mbartosik
02-13 04:45 PM
The level of commitment for those that would be plaintiffs, unlike the MI DL case would be a lot more, because USCIS could attempt to adjudicate their cases aggressively. The level of money would be significant. Think $200 per hour, for many man months of work. Without at least $50K in the pot with plenty more available I wouldn't even entertain it.
The level of time commitment is probably equivalent to obtaining 500 letters to the president.
So how about we have a pole.
First question is how much you are willing to contribute?
Are you willing to be a plaintiff with a $10K penalty for withdrawing?
Let's make that last question only open to those who have obtained or will obtain at least a 100 letters, and have already demonstrated willingness to travel to court hearings and depositions (like attending the DC rally and meeting law makers etc.).
I suspect that less than 10 people are qualified to vote to be plaintiffs, based on my commitment criteria and some of them already have GC or will likely have soon.
To put the effort into context both Walking_Dude and myself put a lot of effort into MI DL issue. We needed people with legal standing to sue. The two we had dropped out late, one on the day before filing complaint. I had put at least 40 hours working on this (but being in NY I don't have legal standing).
I've done litigation before, and done some Pro Se (latin on behalf of self - no attorney), believe me the litigation that you are talking of requires considerable time and commitment (unlike the MI DL issue which only required a few hours of the plaintiffs).
It would cut us off from USCIS. Once litigation starts you are burning your bridges. I can see only one practical way to do litigation, that is for an small group with no clear IV affiliation to do it, that instantly eliminates any committed members.
So let's stop talking about this and invest in letters.
The level of time commitment is probably equivalent to obtaining 500 letters to the president.
So how about we have a pole.
First question is how much you are willing to contribute?
Are you willing to be a plaintiff with a $10K penalty for withdrawing?
Let's make that last question only open to those who have obtained or will obtain at least a 100 letters, and have already demonstrated willingness to travel to court hearings and depositions (like attending the DC rally and meeting law makers etc.).
I suspect that less than 10 people are qualified to vote to be plaintiffs, based on my commitment criteria and some of them already have GC or will likely have soon.
To put the effort into context both Walking_Dude and myself put a lot of effort into MI DL issue. We needed people with legal standing to sue. The two we had dropped out late, one on the day before filing complaint. I had put at least 40 hours working on this (but being in NY I don't have legal standing).
I've done litigation before, and done some Pro Se (latin on behalf of self - no attorney), believe me the litigation that you are talking of requires considerable time and commitment (unlike the MI DL issue which only required a few hours of the plaintiffs).
It would cut us off from USCIS. Once litigation starts you are burning your bridges. I can see only one practical way to do litigation, that is for an small group with no clear IV affiliation to do it, that instantly eliminates any committed members.
So let's stop talking about this and invest in letters.
wallpaper Selena+Gomez in Justin Bieber
mantric
12-13 12:36 PM
Here's the percentages of the top 10 populations of the world by nationality. How many of them are more than 7% ?
China 20.0 %
India 17.2 %
United States 4.6 %
Indonesia 3.4 %
Brazil 2.8 %
Pakistan 2.6 %
Nigeria 2.5 %
Russia 2.2 %
Bangladesh 2.1 %
Japan 2.0 %
Based on this one can conclude that the 7% nationality rule is a veiled effort to limit Indian and Chinese immigrants specifically. Does this not amount to discrimination by nationality ? In addition we as legal immigrants are taxed without any representation. Taxation without representation was the reason the US was created in the first place.
US history is full of examples where discrimination existed in one form or another and these discriminations were sucessfully challenged. A few examples are women's voting rights, minority voting rights and gerrymandering. These are good examples to study where the affected people had no legal voice to begin with.
The civil rights movement is a recent example. There were existing laws that limited people from voting based on their literacy levels in the southern states. The literacy requirement for voting was really a thinly veiled attempt to limit voting rights of african americans for as long as possible. The civil rights movement was about changing these artificial laws to give voting rights to people who legally had no voice.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_c.htm
You don't need to be a lawyer to speak up for your hardships as a law abiding resident. This country has tremendous protections for people living here which is what makes it great. We as an immigrant community need to build our awareness of US history and government if we expect things to change.
