Munna Bhai
01-09 12:54 PM
which service center? You can ask your employer to ask USCIS as 140 is employer's application.
Can anyone tell me, is this common wait time and what more i can do.
Can anyone tell me, is this common wait time and what more i can do.
zCool
05-11 09:37 AM
From all the discussion above, it's clear bigoted minuteman types who came up with this brilliant tactic of pushing point based system to delay and deny any type of immigration reform this year are winning rhetorical victory.
Guyz.. please just SHUT UP.. No point in fighting with each other..
first..
anyone who thinks point-based system is being offered as an alternative.. This is a delay tactice.. These guyz are trying to run out the clock on Democratic leadership in 110th congress!!!
2nd...
Those you think it's a slippery slope or point based system won't work.. what is better..? all the non-english speaking, non-skilled family migrants eating up yours and mine Social security? or USA deciding who is better suited for
Current immigration priorities are upside-down.. and they are bound to be corrected sometime.. but lets not waste OUR time and energy in chasing ghosts..
BUT whatever your views.. don't give any credence to this divide and rule tactic..
look at the folks pushing this.. Lou Dobbs, Sen. Sessions, Houston talk radio hosts.. for chrissakes.. last White Power rally had more liberal membership.. !
Guyz.. please just SHUT UP.. No point in fighting with each other..
first..
anyone who thinks point-based system is being offered as an alternative.. This is a delay tactice.. These guyz are trying to run out the clock on Democratic leadership in 110th congress!!!
2nd...
Those you think it's a slippery slope or point based system won't work.. what is better..? all the non-english speaking, non-skilled family migrants eating up yours and mine Social security? or USA deciding who is better suited for
Current immigration priorities are upside-down.. and they are bound to be corrected sometime.. but lets not waste OUR time and energy in chasing ghosts..
BUT whatever your views.. don't give any credence to this divide and rule tactic..
look at the folks pushing this.. Lou Dobbs, Sen. Sessions, Houston talk radio hosts.. for chrissakes.. last White Power rally had more liberal membership.. !
EndlessWait
12-14 09:49 AM
So while you delayed to renew the EAD... you possibly were in US working on H1B. My situation is a little different, I am planning to leave the country for a year... so
1) Wanted to check if I can stay out of US for that long while AoS in pending...is there any such restriction that you can be away for only 2 months.
2) That potentially means I won't be getting paid in US... so no payroll for that much time, Is there any restriction on how many payslips I can miss.
Any help in this regard....
i checked with my attorney..AOS is for ppl who are inside US and waiting. You should see if you can transfer case to consuellor processing
1) Wanted to check if I can stay out of US for that long while AoS in pending...is there any such restriction that you can be away for only 2 months.
2) That potentially means I won't be getting paid in US... so no payroll for that much time, Is there any restriction on how many payslips I can miss.
Any help in this regard....
i checked with my attorney..AOS is for ppl who are inside US and waiting. You should see if you can transfer case to consuellor processing
rajmehrotra
07-09 02:02 PM
I understand, but don't. The possibility of you getting hurt in some way if he reciprocates in kind is much higher. Steel yourself, and move on...
more...
amsgc
03-31 02:53 PM
I have a somewat similar situation, here goes:
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
nkavjs
11-15 09:47 AM
Tri State Folks,
You just saw priority dates in Dec visa bulletin. What do you plan to do now?
I have some answers for you but would like to hear from you first..
Hello IV members : I am mad about discrimination agst Indian and China born applicants for GC processing times. I have read many posts in here and it states to join tri-state chapters .. What does it mean? How can we be part of this.. Pls. elaborate.
Thanks
You just saw priority dates in Dec visa bulletin. What do you plan to do now?
I have some answers for you but would like to hear from you first..
Hello IV members : I am mad about discrimination agst Indian and China born applicants for GC processing times. I have read many posts in here and it states to join tri-state chapters .. What does it mean? How can we be part of this.. Pls. elaborate.
Thanks
more...
vin13
01-16 12:17 PM
The pay need not be exactly same. You can make more. There is no guide line. For example if you made 60K and now you have a job where you make 300K, then it would be hard to say it is the same kind of job.
Employees get yearly pay increase, or when they move they may make more. You need not have to say no if you get a pay increase. :)
Do not get me wrong, but you seem to have very basic questions. Send me your phone number on a private message and maybe i can clear some of your doubts.
