pappu
08-15 11:24 AM
See this and if it helps you courtesy Murthy.com (http://murthy.com/news/n_tscnsc.html)
Second I-140 Allowed without Revocation of Earlier I-140 Petition
The TSC confirmed that, in some cases it is possible for the employer to file two or more I-140 petitions for the same beneficiary, based on a single labor certification, in multiple EB categories. If the job requirements are proper for EB2, the case could be filed in either category. Thus, multiple I-140s could be filed in some cases. If the first was filed in EB3, there would be no need to withdraw it in order to file in EB2. The TSC recommended submitting copies of the approved I-140 with the later-filed I-140 petition.
This could be quite helpful in situations where the I-140 petition is incorrectly filed in the wrong, lower category. We do hear about such instances from time to time. It seems that if the I-140 was filed in EB3, but the case would meet EB2, the TSC would permit the re-filing of the I-140 petition without revocation of the earlier EB3 filing.
08/15/2006: Multiple I-140 Petitions: Uniform Policy in Negative Fashion?
* We reported on August 3, 2006 USCIS lack of uniform policy on multiple petitions on a single EB-2 labor certification application. It appears that the disease has spread to the TSC adopting a similar negative policy of denying EB-3 petition when EB-2 and EB-3 petitions are filed concurrently using single certified EB-2 labor certification application on the ground that "original" of the certified application was not available for the EB-3 I-140 petition since the original had to accompany the EB-2 I-140 petition. Obviously this is a deviation from the traditional INS/USCIS policy in a negative way and we hope that the USCIS leaders are not turning around from the liberal policies under Yates-Divine era to the narrow-restrictive policies.
Second I-140 Allowed without Revocation of Earlier I-140 Petition
The TSC confirmed that, in some cases it is possible for the employer to file two or more I-140 petitions for the same beneficiary, based on a single labor certification, in multiple EB categories. If the job requirements are proper for EB2, the case could be filed in either category. Thus, multiple I-140s could be filed in some cases. If the first was filed in EB3, there would be no need to withdraw it in order to file in EB2. The TSC recommended submitting copies of the approved I-140 with the later-filed I-140 petition.
This could be quite helpful in situations where the I-140 petition is incorrectly filed in the wrong, lower category. We do hear about such instances from time to time. It seems that if the I-140 was filed in EB3, but the case would meet EB2, the TSC would permit the re-filing of the I-140 petition without revocation of the earlier EB3 filing.
08/15/2006: Multiple I-140 Petitions: Uniform Policy in Negative Fashion?
* We reported on August 3, 2006 USCIS lack of uniform policy on multiple petitions on a single EB-2 labor certification application. It appears that the disease has spread to the TSC adopting a similar negative policy of denying EB-3 petition when EB-2 and EB-3 petitions are filed concurrently using single certified EB-2 labor certification application on the ground that "original" of the certified application was not available for the EB-3 I-140 petition since the original had to accompany the EB-2 I-140 petition. Obviously this is a deviation from the traditional INS/USCIS policy in a negative way and we hope that the USCIS leaders are not turning around from the liberal policies under Yates-Divine era to the narrow-restrictive policies.
wallpaper Dragon Age Origins - Leliana#39;s
grupak
03-24 12:44 PM
Windows Media: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.asx
Real Audio: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.ram
MP3: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.m3u
Mark Bartosik, Software Engineer; Member, Immigration Voice
Good interview Mark!
Real Audio: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.ram
MP3: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.m3u
Mark Bartosik, Software Engineer; Member, Immigration Voice
Good interview Mark!
venky80
06-16 04:35 PM
Raziz,
Did you get any queries ever? I mean RFEs?
Did you get any queries ever? I mean RFEs?
2011 dragon age origins wallpaper
hetuweb
10-24 08:15 PM
My case went directly to CSC for H1 extension and is pending since July 10 any idea others have same problem.
Application Type: I129, PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER
Current Status: Your I129 PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER was received on July 10, 2006. We will mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. Follow the the link below for current processing dates.
Edit/Delete Message
i have applied on july 09, 2007 at vermont, but still no reply. hope this helps u.
Application Type: I129, PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER
Current Status: Your I129 PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER was received on July 10, 2006. We will mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. Follow the the link below for current processing dates.
Edit/Delete Message
i have applied on july 09, 2007 at vermont, but still no reply. hope this helps u.
more...
werc
10-09 12:12 AM
I am assuming your lawyer meant that the H4 status could be reclaimed if necessary. As soon as one uses EAD the non-immigrant status gets lost.