China 20.0 %
India 17.2 %
United States 4.6 %
Indonesia 3.4 %
Brazil 2.8 %
Pakistan 2.6 %
Nigeria 2.5 %
Russia 2.2 %
Bangladesh 2.1 %
Japan 2.0 %
Based on this one can conclude that the 7% nationality rule is a veiled effort to limit Indian and Chinese immigrants specifically. Does this not amount to discrimination by nationality ? In addition we as legal immigrants are taxed without any representation. Taxation without representation was the reason the US was created in the first place.
US history is full of examples where discrimination existed in one form or another and these discriminations were sucessfully challenged. A few examples are women's voting rights, minority voting rights and gerrymandering. These are good examples to study where the affected people had no legal voice to begin with.
The civil rights movement is a recent example. There were existing laws that limited people from voting based on their literacy levels in the southern states. The literacy requirement for voting was really a thinly veiled attempt to limit voting rights of african americans for as long as possible. The civil rights movement was about changing these artificial laws to give voting rights to people who legally had no voice.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_c.htm
You don't need to be a lawyer to speak up for your hardships as a law abiding resident. This country has tremendous protections for people living here which is what makes it great. We as an immigrant community need to build our awareness of US history and government if we expect things to change.
GC_SUCK
07-10 01:39 PM
I had my candadian immigration last year. And the dead line to land was March 2007.
I was very confuse at that time about landing in Canada. Then one day my old 2002 PD labor got approved and I filed 485 in March 07. But now my canadian Immigration is expired.
Even my 485 is filed, I am thinking again to apply fresh application for Canadian Immigration. You never know what will happen to GC. So I will file again by the end of this year for Canadian Immigration.
I was very confuse at that time about landing in Canada. Then one day my old 2002 PD labor got approved and I filed 485 in March 07. But now my canadian Immigration is expired.
Even my 485 is filed, I am thinking again to apply fresh application for Canadian Immigration. You never know what will happen to GC. So I will file again by the end of this year for Canadian Immigration.
2011 selena gomez and justin bieber
Legal
07-21 05:34 PM
Sorry, silly question. Does this mean that these 32k visas are available to the EB2 I/C folks in Aug/Sep?
Nothing can be silly when it comes to interpreting USCIS rules and regulations.
Unused numbers should be used before Sep 30th. There is no mechanism for overflow of numbers to next year.
Nothing can be silly when it comes to interpreting USCIS rules and regulations.
Unused numbers should be used before Sep 30th. There is no mechanism for overflow of numbers to next year.
more...
vdlrao
07-25 11:37 AM
EB2 India/China BECOMING CURRENT IN THE NEAR FUTURE IS INEVITABLE.
Rb_newsletter
01-13 03:52 PM
THIS IS BIG AS 30-40% OF PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THIS CONTRY ARE RENDERING SOME KIND OF CONSULTING SERVICE TO THE CLIENTS. ALL DESI CONSULTANTS ARE DOOMED FOR GOOD.
In this country it is not the H1bs alone do consultanting/contract. Many staffing companies are there, and even individuals have their own companies and go for contract jobs. I have seen many prefer contract jobs because they make more money when compared to full time. If American businesses got used with consulting/contract even without H1bs, then why this department do not want to accept the practice. Why should small consulting companies get affected?
In this country it is not the H1bs alone do consultanting/contract. Many staffing companies are there, and even individuals have their own companies and go for contract jobs. I have seen many prefer contract jobs because they make more money when compared to full time. If American businesses got used with consulting/contract even without H1bs, then why this department do not want to accept the practice. Why should small consulting companies get affected?
more...
spicy_guy
01-24 03:12 PM
I have been a silent reader of Murthy forum, and I have been observing JoeF's posts. He is NOT an anti-immigrant. He is just educating people about the law. That's what I see from his posts. He is knowledgeable enough to answer the questions of the forum readers.
