pns27
10-22 10:54 PM
I have a question:
As most of the EB folks are in the system Will EB3 ever get a chance to dip in to the ROW pool of visas?
What I mean is and correct me if I am wrong; In last quarter of every years any remaining visas from ROW will be used by countries like India/China. However the order of preference is Eb1, EB2 and if any visas are left then EB3. If so them till every Eb1 and EB2 in the system are approved EB3 may not get any additional visas other that the regular quota, RIGHT?
So there is fair chance that all EB1 and EB2 will get cleared soon and EB3 will be stuck for ever.:confused:
As most of the EB folks are in the system Will EB3 ever get a chance to dip in to the ROW pool of visas?
What I mean is and correct me if I am wrong; In last quarter of every years any remaining visas from ROW will be used by countries like India/China. However the order of preference is Eb1, EB2 and if any visas are left then EB3. If so them till every Eb1 and EB2 in the system are approved EB3 may not get any additional visas other that the regular quota, RIGHT?
So there is fair chance that all EB1 and EB2 will get cleared soon and EB3 will be stuck for ever.:confused:
wallpaper High Resolution Lord Hanuman
coolngood4u80
08-23 11:28 AM
My wife is doing her MBA in H4. My PD is July 2008. Being on H4, you can save a lot of money in fees. And also you never know, If at all the visa re-capture bill is passed, you might able to file I-485. So My advice is to continue on H4.
amsgc
11-26 01:34 AM
Cygnet,
There is no such thing as a transfer - every petition is a new petition.
In your case, you can be exempt from being counted in the yearly cap if your I-140 has been approved. While filing the petition, your new company will have to attach a copy of the approved I-140, or prove that your I-140 has been approved.
Hello Friends,
I filed for AOS on 07/2007, stopped using my current H1-B on 07/2008 (valid thru 07/2009). I am EB3-India PD 03/2005.
My question is if I can apply for a new H1-B thru a new company in the US now, instead of a transfer? I have a valid reason for doing that. Do let me know.
Thank you.
There is no such thing as a transfer - every petition is a new petition.
In your case, you can be exempt from being counted in the yearly cap if your I-140 has been approved. While filing the petition, your new company will have to attach a copy of the approved I-140, or prove that your I-140 has been approved.
Hello Friends,
I filed for AOS on 07/2007, stopped using my current H1-B on 07/2008 (valid thru 07/2009). I am EB3-India PD 03/2005.
My question is if I can apply for a new H1-B thru a new company in the US now, instead of a transfer? I have a valid reason for doing that. Do let me know.
Thank you.
2011 High Resolution Lord Hanuman
geesee_99
12-14 12:00 PM
Any more Ideas/Advise guys?
more...
I_need_GC
10-14 08:57 AM
Renew you AP before Feb 25, 2009. You are usually paroled upto an year from the date of entry.
Yes you can file for AP your self, its as easy as filling out the form.
The stamps having nothing to do with the renewal.
My AP is expiring in Feb 25, 2009. I have some question regarding the renewal of my AP. When I came back this time afterthe vacation, at the airport they stamp my ap saying that it's expiring One June 30, 2009. what does that mean?
When should i have to renew my AP?
How long does it going to take?
Can i do it by myself as my lawyer is charing $1000 every time i'm using her (she charged me legal fee $1000 for my EAD renewal)?
When i apply for the Ap renewal does it have anythign to do with the AP stamping saying expires: june 30, 2009?
Your answer is always appreciated
Thanks Ahead
EB3...ROW
PD May 2006
Yes you can file for AP your self, its as easy as filling out the form.
The stamps having nothing to do with the renewal.
My AP is expiring in Feb 25, 2009. I have some question regarding the renewal of my AP. When I came back this time afterthe vacation, at the airport they stamp my ap saying that it's expiring One June 30, 2009. what does that mean?
When should i have to renew my AP?
How long does it going to take?
Can i do it by myself as my lawyer is charing $1000 every time i'm using her (she charged me legal fee $1000 for my EAD renewal)?
When i apply for the Ap renewal does it have anythign to do with the AP stamping saying expires: june 30, 2009?
Your answer is always appreciated
Thanks Ahead
EB3...ROW
PD May 2006
nashim
08-11 11:23 AM
same here, dec 04
more...
kcindian
05-29 11:21 AM
Thanks for your response kaisersose.
I understand I can switch jobs with my EAD.
I want to switch from EB3 category to EB2 since I will be current under EB2 with my PD of July 2003. What is the process I have to follow to make this switch?
