lifestrikes
03-10 10:25 AM
Report: U.S. needs immigration boost of high-skilled workers - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/03/09/texas.fed.immigration/)
Link to Report - http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2010/ar10b.pdf
Link to Report - http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2010/ar10b.pdf
wallpaper cristiano ronaldo real madrid
upuaut
09-20 03:05 AM
forgot.. another nice feature of Painter 6.0 at least and I assume of 7.0. It will use any Photoshop plugins. Likewise it will import and export to Photoshop's psd format. I really believe that the programs are both good and are fated to be used together.
for instance.. the magic wand tool in painter does not even come close to the one in Photoshop.
for instance.. the magic wand tool in painter does not even come close to the one in Photoshop.
Lara007
01-16 10:33 PM
All the metros are crowded in India. Bangalore & Pune have more IT opportunities and have good schools.
2011 real madrid wallpaper
chantu
02-29 12:54 PM
bump
more...
ganguteli
07-23 12:07 PM
Bump
gc_aspirant_prasad
07-18 10:44 AM
My attorney has indicated that we wont have to refile. They had sent it to NSC around July 3.
more...
desidude
07-22 09:47 AM
My attorney asked me to put A# as N/A. I assume, N/A is applicable to all h1b holders. Make sure, you write the correct I-94#, otherwise they might reject/send back your application because of improper information. I think, it is not appropriate to give A# from your OPT card.
Hello,
I have a couple of questions here:
1) The last digit of the I-94# number is not very clear(Not sure if it is a 3 or 8). What do I write in the 485? Is there any way to find the correct one?
2) I filed the I140 without providing the A#. I understand that when I dont provide one, a new one is generated. And the A# is usually used to link the 485 with the 140. Now when I apply for 485, if I give the A# from my OPT EAD, will it be a problem because a new number will be already generated for I140? Should I write the A# in 485 or just leave it??
Thanks in advance for all the replies.
Hello,
I have a couple of questions here:
1) The last digit of the I-94# number is not very clear(Not sure if it is a 3 or 8). What do I write in the 485? Is there any way to find the correct one?
2) I filed the I140 without providing the A#. I understand that when I dont provide one, a new one is generated. And the A# is usually used to link the 485 with the 140. Now when I apply for 485, if I give the A# from my OPT EAD, will it be a problem because a new number will be already generated for I140? Should I write the A# in 485 or just leave it??
Thanks in advance for all the replies.
2010 ronaldo cristiano wallpaper real madrid. cristiano ronaldo real madrid
intheyan
08-13 09:07 PM
I feel the name check rule is just for our satisfaction and it is not helping most of the name check clearence.
more...
ras
08-01 10:37 AM
one of the stories posted on the thread about lawyer negligence.
[B]Hi ,
One of my cousin was working for a consultant firm from 5.5years and their company lawyer filed his labor in 2005.Whenever he called his lawyer for status checking,lawyer always replied that his case is pending.When he checked his case status online last week,he came to know that his case was closed.Reason was lawyer did not respond to notices from uscis in october and november 2006.And whenver my cousin emailed his lawyer, lawyer always responded only over phone and not by emails.So can anyone suggest,as to how to go about this case?Does he need to sue his employer or lawyer for misleading?Is this the master trick of employer or lawyer?And now no option for substituted labor too!Can his case be reopened again or will he have to file his labor again?
[B]Hi ,
One of my cousin was working for a consultant firm from 5.5years and their company lawyer filed his labor in 2005.Whenever he called his lawyer for status checking,lawyer always replied that his case is pending.When he checked his case status online last week,he came to know that his case was closed.Reason was lawyer did not respond to notices from uscis in october and november 2006.And whenver my cousin emailed his lawyer, lawyer always responded only over phone and not by emails.So can anyone suggest,as to how to go about this case?Does he need to sue his employer or lawyer for misleading?Is this the master trick of employer or lawyer?And now no option for substituted labor too!Can his case be reopened again or will he have to file his labor again?
hair Cristiano Ronaldo-Ronaldo-CR7-
upuaut8
01-30 11:38 PM
It's not the "swf" we're concerned with, it's the "fla", and it doesn't just do it with imported Swift3D stuff, but with jpg's and movie's and other imported media.
Try this experiment.
Open a blank Flash project. Save it as an FLA file, and note the file size.
Import a large jpg, then delete it from the stage, and from the library.