Maybe his posts sound rude for the wounded and needy. But I think he isn't taking anything bad about immigration or prospective immigrants.
Anyways, thats not the topic of this thread and don't mean to detract.
Maybe his posts sound rude for the wounded and needy. But I think he isn't taking anything bad about immigration or prospective immigrants.
Anyways, thats not the topic of this thread and don't mean to detract.
2010 It certainly looks like Selena
CADude
04-18 02:49 PM
immigration-law.com
04/18/2007: Further Clarification on Pending I-140 Substitution Petitions and Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
There are a couple of clarifications we want to make on our previous posting on this issue. The supplemental information part of a regulation is not binding, but when there is a room for interpretation on specific provisions of the rule itself, it gives a guidance to the interpretation. In this regards, for now, the correction to our previous interpretation should stand. Secondly, there is no information available about this issue in the final regulation which is expected to be released sooner or later. Whatever the final version will look, it may be prudent for the employers with the certified labor certification applications to file the substitution I-140 petitions as soon as possible before the final rule is released.
04/18/2007: Clarification and Correction of Scope of Validity of Substitution of Approved Labor Certifications Under the Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
The final rule to eliminate the substitution is expected to be released in the near future. One question that raises the body heat has been the pending I-140 substitution petitions which have yet to be approved. Under the proposed regulation, there was a provision that the substitution approved at the time of enactment of the final rule will not be affected by the elimination rule. We previously interpreted the language "substitution approved" would include the approved I-140 substitution petitions and would not include the pending I-140 substitution petitions.
We want to correct such interpretation. The substitution approved under the proposed rule appears to mean the substitution approved by the DOL and not necessarily the I-140 substitution approval. Accordingly, if the I-140 has been filed and is pending at the time enactment of the final rule, such case should not be affected by the elimination rule and remain valid. This is made clear by the following supplemental information to the proposed regulaation:
Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
We stand corrected on this change.
04/18/2007: Further Clarification on Pending I-140 Substitution Petitions and Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
There are a couple of clarifications we want to make on our previous posting on this issue. The supplemental information part of a regulation is not binding, but when there is a room for interpretation on specific provisions of the rule itself, it gives a guidance to the interpretation. In this regards, for now, the correction to our previous interpretation should stand. Secondly, there is no information available about this issue in the final regulation which is expected to be released sooner or later. Whatever the final version will look, it may be prudent for the employers with the certified labor certification applications to file the substitution I-140 petitions as soon as possible before the final rule is released.
04/18/2007: Clarification and Correction of Scope of Validity of Substitution of Approved Labor Certifications Under the Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
The final rule to eliminate the substitution is expected to be released in the near future. One question that raises the body heat has been the pending I-140 substitution petitions which have yet to be approved. Under the proposed regulation, there was a provision that the substitution approved at the time of enactment of the final rule will not be affected by the elimination rule. We previously interpreted the language "substitution approved" would include the approved I-140 substitution petitions and would not include the pending I-140 substitution petitions.
We want to correct such interpretation. The substitution approved under the proposed rule appears to mean the substitution approved by the DOL and not necessarily the I-140 substitution approval. Accordingly, if the I-140 has been filed and is pending at the time enactment of the final rule, such case should not be affected by the elimination rule and remain valid. This is made clear by the following supplemental information to the proposed regulaation:
Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
We stand corrected on this change.
more...
chanduv23
06-28 04:51 PM
Today, he emailed by HR directly and told them that "we will file everyone's 485 in first week of July ".
He also said that there is no need to panic because AILA is already threatening USCIS with lawsuit and right now its in negotiations state. (Whatever). He said that the thread from AILA will prevent USCIS from doing the same mischief again in July 2007 to EB2, and EB3 categories. (Somehow I dont buy that, I dont think USCIS is afraid of anyone and they are acting like and independent body ... like the Supreme court working on its own schedule and own whims).