KC INdian
I understand I can switch jobs with my EAD.
I want to switch from EB3 category to EB2 since I will be current under EB2 with my PD of July 2003. What is the process I have to follow to make this switch?
KC INdian
2010 Hanuman Wallpapers,Pictures
arnet
11-07 12:53 PM
difficult to classify which company are good or bad, based on each one experience or interest they may like or may not like the company. some struck in a company due to retrogression too. if you are planning to switch company, decide based on your interest/family situation and see whether your future job can give you those. get help from your friends/jobsites like dice.com/monster.com/careerbuilder.com/hotjobs.com to see the job oppurtunities.....good luck.
Disclaimer: Use at your own risk...I'm not an immigration attroney so please consult for your situation as laws/procedures are changing.
Friends,
Can you all post the names of good consulting companies to work for. Let's create a list here.
Thanks,
Disclaimer: Use at your own risk...I'm not an immigration attroney so please consult for your situation as laws/procedures are changing.
Friends,
Can you all post the names of good consulting companies to work for. Let's create a list here.
Thanks,
more...
ultimate_champ
11-29 11:14 AM
After showing all the documentation and the AC21 law links to USCIS site, my lawyer and immig dept agree that 03-Aug-2007 is my receipt date.
so my 180 days start from 03-Aug-2007. Quite a relief for me.
On the other side, I already lost out on 1 opportunity coz they took so much time to get back with the answer. I hope something clicks in the near future.
Thanks for the forum feedbacks and answers. This really helped.
so my 180 days start from 03-Aug-2007. Quite a relief for me.
On the other side, I already lost out on 1 opportunity coz they took so much time to get back with the answer. I hope something clicks in the near future.
Thanks for the forum feedbacks and answers. This really helped.
hair Free Download Hindu god rama
ajain
05-28 06:30 PM
Without a job offer from a national lab, it makes it hard to say why I want to skip the labor certification. Companies that need work of national interest now first ask for a green card before they give a job offer in a chicken and egg game. That I am nearing the end of 6-ye H1B may not be good enough reason to bypass labor. The most reasonable argument I can think of is that my stopping work will harm US national interests and no one else can do that work because I am special. What do you think?
more...
waitingonlc
02-13 03:50 PM
Immigration plan looms in Congress
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
hot HAN18 Hindi God
laksmi
07-19 05:03 PM
Is it possible to verify PIMS name check clearance before we attend the consulate in india.
more...
house Chiledhood of Lord Hanuman
desi485
06-06 12:38 PM
Looks like everything in GM is on sale.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ae2V3Y.7j85k&refer=news
Saturn is sold for $100 to $200 mn.
Who knows GM may sell the retired brands for 1 or 2 mn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac#End_of_the_Pontiac_brand
Now the important question.
Did tatas overpay for jaguar and landrover ? Looks like they did.
Saturn has plants to produce cars, BUT NO TECHNOLOGY OF THEIR OWN. NO R&D.
Saturn sells rebranded-rebadged OPEL (GM - EUROPE, now sold to Magna) Vehicles.
While Jaguar and Land Rover are very strong brands with their own technologies and research & design capabilities. Besides Tata bought those brands when Rupee was historically high (below 40 per USD). So I don't think Tata made any mistakes.
I think it is Mahindra who is making mistake by not buying Hummer or Volvo or Saturn. I am very excited to see first Indian Vehicle to be sold in US i.e. Mahindra in 2009. No matter what, I will be the first to buy one.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ae2V3Y.7j85k&refer=news
Saturn is sold for $100 to $200 mn.
Who knows GM may sell the retired brands for 1 or 2 mn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac#End_of_the_Pontiac_brand
Now the important question.
Did tatas overpay for jaguar and landrover ? Looks like they did.
Saturn has plants to produce cars, BUT NO TECHNOLOGY OF THEIR OWN. NO R&D.
Saturn sells rebranded-rebadged OPEL (GM - EUROPE, now sold to Magna) Vehicles.
While Jaguar and Land Rover are very strong brands with their own technologies and research & design capabilities. Besides Tata bought those brands when Rupee was historically high (below 40 per USD). So I don't think Tata made any mistakes.
I think it is Mahindra who is making mistake by not buying Hummer or Volvo or Saturn. I am very excited to see first Indian Vehicle to be sold in US i.e. Mahindra in 2009. No matter what, I will be the first to buy one.
tattoo lord hanuman images pictures
god_bless_you
06-14 09:14 PM
From Today's Lou Dobb's....