Ok! God help me here.... My lawyer responded this morning that h4 is valid even after using EAD. EAD is only a benefit.
Now what is true? So much of information floating around and I don't know what to take and what not to!!!!!
Please help me, my husband also has no clue..
Ok! God help me here.... My lawyer responded this morning that h4 is valid even after using EAD. EAD is only a benefit.
Now what is true? So much of information floating around and I don't know what to take and what not to!!!!!
Please help me, my husband also has no clue..
RattuRani
06-10 09:34 PM
The USCIS cannot be blamed for the quota mess. That is set by Congress. Now you can legitimately accuse them of sloth and indifference. But not greed. They're not a profit center for the US.
The right place to lobby for change is in Congress. As I've stated in other posts, the appetite doesn't seem to be there right this instant. Maybe if the economy comes roaring back in a couple years, then the political tide will once again turn in favor of reform.
The right place to lobby for change is in Congress. As I've stated in other posts, the appetite doesn't seem to be there right this instant. Maybe if the economy comes roaring back in a couple years, then the political tide will once again turn in favor of reform.
more...
morpheus
04-06 11:06 AM
Does anyone know if the latest Frist amendment to the bill would still allow H1's etc to file for 218 as outlined above? I did some more reading and I am still confident the analysis above is an option for many H1's like myself.
Frankly I'd be happy to wait six years for a GC if it meant I could be out of this continual H1/LC/140/485 rat-race. Being able to be self employed would be a huge positive for me. I'm already on my second LC and I am involved in founding my second new company. For executives the H1/GC process is useless because you frequently get promoted or change titles, and by the time your LC is near processing it's likely that the original application is no longer supportable. Plus, if you own equity in the company that opens a whole can of worms that the USCIS will object to.
I don't care if 218D is supposed to be for 'illegal' immigrants. Hell, I'll learn Spanish! Via con dios! Obras son amores y no buenas razones!
Frankly I'd be happy to wait six years for a GC if it meant I could be out of this continual H1/LC/140/485 rat-race. Being able to be self employed would be a huge positive for me. I'm already on my second LC and I am involved in founding my second new company. For executives the H1/GC process is useless because you frequently get promoted or change titles, and by the time your LC is near processing it's likely that the original application is no longer supportable. Plus, if you own equity in the company that opens a whole can of worms that the USCIS will object to.
I don't care if 218D is supposed to be for 'illegal' immigrants. Hell, I'll learn Spanish! Via con dios! Obras son amores y no buenas razones!
2010 Leliana - Sacred Ashes 2
ssdtm
02-08 08:11 PM
NCR Region
Sr Developer / Lead Developer (7-15yrs exp) - 8 - 15 lakhs
Project Manager (10-15yrs exp) - 10-20 lakhs
Above this level, the jobs are far and few, but some are
Principal Consultant / Program Manager (in cos like Wipro, Infy, HP) (12- 18 yrs exp) - 18-28 lakhs
Also note, just because someone has worked in US for a few years does not get any advantage above Project Manager level.
Information based on many well placed contacts at these levels.
Sr Developer / Lead Developer (7-15yrs exp) - 8 - 15 lakhs
Project Manager (10-15yrs exp) - 10-20 lakhs
Above this level, the jobs are far and few, but some are
Principal Consultant / Program Manager (in cos like Wipro, Infy, HP) (12- 18 yrs exp) - 18-28 lakhs
Also note, just because someone has worked in US for a few years does not get any advantage above Project Manager level.
Information based on many well placed contacts at these levels.
more...
hazishak
07-31 11:25 PM
My wife is planning to go for H4 visa stamping in October. My question is can she go alone and what kind of documents she need. Our I-485 applications have reached USCIS on July 2nd. Any reply will be greatly appreciated.
hair Dragon Age Origins - Chibis by
meridiani.planum
07-19 04:36 PM
Hi All,
My skin test was positive, where as my x-ray was normal.Incase I get an RFE , Can I go to my PCP or need to go only to local health dept.
Can some body guide me
-Srarao
$100-so far
that is typically not an issue. lot of people (Esp from India) get a +ve on the skin test because of reaction with the BCG vaccine that they received in childhood. You will most likely not even get an RFE as USCIS knows about this.
If by chance you do, I believe you can go to a USCIS certified doctor (where you probably got those tests done) and he would prescribe some medication. You just send that report back, and you are all set.