Employees get yearly pay increase, or when they move they may make more. You need not have to say no if you get a pay increase. :)
Do not get me wrong, but you seem to have very basic questions. Send me your phone number on a private message and maybe i can clear some of your doubts.
GCBy3000
09-15 05:03 PM
My argument is it better to take a side on immigration issue or not. Maintaining status quo is better than including some releif for legal immigrants. I bet people in US like legal immigrants to legal immigrants, but how many people is ?. Will this favor any politicians to garner some votes or will it back fire? No one knows and that is why I said at this time of election period, it is better for them to maintain status quo than favoring legal immigrants.
If they pass something for legal immigrants for sure they are going to lose some votes who are favoring illegal immigrants which is bigger number than people favoring legals. So I dont think they will take a risk at this time to favor legal immigrants in any bills if at all there is one before the election.
I am not sure if this is entirely true. Yes we can't vote but folks who are pro-immigrant can and they will decide if legal immigration is good for this country or not. Trust me, if everyone was against legal immigration in this country then none of us would be here in the first place. Everyone knows that there is a shortage of labor and migrants are needed to fill the jobs. ............
.
If they pass something for legal immigrants for sure they are going to lose some votes who are favoring illegal immigrants which is bigger number than people favoring legals. So I dont think they will take a risk at this time to favor legal immigrants in any bills if at all there is one before the election.
I am not sure if this is entirely true. Yes we can't vote but folks who are pro-immigrant can and they will decide if legal immigration is good for this country or not. Trust me, if everyone was against legal immigration in this country then none of us would be here in the first place. Everyone knows that there is a shortage of labor and migrants are needed to fill the jobs. ............
.
more...
garybanz
02-13 01:33 PM
"US govt to scrap all employment based green card applications"
Sounds like a cruel joke today but this could be a reality tomorrow...
Sounds like a cruel joke today but this could be a reality tomorrow...
GCEB2
09-20 09:01 PM
Hi... Can any one tell me which are the afforable places in California to buy home. It can be town home or single family homes, Bet 300k to 400k.
more...
Raj2006
06-09 02:37 PM
My EAD case is pending at California service center. Please reply here to get an idea about their processing time.
please share your EAD renewal experience if you have application with WAC ( pending at California Service Center).
here is my information:
paper based filing on apr 27th 2010
notice date may 3 2010
got receipts on may 7 2010
in initial review status.
thank you very much.
paper based filing on apr 27th 2010
notice date may 3 2010
got receipts on may 7 2010
Got CPO on 06/07/2010.
please share your EAD renewal experience if you have application with WAC ( pending at California Service Center).
here is my information:
paper based filing on apr 27th 2010
notice date may 3 2010
got receipts on may 7 2010
in initial review status.
thank you very much.
paper based filing on apr 27th 2010
notice date may 3 2010
got receipts on may 7 2010
Got CPO on 06/07/2010.
seeking_GC
07-29 12:39 PM
I would be very surprised if it became current in the next month.
more...
dealsnet
09-09 04:53 PM
You are talking about this company.?
Telecall - Company Profile on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/companies/telecall)
web address.
http://www.telecallnet.com/
The access number is shown below by http://www.switchboard.com
(631) 763-1059
Type: Land Line
Location: Cold Spring Harbor, NY
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
Telecall - Company Profile on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/companies/telecall)
web address.
http://www.telecallnet.com/
The access number is shown below by http://www.switchboard.com
(631) 763-1059
Type: Land Line
Location: Cold Spring Harbor, NY
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
soni7007
09-15 12:13 PM
I am glad that some of us are positive moving fwd with this idea. There are some other threads talking about other action items (write letters etc.). I think the first thing we need to do is to join hands and then decide a game plan. We need to concentrate the total energy at one point. What do you think?
more...
perm2gc
08-30 12:50 PM
Dear IV Members,
The IV members have been traveling to DC and other locations while they meet the policy makers, special interest groups and the lawmakers in Washington DC. We have a few core members who have spent thousands of dollars from their personal savings for travel purposes.
Since the core members have a preference to not draw money from the funds collected to date to be spent on travel, I am proposing that IV members donate their Frequent Flyer Airline Miles to IV. Typically, it requires about 25K miles to get a ticket in continental US and all the miles for a ticket should come from one account.