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
more...
pictures God Wallpaper
gcwanter
07-02 10:01 AM
All of a sudden since last week there has been an increase.. in these kind of people who "suddenly" pop up ; make their first time posts challenging IV and its mission.
I think the best treatment they deserve is IGNORANCE. we probably shouldnt even reply to such ridiculous posts of people who are not even aware what the CIR contains for us legals..
please ignore such people..or else these threads keep lingering on top..which they dont deserve
I think the best treatment they deserve is IGNORANCE. we probably shouldnt even reply to such ridiculous posts of people who are not even aware what the CIR contains for us legals..
please ignore such people..or else these threads keep lingering on top..which they dont deserve
dresses LORD HANUMAN IMAGES
va_dude
05-15 04:06 PM
get an Infopass and see what's happening.
more...
makeup wallpapers of lord hanuman
jediknight
02-08 07:02 PM
We need to work with everyone and fix the legal immigration mess.
Once that is fixed, there would be no reason for people to break the immigration law. That problem will automatically go away.
"What line?" is a good question to ask all the anti-immigration groups. I hate it when they have names like "Americans for Legal Immigration." They should publish a list of their accomplishments for legal immigrants :-)
- JZ
Once that is fixed, there would be no reason for people to break the immigration law. That problem will automatically go away.
"What line?" is a good question to ask all the anti-immigration groups. I hate it when they have names like "Americans for Legal Immigration." They should publish a list of their accomplishments for legal immigrants :-)
- JZ
girlfriend Lord Siva. Siva Wallpapers
abhishek101
03-25 01:54 PM
Finally, someone who thinks long-term. That is why I had mentioned that we need to go beyond our immediate benefits and think longterm.
Also, people with Masters in Computer Science are also eligible, so for the many nay sayers, grunt IT work is not interesting to US govt., but there is still a lot of innovation going on in core Computer Science.
I agree fully. If we get only one thing to say it should be getting the soft limit back. It is something that already exists in current immigration system and can be defended easily. Once we have got that as an amendment we should start pushing for other things.
I always believe in One step at a time and in picking your fights. We all would love to get everything right now but a wise thing would be choose the most important fight.
SO my Vote : Reinstate Soft Quota.
Also, people with Masters in Computer Science are also eligible, so for the many nay sayers, grunt IT work is not interesting to US govt., but there is still a lot of innovation going on in core Computer Science.
I agree fully. If we get only one thing to say it should be getting the soft limit back. It is something that already exists in current immigration system and can be defended easily. Once we have got that as an amendment we should start pushing for other things.
I always believe in One step at a time and in picking your fights. We all would love to get everything right now but a wise thing would be choose the most important fight.
SO my Vote : Reinstate Soft Quota.
hairstyles HAN01 lord Hanuman wallpaper
gc_chahiye
09-20 04:07 PM
I'm from Bangladesh and EB3. As you know the I485 was current in July and i applied along with my EAD and AP. but this month in visa bulletin i found that the date went back to 2002.
My question is: are they going to consider my application current or i stuck in the backlog. my understanding is that the visa bulletin reflects the availibility to send the application....they received my application on July 2nd, 2007.
someone please clarify the matter please.......thanks ahead
your application will be accepted and processed (since you applied when your date was current), but it cant be approved until you are current again. So you can keep getting/renewing EADs/APs, security and background checks will happen etc, but no final approval until EB3-ROW becomes current for your PD.
My question is: are they going to consider my application current or i stuck in the backlog. my understanding is that the visa bulletin reflects the availibility to send the application....they received my application on July 2nd, 2007.
someone please clarify the matter please.......thanks ahead
your application will be accepted and processed (since you applied when your date was current), but it cant be approved until you are current again. So you can keep getting/renewing EADs/APs, security and background checks will happen etc, but no final approval until EB3-ROW becomes current for your PD.
larmani
09-04 12:58 PM
Our Lawyer contacted National Service Center and got some inquiry number starts with WTCXXXXX and expecting a response in 45 days? Is this same as Service Request? Will this help? I already took infopass appointment and met an IO. The IO was saying both of my I-140s are in the same file as 485. But my question is how would they choose my application when USCIS did not port the priority?? Anybody in this situation please help!!
ashutrip
04-19 01:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi
My Labor for GC was filed on april 9 under EB3
I got promoted just yestaerday
Is it true that the title change and increase in wages may create a problem with labor certification?
Ashutosh
Hi
My Labor for GC was filed on april 9 under EB3
I got promoted just yestaerday
Is it true that the title change and increase in wages may create a problem with labor certification?
Ashutosh