My skin test was positive, where as my x-ray was normal.Incase I get an RFE , Can I go to my PCP or need to go only to local health dept.
Can some body guide me
-Srarao
$100-so far
that is typically not an issue. lot of people (Esp from India) get a +ve on the skin test because of reaction with the BCG vaccine that they received in childhood. You will most likely not even get an RFE as USCIS knows about this.
If by chance you do, I believe you can go to a USCIS certified doctor (where you probably got those tests done) and he would prescribe some medication. You just send that report back, and you are all set.
more...
miguy
03-16 08:43 AM
hopein07........do you know if one has to pass the evaluating exam first to get a Statement of Need from Canada for j1?...
hot Leliana - Sacred Ashes
vivid_bharti
06-10 04:53 PM
USCIS tops any other US public office in these 3 qualities
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
more...
house tattoo Dragon Age Wallpaper
leoindiano
08-03 11:48 AM
Guys,
From what i gathered, It seems these 2 things could effect your processing apart from PD....
Both can be done, if you take a infopass at your local office....
1) I-485 fingerprints
2) A# Mismatch on i-485 receipt, i- 140 approval notice
For me, i didnt get FP notice from USCIS, i had to go to local office and get that done in feb. 2008.
A# also didntnt match, So, i called POJ and they said, they open a ticket to consolidate. If i dont see an LUD in a week, i will have to go to a local office and try again...
In July 2007, when they received 1000's of apps, for most 485 cases, they generated a new A# instead of attaching A# from your I-140 receipt/approval. Your lawyer will say 2 A#'s not a problem. But, this is definitely a problem ACCORDING TO
Others RD, ND, namecheck which we have no control of even though you did everything right.
From what i gathered, It seems these 2 things could effect your processing apart from PD....
Both can be done, if you take a infopass at your local office....
1) I-485 fingerprints
2) A# Mismatch on i-485 receipt, i- 140 approval notice
For me, i didnt get FP notice from USCIS, i had to go to local office and get that done in feb. 2008.
A# also didntnt match, So, i called POJ and they said, they open a ticket to consolidate. If i dont see an LUD in a week, i will have to go to a local office and try again...
In July 2007, when they received 1000's of apps, for most 485 cases, they generated a new A# instead of attaching A# from your I-140 receipt/approval. Your lawyer will say 2 A#'s not a problem. But, this is definitely a problem ACCORDING TO
Others RD, ND, namecheck which we have no control of even though you did everything right.
tattoo Dragon Age Origins - Leliana#39;s
monkeyman
02-26 11:04 PM
Have your 485 checks been cashed? You really need to start following up - if you went through a lawyer, check with the lawyer. If not, tell the lawyer to give you a status on the receipt notice.
more...
pictures dragon age origins leliana.
Suvendra
01-10 10:59 PM
Hello,
wanted to know, what happens to employees of Vision Systems Group and its sister company's employees immigration status. as every one know VSGINC has allegations from USCIS on immigration fraud and H-1B.
Employees like me no where related to there fraud. how USCIS reacts on employees pending 485?. Most of the employees are moved out using AC21.
wanted to know, what happens to employees of Vision Systems Group and its sister company's employees immigration status. as every one know VSGINC has allegations from USCIS on immigration fraud and H-1B.
Employees like me no where related to there fraud. how USCIS reacts on employees pending 485?. Most of the employees are moved out using AC21.
dresses dragon age origins leliana. Dragon+age+origins+leliana
Mahatma
08-13 04:26 PM
I am saying this without much research BUT I do recollect rave reviews about VDL Rao.
In past, Googler, Conshell etc. have done a good job of investigative journalism (name check memo and other critical updates). Discovering VDL rao would be blessing for some sort of hunch on Visa number availability. He has apparently commanded our respect.
Some guesstimate is better than utter confusion.
We need you Mr. Rao. Help us in our journey from darkness to light.... an eventual green light!
In past, Googler, Conshell etc. have done a good job of investigative journalism (name check memo and other critical updates). Discovering VDL rao would be blessing for some sort of hunch on Visa number availability. He has apparently commanded our respect.
Some guesstimate is better than utter confusion.
We need you Mr. Rao. Help us in our journey from darkness to light.... an eventual green light!
more...
makeup Leliana – Leliana is from the
navyug
05-14 10:59 PM
Hi,
Received REF this week: for LCA vioation for a particular period.
I ve approved labor, 140 and EAD, still working on valid H1 with the same employer since 2003.
My employer missed filling LCA FOR 2006.
