 12:42 AM
why would flash people move on to flex ? That makes no sense at all.
Because Flash is equivalent to hell from a development standpoint. :evil:
Plus no one here said people should be using Flex over Flash (unless I misread something). :goatee:
Because Flash is equivalent to hell from a development standpoint. :evil:
Plus no one here said people should be using Flex over Flash (unless I misread something). :goatee:
more...
pictures Love lady gaga received a
morchu
04-21 01:35 PM
See my answers below:
a) Yes. You need to file another H1B+COS and wait for its approval. Wont be counted in cap.
b) Yes, you can. It is a simple application. You may even travel outside of USA and get an H4 stamp from a US consulate in India/Canada/Mexico, without any COS application.
c) Yes you can file for AOS. But at the time of filing of AOS you should have an "intention" to join the employer permanently, and the offered permanent position should be available at that time, and the employer should have an "intention" to employ you permanently.
You can file for Consular Processing, but for that you might need to file an I-824 now.
Again the same things mentioned above for AOS applies.
-Morchu
a.) If i switch to H4 and after few months i get a project..can i go back to H1..->
b.) Can i file for H4 on my own..is it complicated?
c.) if i change to H4..and my PD becomes current (PD Dec 2005)
.) Can i file for AOS..as my 140 is approved..
.) Suppose i go back to desh ..can i file for consular processing..if my PD become current
thank you!
a) Yes. You need to file another H1B+COS and wait for its approval. Wont be counted in cap.
b) Yes, you can. It is a simple application. You may even travel outside of USA and get an H4 stamp from a US consulate in India/Canada/Mexico, without any COS application.
c) Yes you can file for AOS. But at the time of filing of AOS you should have an "intention" to join the employer permanently, and the offered permanent position should be available at that time, and the employer should have an "intention" to employ you permanently.
You can file for Consular Processing, but for that you might need to file an I-824 now.
Again the same things mentioned above for AOS applies.
-Morchu
a.) If i switch to H4 and after few months i get a project..can i go back to H1..->
b.) Can i file for H4 on my own..is it complicated?
c.) if i change to H4..and my PD becomes current (PD Dec 2005)
.) Can i file for AOS..as my 140 is approved..
.) Suppose i go back to desh ..can i file for consular processing..if my PD become current
thank you!
dresses Lady Gaga Poker Face
bugmenot
01-21 10:07 PM
Would you be interested in contacting all such associations and orkut communities around the country? It will be a big help.
i cud tell my frnds in diffrnt uni's about it to spread the message in thier ISA
i cud tell my frnds in diffrnt uni's about it to spread the message in thier ISA
more...
makeup lady gaga hermaphrodite
chris
02-08 11:05 PM
Did you contacted congressman or opened any SR's ?
I'm also in the same boat. Cases after me are getting approved.:)
I'm also in the same boat. Cases after me are getting approved.:)
girlfriend She is a hermaphrodite 3.
glus
08-21 09:32 AM
I am happy for you. Good luck!!
G
G
hairstyles Yes she is not a hermaphrodite
desi3933
06-25 03:44 PM
You guys are great. Guys like you are making this world better place to live. I wish you both good luck.
I decided to apply I485 as future employment. My attorney charged complete GC fees when I got I140 approval. So now I have to pay only application fees but not any attorney charges. Do you guys know info about following?
I485 applicatio fee:
I-131 applicatio fee:
I765 applicatio fee:
Once again thanks for your advice.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D
I decided to apply I485 as future employment. My attorney charged complete GC fees when I got I140 approval. So now I have to pay only application fees but not any attorney charges. Do you guys know info about following?
I485 applicatio fee:
I-131 applicatio fee:
I765 applicatio fee:
Once again thanks for your advice.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D
gcadream
02-24 02:17 PM
But is there a risk that if you work at client site and doesn't have a PO for at least 6 months then in that case the H1 extension may get denied ?
BimmerFAn
06-13 01:45 PM
No there is no premium processing process for waiver applications. There seems to be no apparent order in the order they are adjudicated. Once the Department of State recommends you for a waiver you may apply for H1B change of status with the recommendation alone. If ur H1B application is filed for premium processing then the USCIS might adjudicate the waiver within 15 days as part of the h1b processing.
No comments:
Post a Comment