So the thing is...he acknowledges what happened with EB3-other category in June and says that he will file in July first week (good for me and my other co-workers) but he is still sticking to his guns that "It wont happen because USCIS will be scared of AILA".
What USCIS has done for EB3-other worker category is violation of federal regulation and it cannot just ignore the visa bulletins because it feels like doing so and its having a bad day. But nonetheless, the people who make these decisions dont get sued. The agency gets sued, and those lawsuits are fought by internal lawyers who are on USCIS payroll. They get some heat for violating the federal regulation but its not like they would lose their shirt over it.
Should we change the topic of this thread - "Please file in July first week" ??
He also said that there is no need to panic because AILA is already threatening USCIS with lawsuit and right now its in negotiations state. (Whatever). He said that the thread from AILA will prevent USCIS from doing the same mischief again in July 2007 to EB2, and EB3 categories. (Somehow I dont buy that, I dont think USCIS is afraid of anyone and they are acting like and independent body ... like the Supreme court working on its own schedule and own whims).
So the thing is...he acknowledges what happened with EB3-other category in June and says that he will file in July first week (good for me and my other co-workers) but he is still sticking to his guns that "It wont happen because USCIS will be scared of AILA".
What USCIS has done for EB3-other worker category is violation of federal regulation and it cannot just ignore the visa bulletins because it feels like doing so and its having a bad day. But nonetheless, the people who make these decisions dont get sued. The agency gets sued, and those lawsuits are fought by internal lawyers who are on USCIS payroll. They get some heat for violating the federal regulation but its not like they would lose their shirt over it.
Should we change the topic of this thread - "Please file in July first week" ??
hair Selena Gomez in Bikini,
485Mbe4001
05-29 06:07 PM
I have been saying this for the past one year, let us forget everything else, let us not come up with new rules or ideas or suggestions (new quotas, fraud detection, sue USCIS fund, exteneded APs etc). Focus all our energies on the one issue that will help everyone from all affected countries....Recapture of Unused Visas.
Recapture campaign will not divide us in EB 1 Vs 2 Vs 3 or countries. Over the past year a number of people have quit because of the bickering.
Recapture has a precedent because it was approved by Clinton earlier.
Recapture is free of country caps and it does not affect the existing visas. Murthy's article mentions that 120k are stuck in limbo and we know that there are around 400k visas available...i dont know what more motivation people need to fight for this issues.
On our own each one of us can do the following:
a) Try to arrange a meeting with your congressman and senators
b) write a letter to all members of the Judicary committee
after that do whatever IV tells you to do
can somebody summarise it and make a action plan
Recapture campaign will not divide us in EB 1 Vs 2 Vs 3 or countries. Over the past year a number of people have quit because of the bickering.
Recapture has a precedent because it was approved by Clinton earlier.
Recapture is free of country caps and it does not affect the existing visas. Murthy's article mentions that 120k are stuck in limbo and we know that there are around 400k visas available...i dont know what more motivation people need to fight for this issues.
On our own each one of us can do the following:
a) Try to arrange a meeting with your congressman and senators
b) write a letter to all members of the Judicary committee
after that do whatever IV tells you to do
can somebody summarise it and make a action plan
more...
TeddyKoochu
09-17 03:23 PM
I wish the statement is true.
I think your friends cousin got the card by mistake, that does not mean that it will see a significant moment for EB3 I. The only possibility is if USICIS wants to recapture the unused visa numbers over a period of time, then EB2 I, EB3 I all move together.
Arun thanks for sharing the news & congrats to your cousins friend, may well be one of the cases of successfully porting PD.
I think your friends cousin got the card by mistake, that does not mean that it will see a significant moment for EB3 I. The only possibility is if USICIS wants to recapture the unused visa numbers over a period of time, then EB2 I, EB3 I all move together.
Arun thanks for sharing the news & congrats to your cousins friend, may well be one of the cases of successfully porting PD.
hot Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
PlainSpeak
01-14 11:19 AM
I love this thread. Plainspeak is a worthless guy with worthless opinion entertaining all of us with silly thread and responding to everyone. Dude did you get some problem in life and have so much time to write? If you really want something you could have done something till now.