Please let me know if anyone else in the same boat, ANY COMMENT AND ADVICE WILL BE HELPFUL....
You are faking!!!
Here are the reasons...
1) First up there is no candidate name on the LCA. When H-1B is filed, a location specific LCA is sent along with the application/ petition.
2) On subsequent change of location, a location specific LCA is taken out and kept for office records (after displaying on the office notice boards) and copy is given to you. This LCA never has any name(s) on it. A single LCA can be taken for 10 positions. This LCA is never sent to USCIS. USCIS does not keep track of an individual's projects/ clients after the initial approval of H-1B (unless they make a site visit to your employers office and go through each and every work orders and ascertain them against existing valid LCAs, which is very unlikely considering the timeline you are quoting).
3) Yes it is a violation if an LCA is not pulled out for the new location. But that is the problem of the employer not yours and it is highly unlikely the individual will be penalized even if USCIS were to find out the violation after making a site visit.
4) If you suddenly got a nightmare, please state that in your post rather than stating it as a fact. Honest nightmares will still be discussed on this forum.
So Stop faking!!!
Received REF this week: for LCA vioation for a particular period.
I ve approved labor, 140 and EAD, still working on valid H1 with the same employer since 2003.
My employer missed filling LCA FOR 2006.
Please let me know if anyone else in the same boat, ANY COMMENT AND ADVICE WILL BE HELPFUL....
You are faking!!!
Here are the reasons...
1) First up there is no candidate name on the LCA. When H-1B is filed, a location specific LCA is sent along with the application/ petition.
2) On subsequent change of location, a location specific LCA is taken out and kept for office records (after displaying on the office notice boards) and copy is given to you. This LCA never has any name(s) on it. A single LCA can be taken for 10 positions. This LCA is never sent to USCIS. USCIS does not keep track of an individual's projects/ clients after the initial approval of H-1B (unless they make a site visit to your employers office and go through each and every work orders and ascertain them against existing valid LCAs, which is very unlikely considering the timeline you are quoting).
3) Yes it is a violation if an LCA is not pulled out for the new location. But that is the problem of the employer not yours and it is highly unlikely the individual will be penalized even if USCIS were to find out the violation after making a site visit.
4) If you suddenly got a nightmare, please state that in your post rather than stating it as a fact. Honest nightmares will still be discussed on this forum.
So Stop faking!!!
girlfriend Dragon Age Wallpaper Leliana.
chi_shark
09-09 04:30 PM
:eek:
What the h### am i getting the red dots for anyway? it looks kinda cool!
What the h### am i getting the red dots for anyway? it looks kinda cool!
hairstyles Dragon Age: Leliana by
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.
hebron
01-20 02:42 PM
can name few who became "big" literally (--fat)
LOL...Good one!
LOL...Good one!
gc28262
07-18 03:47 PM
On H1B it is illegal for employer to enforce bond:
Please read employees rights in DOL page:
Employment Law Guide - Workers in Professional and Specialty Occupations (H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 Visas) (http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/h1b.htm)
Employee Rights
H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 workers are granted a number of rights. The employer must give the worker a copy of the LCA. The employer must pay the worker at least the same wage rate as paid to other employees with similar experience and qualifications or the local prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of employment, whichever is higher. The employer must pay for non-productive time caused by the employer or by the worker's lack of a license or permit. The employer must offer the worker fringe benefits on the same basis as its other employees. Also, the employer may not require the worker to pay a penalty for leaving employment prior to any agreed date. However, this restriction does not preclude the employer from seeking "liquidated damages" pursuant to relevant state law. Liquidated damages are generally estimates stated in a contract of the anticipated damages to the employer caused by the worker's breach of contract.
Please read employees rights in DOL page:
Employment Law Guide - Workers in Professional and Specialty Occupations (H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 Visas) (http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/h1b.htm)
Employee Rights
H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 workers are granted a number of rights. The employer must give the worker a copy of the LCA. The employer must pay the worker at least the same wage rate as paid to other employees with similar experience and qualifications or the local prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of employment, whichever is higher. The employer must pay for non-productive time caused by the employer or by the worker's lack of a license or permit. The employer must offer the worker fringe benefits on the same basis as its other employees. Also, the employer may not require the worker to pay a penalty for leaving employment prior to any agreed date. However, this restriction does not preclude the employer from seeking "liquidated damages" pursuant to relevant state law. Liquidated damages are generally estimates stated in a contract of the anticipated damages to the employer caused by the worker's breach of contract.
No comments:
Post a Comment