Save it again and compare file size again.
Try this experiment.
Open a blank Flash project. Save it as an FLA file, and note the file size.
Import a large jpg, then delete it from the stage, and from the library.
Save it again and compare file size again.
more...
venkat9
03-10 02:34 PM
Thanks gckalafda,
Mine was from NSC.
Mine was from NSC.
hot cristiano ronaldo real madrid
urstruly
07-27 03:32 AM
Can somebody please respond????
more...
house real madrid wallpaper logo.
mita
11-14 03:15 PM
I applied online for EAD on 10/23, no finger priting notice yet was asked to wait 30 days to enquire about it. All materials sent to NSC as mentioned, my I-485 is pending at TSC. Did anyone go through the same delay?
that is how ineffecient they are, best thing you can do is, site that your h1 will expire and u dont have plans of h1 renewal and u planning to use EAD, i dont know what else could be more extreme than not having an EAD when you want to use it :)
that is how ineffecient they are, best thing you can do is, site that your h1 will expire and u dont have plans of h1 renewal and u planning to use EAD, i dont know what else could be more extreme than not having an EAD when you want to use it :)
tattoo real madrid wallpaper cristiano ronaldo. c.ronaldo real madrid
Blog Feeds
09-01 10:00 PM
This is a recent update from the AILA Rome Chapter for the benefit of our readers. The State Department has substantially rewritten the FAM provisions relating to physical or mental disorders as medical grounds of inadmissibility. These significant changes, set forth at 9 FAM 40.11 N11, focus on physical or mental disorders with harmful behavior, and on substance-related disorders, corresponding to INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (iv), respectively.
The following is a summary of these sweeping revisions.
Introduction
As before, the mere presence of a physical or mental disorder does not by itself render a visa applicant inadmissible to the United States under 212(a)(1)(A)(iii). The trigger to inadmissibility is the presence of associated harmful behavior.
Key Concepts of Mental Health
In this new section, the Department defines the key concepts of physical and mental health disorders:
A "physical disorder" is a clinically diagnosed medical condition where the focus of attention is physical manifestations.
A "mental disorder" is a health condition characterized by alterations in thinking, mood or behavior.
"Harmful behavior" is an action associated with a physical or mental disorder that causes (or has caused) one or more of the following:
1. Serious injury (psychological or physical) to the foreign national or others. An example of harmful behavior to the foreign national is attempted suicide. An example of harmful behavior to others is pedophilia.
2. A serious threat to the health or safety of the foreign national or others. An example of a serious threat to both the foreign national and to others is driving while intoxicated.
3. Major property damage.
NOTE: The Department emphasizes the following principle: Only harmful behavior that is associated with a physical or mental disorder is relevant for the purpose of determining a medical inadmissibility.
A "substance-related disorder" can involve one of the following:
1. Substance dependence - compulsive long-term use of alcohol or other psychoactive substance despite significant problems (physical, social, and others).
2. Substance abuse - a pattern of recurrent use of alcohol or other psychoactive substance despite adverse consequences or impairment.
Remission in the context of mental or substance-related disorders is defined as "a period of at least 12 months during which no substance use or associated harmful behavior have occurred."
Class "A" medical conditions are those which render a visa applicant ineligible for a visa.
Class "B" medical conditions do not render a visa applicant ineligible for a visa, even though the applicant has a disease, disability or abnormality amounting to a substantial departure from well-being.
Alcohol Abuse or Dependence
The FAM changes stress that alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence constitutes a medical condition which can lead to inadmissibility. That said, a panel physician's diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence alone does not make an applicant ineligible to receive a visa unless there is evidence of associated harmful behavior which has, or is likely to pose a threat to the property, safety or welfare of the foreign national or others.
Consular officers are instructed to refer nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applicants to panel physicians if the applicant has a single alcohol-related arrest or conviction within the past five years, or if the applicant has two or more such arrests or convictions within the past decade. Officers should also refer applicants to panel physicians if, in the absence of DUI arrests or convictions, there is any other evidence to suggest that the visa applicant has an alcohol problem.
Role of the Panel Physician
Panel physicians have a central role in evaluating the existence of a physical or mental disorder or a substance-related disorder that would render an applicant ineligible for a visa. In performing a medical examination, the panel physician is responsible (inter alia) for identifying and diagnosing physical or mental disorders (including alcohol-related disorders); identifying harmful behavior associated with a disorder; and determining the remission status of any previously diagnosed disorder.