You do not even want to meet any lawmaker. You believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby for you. Go and contact CSpan and lawyers to help you. Why are you here?
You do not even want to meet any lawmaker. No i donot want to meet any law maker especially representing IV because i do not beleive what IV proposes (and which i have to rep[eate to teh law maker) is doing is going to do good to my personal case of GC (and yes if you want to call me selfish go ahead but remember eveyrone here is becasue they want to do something about thier personal GC case so everyone is selfish)
You believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby for you. Go and contact CSpan and lawyers to help you. Yes i believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby becasue that gives me an understanding as to what direction a bill is taking or for that matter what is the hope iof a immigration provision in a specific bill. Of course i do not come into teh forum and start a thread and give a minute bny minute uopdate of cspan like some memebers do.
Why are you here? I am here because any thing which impacts my GC case impacts me and i am here to ensure that
You do not even want to meet any lawmaker. You believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby for you. Go and contact CSpan and lawyers to help you. Why are you here?
You do not even want to meet any lawmaker. No i donot want to meet any law maker especially representing IV because i do not beleive what IV proposes (and which i have to rep[eate to teh law maker) is doing is going to do good to my personal case of GC (and yes if you want to call me selfish go ahead but remember eveyrone here is becasue they want to do something about thier personal GC case so everyone is selfish)
You believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby for you. Go and contact CSpan and lawyers to help you. Yes i believe in watching CSpan and lawyers lobby becasue that gives me an understanding as to what direction a bill is taking or for that matter what is the hope iof a immigration provision in a specific bill. Of course i do not come into teh forum and start a thread and give a minute bny minute uopdate of cspan like some memebers do.
Why are you here? I am here because any thing which impacts my GC case impacts me and i am here to ensure that
more...
house Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
samay
07-28 04:12 PM
Question for Lawyer or Senior Members of Forum:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I myself is currently in H1B and my wife on H4. We both have EAD and AP which we�re never activated since we had our H1 and H4 and my wife has not started working.
She should be starting work very soon and hence we would like to renew her EAD and AP. Also as part of her new job she needs to travel oustide US. So the question I had is whether she can travel outside US on her currenty valid AP with the application for renewal of AP/EAD in processing with USCIS.
Thank You All for Your Help
/COLOR]
Regards,
Josh
[COLOR="Blue"]
Yes -so long as the AP is still valid.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I myself is currently in H1B and my wife on H4. We both have EAD and AP which we�re never activated since we had our H1 and H4 and my wife has not started working.
She should be starting work very soon and hence we would like to renew her EAD and AP. Also as part of her new job she needs to travel oustide US. So the question I had is whether she can travel outside US on her currenty valid AP with the application for renewal of AP/EAD in processing with USCIS.
Thank You All for Your Help
/COLOR]
Regards,
Josh
[COLOR="Blue"]
Yes -so long as the AP is still valid.
tattoo Justinbieber-SelenaGomez-
walking_dude
02-13 12:59 PM
On the contrary, fight for keeping the country limits will kill the movement as Indians who form more than 80% of IV will feel disillusioned and leave. Once that happens ROW can as well kiss the GC increase good bye.
Like grupak mentioned real workable solution is 1) Increase overall numbers (will benefit ROW as well as oversubscribed countries) 2) Eliminate the meaningless country quota. If there is an increase in overall numbers removal of country quotas will have very low impact on ROW. This is the fact.
But there are still some fanatics who pick up fights to keep the country quotas intact. If all of them quit IV damage will still be minimum, when compared to Indians (80% of IV) leaving. Movement will survive and thrive. How many ROW were there at DC rally? Of those present, half were on the stage. Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much.
My challenge to ROW members who keep on harping about the split in the movement - PARTICIPATE!! Just being active on the forum and posting a hundred posts doesn't make you part of the movement. I hardly see many ROW members volunteering or accepting leadership roles. Unlike EB immigration, IV is open to everyone no matter where you were born. We don't have any 7% quota per country ! And yet, why are the active volunteers, leadership, contributors - the REAL movement- is disproportinately Indian.