These airline miles would be used for the core members if and when needed. You need not transfer the miles at this time and only need to pledge. I will prepare a list of personnel who pledged and will contact you when your miles are needed. Miles on major carriers- American, United, Delta, Continental, Southwest etc..are welcome.
To kick start the pledge drive, I am donating 25,000 Airline Miles on American Airlines to IV.
Come on members..! and pledge in this novel pledge drive for Immigration Voice.
Good Idea but as far i know the miles should be used by the account holder itself(I know southwest has that policy)but rest i am not sure
The IV members have been traveling to DC and other locations while they meet the policy makers, special interest groups and the lawmakers in Washington DC. We have a few core members who have spent thousands of dollars from their personal savings for travel purposes.
Since the core members have a preference to not draw money from the funds collected to date to be spent on travel, I am proposing that IV members donate their Frequent Flyer Airline Miles to IV. Typically, it requires about 25K miles to get a ticket in continental US and all the miles for a ticket should come from one account.
These airline miles would be used for the core members if and when needed. You need not transfer the miles at this time and only need to pledge. I will prepare a list of personnel who pledged and will contact you when your miles are needed. Miles on major carriers- American, United, Delta, Continental, Southwest etc..are welcome.
To kick start the pledge drive, I am donating 25,000 Airline Miles on American Airlines to IV.
Come on members..! and pledge in this novel pledge drive for Immigration Voice.
Good Idea but as far i know the miles should be used by the account holder itself(I know southwest has that policy)but rest i am not sure
fall2004us
10-20 05:36 PM
Its illegal to work on H4 with ITIN, you need to have SSN, why did you even mention that on the tax papers. Try to hire a good lawyer to handle your case.
more...
mysticblue
08-17 01:57 AM
I assume you are on B's payroll and B is paying you with pay stub since you joined them though you are bench. If this is true -
Provide company C with your A approval notice (and any other prior approval notices, if required) and B's H1 transfer receipt notice along with the B's paystub. Apply for premium processing ASAP - Most importantly do not resign until you join Company C.
Thanks for the valuable inputs.
Applying for premium processing with Company C seems to be best option. However sometimes premium processing takes more than 15 days to get a result. Since Company B has indicated that they will terminate my employment by the end of this month (less than 15 days from now), I may not have the option of resigning from Company B, before getting Company C's approval.
1. Did you mean that I should resign from B only after getting a transfer receipt from C, or I should resign from B only after getting visa approval from C ?
2. If B terminates my employment, and my transfer to C is still Pending, what will happen in such a case ?
Provide company C with your A approval notice (and any other prior approval notices, if required) and B's H1 transfer receipt notice along with the B's paystub. Apply for premium processing ASAP - Most importantly do not resign until you join Company C.
Thanks for the valuable inputs.
Applying for premium processing with Company C seems to be best option. However sometimes premium processing takes more than 15 days to get a result. Since Company B has indicated that they will terminate my employment by the end of this month (less than 15 days from now), I may not have the option of resigning from Company B, before getting Company C's approval.
1. Did you mean that I should resign from B only after getting a transfer receipt from C, or I should resign from B only after getting visa approval from C ?
2. If B terminates my employment, and my transfer to C is still Pending, what will happen in such a case ?
pak
07-27 03:01 PM
If I-485 is rejected, can you switch back to H4 from EAD without going out of USA?
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
gc_on_demand
05-13 11:01 AM
Dear members
Please dont keep hope that there will be a CIR in a year. Why ? Mr President is not confident that he will bring it or not otherwise he would have sound plan and announcement. He is asking Mccain to take a lead on this and remember that news Mccain was angry on mexican delegation who went to him to argue to bring CIR.
This year they will not bring it with unemployment and other reason. Next year it will be election year.
If time is good they will attempt in 2011 so it will help in election 2012...again nothing can be done in 2012 too..
Please dont keep hope that there will be a CIR in a year. Why ? Mr President is not confident that he will bring it or not otherwise he would have sound plan and announcement. He is asking Mccain to take a lead on this and remember that news Mccain was angry on mexican delegation who went to him to argue to bring CIR.
This year they will not bring it with unemployment and other reason. Next year it will be election year.
If time is good they will attempt in 2011 so it will help in election 2012...again nothing can be done in 2012 too..
saketkapur
04-21 04:49 PM
Well California is not same....they took 4 months to renew my lisence....and its purely based on the expiry of the H1B I-94 :mad:
No comments:
Post a Comment