Class "A" or Class "B" Medical Conditions
Panel physicians may make the following diagnoses with regard to applicants referred for examination:
Class "A": The applicant has a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior.
Class "A": The applicant has a disorder characterized by substance abuse or dependence.
Class "B": The applicant has a physical or mental disorder with no associated harmful behavior.
Class "B": The applicant has a history of a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior which is unlikely to recur.
Class "B": The applicant's substance abuse or dependence is in full remission.
Neither "A" nor "B": The applicant has not been diagnosed as having a physical or mental disorder or a substance-related disorder.
Waivers for Immigrant Visa Applicants
An immigrant visa applicant who is determined to have a communicable disease of public health significance may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(i).
An immigrant visa applicant who objects on religious or moral grounds to receiving required vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(ii).
An immigrant visa applicant who is determined to have a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iii).
An immigrant visa applicant diagnosed with substance abuse or addiction is NOT eligible for waiver relief of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iv).
Waivers for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants
Consular officers may recommend waivers per 212(d)(3)(A) for any of the medical-related grounds of inadmissibility set forth in 212(a)(1)(A).
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/09/us_visa_denials_medical_ground.html)
The following is a summary of these sweeping revisions.
Introduction
As before, the mere presence of a physical or mental disorder does not by itself render a visa applicant inadmissible to the United States under 212(a)(1)(A)(iii). The trigger to inadmissibility is the presence of associated harmful behavior.
Key Concepts of Mental Health
In this new section, the Department defines the key concepts of physical and mental health disorders:
A "physical disorder" is a clinically diagnosed medical condition where the focus of attention is physical manifestations.
A "mental disorder" is a health condition characterized by alterations in thinking, mood or behavior.
"Harmful behavior" is an action associated with a physical or mental disorder that causes (or has caused) one or more of the following:
1. Serious injury (psychological or physical) to the foreign national or others. An example of harmful behavior to the foreign national is attempted suicide. An example of harmful behavior to others is pedophilia.
2. A serious threat to the health or safety of the foreign national or others. An example of a serious threat to both the foreign national and to others is driving while intoxicated.
3. Major property damage.
NOTE: The Department emphasizes the following principle: Only harmful behavior that is associated with a physical or mental disorder is relevant for the purpose of determining a medical inadmissibility.
A "substance-related disorder" can involve one of the following:
1. Substance dependence - compulsive long-term use of alcohol or other psychoactive substance despite significant problems (physical, social, and others).
2. Substance abuse - a pattern of recurrent use of alcohol or other psychoactive substance despite adverse consequences or impairment.
Remission in the context of mental or substance-related disorders is defined as "a period of at least 12 months during which no substance use or associated harmful behavior have occurred."
Class "A" medical conditions are those which render a visa applicant ineligible for a visa.
Class "B" medical conditions do not render a visa applicant ineligible for a visa, even though the applicant has a disease, disability or abnormality amounting to a substantial departure from well-being.
Alcohol Abuse or Dependence
The FAM changes stress that alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence constitutes a medical condition which can lead to inadmissibility. That said, a panel physician's diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence alone does not make an applicant ineligible to receive a visa unless there is evidence of associated harmful behavior which has, or is likely to pose a threat to the property, safety or welfare of the foreign national or others.
Consular officers are instructed to refer nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applicants to panel physicians if the applicant has a single alcohol-related arrest or conviction within the past five years, or if the applicant has two or more such arrests or convictions within the past decade. Officers should also refer applicants to panel physicians if, in the absence of DUI arrests or convictions, there is any other evidence to suggest that the visa applicant has an alcohol problem.
Role of the Panel Physician
Panel physicians have a central role in evaluating the existence of a physical or mental disorder or a substance-related disorder that would render an applicant ineligible for a visa. In performing a medical examination, the panel physician is responsible (inter alia) for identifying and diagnosing physical or mental disorders (including alcohol-related disorders); identifying harmful behavior associated with a disorder; and determining the remission status of any previously diagnosed disorder.
Class "A" or Class "B" Medical Conditions
Panel physicians may make the following diagnoses with regard to applicants referred for examination:
Class "A": The applicant has a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior.
Class "A": The applicant has a disorder characterized by substance abuse or dependence.