Want to influence the movement, be a significant part of it. That's real democracy.
A row — also called a record or tuple—represents a single, implicitly structured data item in a table :) (I think the discussion becomes too hot, time to cool down, folks. The solution is not to remove per country limits, but to increase EB quota or at least to recapture lost visa numbers. Fight for removing per country limits will divide IV and is very unlikely to achieve something.)
Like grupak mentioned real workable solution is 1) Increase overall numbers (will benefit ROW as well as oversubscribed countries) 2) Eliminate the meaningless country quota. If there is an increase in overall numbers removal of country quotas will have very low impact on ROW. This is the fact.
But there are still some fanatics who pick up fights to keep the country quotas intact. If all of them quit IV damage will still be minimum, when compared to Indians (80% of IV) leaving. Movement will survive and thrive. How many ROW were there at DC rally? Of those present, half were on the stage. Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much.
My challenge to ROW members who keep on harping about the split in the movement - PARTICIPATE!! Just being active on the forum and posting a hundred posts doesn't make you part of the movement. I hardly see many ROW members volunteering or accepting leadership roles. Unlike EB immigration, IV is open to everyone no matter where you were born. We don't have any 7% quota per country ! And yet, why are the active volunteers, leadership, contributors - the REAL movement- is disproportinately Indian.
Want to influence the movement, be a significant part of it. That's real democracy.
A row — also called a record or tuple—represents a single, implicitly structured data item in a table :) (I think the discussion becomes too hot, time to cool down, folks. The solution is not to remove per country limits, but to increase EB quota or at least to recapture lost visa numbers. Fight for removing per country limits will divide IV and is very unlikely to achieve something.)
more...
pictures Justin Bieber Photos - Justin
waitingnwaiting
01-14 03:39 PM
I would like to see Plainspeak's project plan on his idea. The plan should detail out timeline, budget, manpower and responsibilities. Most importantly what will Plainspeak do in this plan as a responsibility.
Let us see if you can only write junk or can even post something useful.
I did not see any plan yet. Basically he is wasting time with opinions from behind.
Let us see if you can only write junk or can even post something useful.
I did not see any plan yet. Basically he is wasting time with opinions from behind.
dresses Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
Kodi
05-12 12:38 PM
Do i support removing LTTE, Yes with full heart.
Do i support the way SL is conducting this war, NO.
It is also not good for SL's Democracy because a dictator is in making for SL. Let me tell you this,after this war on terror is over, SL is going to be ruled by a dictator for a long time. wait and see. Again this is my humble opinion. If it is not going to happen i will be the happiest person.
This gov as well as previous govs tried solving this issue for many years without going into a full pledge war. It was the LTTE that refused. Many attempts at peace talks ended without results because there's only one thing they need and that's a seperate land as Tamil Nadu. Now finally this president is doing something to end things and unite the country as one nation.
Do i support the way SL is conducting this war, NO.
It is also not good for SL's Democracy because a dictator is in making for SL. Let me tell you this,after this war on terror is over, SL is going to be ruled by a dictator for a long time. wait and see. Again this is my humble opinion. If it is not going to happen i will be the happiest person.
This gov as well as previous govs tried solving this issue for many years without going into a full pledge war. It was the LTTE that refused. Many attempts at peace talks ended without results because there's only one thing they need and that's a seperate land as Tamil Nadu. Now finally this president is doing something to end things and unite the country as one nation.
more...
makeup selena gomez and justin bieber
walking_dude
02-13 01:38 PM
It has been repeated 'Ad Nauseam' times. IVs agenda includes all of these -
1) Increasing GC numbers
2) Recapturing numbers and instituting permanent Rollover mechanisms
3) Eliminate country quotas.
IV understands that removing just the country quota will impact ROW badly if visa numbers are not increased in tandem. Hence you always see the three points being proposed together. These 3 have to go together. A compromise between ROW and oversubscribed countries.
But some ROW members keep trying to split the movement by opposing removal of country quotas ( which is point 2 in IV agenda) at every possible opportunity. Real way to build a coalition is through compromise. And in a compromise you can't get all you want. Don't expect the majority to heed all your demands.
Be a little appreciative of the sufferings of others. If you think a little extra time you need to spend in the queue is turning you so angry, what goes in the mind of a person who has to spend twice or thrice as much time in the same queue, for no fault of his/hers?
Don't BS on 'diversity'. There is already a 'diversity visa' which Indians & Chinese cannot use. Want to come under diversity? Apply in the lottery. Be a little humane and think about the suffering of others. May be you'll see the light. You are not going to win many friends by alleging "an agenda by some country". It's preposturous, laughable and Dobbsian ( like Lou Dobbs alleged "invasion by Mexicans")
I don't think removing the per country cap will solve the problem. It will balance retrogression by giving each country equal share of misery while the visa number allocation per year stays the same. It also requires changes in the statute which is almost impossible to happen because the legislators, either Dem. or GOP, will not agree to removing the cap. So let's be realistic.
The best solution is to recapture unused visas from previous years and increase the quota per year.
1) Increasing GC numbers
2) Recapturing numbers and instituting permanent Rollover mechanisms
3) Eliminate country quotas.
IV understands that removing just the country quota will impact ROW badly if visa numbers are not increased in tandem. Hence you always see the three points being proposed together. These 3 have to go together. A compromise between ROW and oversubscribed countries.
But some ROW members keep trying to split the movement by opposing removal of country quotas ( which is point 2 in IV agenda) at every possible opportunity. Real way to build a coalition is through compromise. And in a compromise you can't get all you want. Don't expect the majority to heed all your demands.
Be a little appreciative of the sufferings of others. If you think a little extra time you need to spend in the queue is turning you so angry, what goes in the mind of a person who has to spend twice or thrice as much time in the same queue, for no fault of his/hers?
Don't BS on 'diversity'. There is already a 'diversity visa' which Indians & Chinese cannot use. Want to come under diversity? Apply in the lottery. Be a little humane and think about the suffering of others. May be you'll see the light. You are not going to win many friends by alleging "an agenda by some country". It's preposturous, laughable and Dobbsian ( like Lou Dobbs alleged "invasion by Mexicans")
I don't think removing the per country cap will solve the problem. It will balance retrogression by giving each country equal share of misery while the visa number allocation per year stays the same. It also requires changes in the statute which is almost impossible to happen because the legislators, either Dem. or GOP, will not agree to removing the cap. So let's be realistic.
The best solution is to recapture unused visas from previous years and increase the quota per year.
girlfriend Selena Gomez in Bikini,
chetanjumani
12-14 12:45 PM
You don't have a case. Before laws are signed, lawmakers spend hours and hours or weeks arguing, debating and modying before it is passed by both Senators and congressmen.
If they change the current law to favor Indians, then it will be disciminatory to other nationals. Think the other way.
Personally, I don't see any discrimination in the existing law. It so happened that you came from Indian and the law only allows a certain percentage per country.
I am not sure if correcting a discrimation can be considered as discrimation againt group who were in an advantageous position before the correction is done.
I dont think any one wants any changes in favor of a particular nation, in fact they want it to be without favor to any particular nation and treat every one with equality.
I am not a constitutonal lawyer, but I believe if we pursue it, the per country limit may be removed.
How ever I am not sure if that will be very helpful to us now. Even if there is no per country limit, i think we will have to wait for years before the visas are made available.
I think, Immigrant voice should strive to make the system as fair and as efficient as possible, irrespective of in person who gains/looses from it.
Another very important thing here is not to get divided amongst ourself. If we do that we are not going to get much.
Take an honest view irrespective of your personal loss/gain.
We might even try to ponder how we could use this to get media/public focus on legal immigrant community, and its inefficiencies. Use this to forward all our causes.
We might want some people in PR to put this in media that perhaps there is something unconstitutional in the law, without going to the extent of filing a law case.
I would encourage every one to come up with imaginative ideas to achieve our overall goals of an efficient and fair system for legal immigrants.
Please help grow this idea
If they change the current law to favor Indians, then it will be disciminatory to other nationals. Think the other way.
Personally, I don't see any discrimination in the existing law. It so happened that you came from Indian and the law only allows a certain percentage per country.
I am not sure if correcting a discrimation can be considered as discrimation againt group who were in an advantageous position before the correction is done.
I dont think any one wants any changes in favor of a particular nation, in fact they want it to be without favor to any particular nation and treat every one with equality.
I am not a constitutonal lawyer, but I believe if we pursue it, the per country limit may be removed.
How ever I am not sure if that will be very helpful to us now. Even if there is no per country limit, i think we will have to wait for years before the visas are made available.
I think, Immigrant voice should strive to make the system as fair and as efficient as possible, irrespective of in person who gains/looses from it.
Another very important thing here is not to get divided amongst ourself. If we do that we are not going to get much.
Take an honest view irrespective of your personal loss/gain.
We might even try to ponder how we could use this to get media/public focus on legal immigrant community, and its inefficiencies. Use this to forward all our causes.
We might want some people in PR to put this in media that perhaps there is something unconstitutional in the law, without going to the extent of filing a law case.
I would encourage every one to come up with imaginative ideas to achieve our overall goals of an efficient and fair system for legal immigrants.
Please help grow this idea
hairstyles Justin Bieber Kisses Selena
tw00ne
07-23 10:35 AM
Is unclear to me what the law is for those 2 cases
1) You are with the employer that sponsored I140 and you get GC.
2) You use AC21 and move to employer B and get you GC while at employer B.
In both cases more than 6 months have lapsed since the I485 filling
And the question is...:
Are you free, after getting the GC, to move to another company or you need to stay with current employer for a certain amount of time?
How would USCIS know if you moved?
1) You are with the employer that sponsored I140 and you get GC.
2) You use AC21 and move to employer B and get you GC while at employer B.
In both cases more than 6 months have lapsed since the I485 filling
And the question is...:
Are you free, after getting the GC, to move to another company or you need to stay with current employer for a certain amount of time?
How would USCIS know if you moved?
swamy
12-13 10:35 PM
in a nutshell:
an end to retrogression for all
increased GC quota
it does remain though, one of our goals in the package because we believe it is fundamentally unfair and should not be apart of a skilled immigration program.
why is this so hard for ppl to understand!
an end to retrogression for all
increased GC quota
it does remain though, one of our goals in the package because we believe it is fundamentally unfair and should not be apart of a skilled immigration program.
why is this so hard for ppl to understand!
sodh
03-19 12:42 PM
why do you think labor substitution would increase the backlog?
My company cancelled my labor process the day I resigned, tell me which big reputed company responded to a 45 day letter even when the candidate was not working with them, so that leaves us with companies like Cybersoft who filed multiple I-140 on one labor approval or there are people who are running parallel processes just to be safe and they are buying the sub. labor,so now even if the companies intention's are good,filling I-140 multiple times creates backlog in the service centers and then it is up to your fate if your file is picked up in the numerical order, in concurrent filling it was a race who got the the GC first the original beneficiary or the person who paid price for the same labor. Who are the people opposing substitution ban or the 45 day rule if you find them you will get your answers.
My company cancelled my labor process the day I resigned, tell me which big reputed company responded to a 45 day letter even when the candidate was not working with them, so that leaves us with companies like Cybersoft who filed multiple I-140 on one labor approval or there are people who are running parallel processes just to be safe and they are buying the sub. labor,so now even if the companies intention's are good,filling I-140 multiple times creates backlog in the service centers and then it is up to your fate if your file is picked up in the numerical order, in concurrent filling it was a race who got the the GC first the original beneficiary or the person who paid price for the same labor. Who are the people opposing substitution ban or the 45 day rule if you find them you will get your answers.