Class "B": The applicant has a physical or mental disorder with no associated harmful behavior.
Class "B": The applicant has a history of a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior which is unlikely to recur.
Class "B": The applicant's substance abuse or dependence is in full remission.
Neither "A" nor "B": The applicant has not been diagnosed as having a physical or mental disorder or a substance-related disorder.
Waivers for Immigrant Visa Applicants
An immigrant visa applicant who is determined to have a communicable disease of public health significance may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(i).
An immigrant visa applicant who objects on religious or moral grounds to receiving required vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(ii).
An immigrant visa applicant who is determined to have a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iii).
An immigrant visa applicant diagnosed with substance abuse or addiction is NOT eligible for waiver relief of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iv).
Waivers for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants
Consular officers may recommend waivers per 212(d)(3)(A) for any of the medical-related grounds of inadmissibility set forth in 212(a)(1)(A).
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/09/us_visa_denials_medical_ground.html)
more...
pictures Cristiano Ronaldo Wallpapers
jelo
06-15 05:28 PM
My husband is the primary applicant for our GC application and he's on bench since Feb 2009. We have valid EAD and AP's. We are planning to travel using our AP for a 3 week visit to India.
Our question....Is it sensible to travel on AP him being unemployed?
This is my openion.
Your husband is no more on H1b and liable to use EAD on his next job.
AP is based on pending I485, you do not have to work and legally present in US as long as 485 is pending. Since your pending I485 is based on future job, POE IO might ask for the EVL letter from the sponsoring employer to check the integrity of the case, though not very common.
Our question....Is it sensible to travel on AP him being unemployed?
This is my openion.
Your husband is no more on H1b and liable to use EAD on his next job.
AP is based on pending I485, you do not have to work and legally present in US as long as 485 is pending. Since your pending I485 is based on future job, POE IO might ask for the EVL letter from the sponsoring employer to check the integrity of the case, though not very common.
dresses Cristiano Ronaldo Real Madrid
reachinus
11-19 03:55 PM
1. My friend is on H1 and have EAD (June'07 filer) for both him and his spouse... his spouse (secondary aplicant) is currently working on her EAD.. If his company lays him off... Would his wife have any effect on her employment?
No
2. Could he renew my EAD/AP on my own with no employer support (despite he has no job)
Yes
3. What if he goes to India on AP (or otherwise).. would that have effect on his wife's EAD/employment?
No
3a. If he goes to India on AP.. for how long could he go?
Untill the day before the expiry of AP
4. Could he take up any job and keep switching till priority date becomes current?
Yes. but advisible to stay in same or similiar job
5. Also what happens if and when priority date becomes current?
Should obtain an EVL from the Current\Future employer assuring a full time permanent job.
No
2. Could he renew my EAD/AP on my own with no employer support (despite he has no job)
Yes
3. What if he goes to India on AP (or otherwise).. would that have effect on his wife's EAD/employment?
No
3a. If he goes to India on AP.. for how long could he go?
Untill the day before the expiry of AP
4. Could he take up any job and keep switching till priority date becomes current?
Yes. but advisible to stay in same or similiar job
5. Also what happens if and when priority date becomes current?
Should obtain an EVL from the Current\Future employer assuring a full time permanent job.
more...
makeup cristiano ronaldo madrid
ecrangan
05-04 04:19 PM
This is regarding status, if GC or CITIZEN there should not be any problem. If its H1B visa, then it should have validity. Means H1B visa should not have expired. I heard this story from my brother in law and in fact travel agents know this and they themselves advice on this. Those with expired H1B visa cannot travel through EUROPE. So my brother in law went to India through middle east.
CHECK OUT BASED ON YOUR STATUS.
Thanks
Rangan
CHECK OUT BASED ON YOUR STATUS.
Thanks
Rangan
girlfriend Cristiano Ronaldo wallpaper
tabletpc
08-23 02:59 PM
But using AC21 without having I-140 approved is big risk..u never know how the X emplyer might treat communication with USCICS with RFE is received.
I am presuming many r in a situation where they ahve i-140 pending and 485 filed.
I am presuming many r in a situation where they ahve i-140 pending and 485 filed.
hairstyles real madrid wallpaper cristiano ronaldo. cristiano ronaldo wallpaper
broadcaster
11-08 03:42 PM
On July 27, I sent my I-485/I-765 to the TSC. Case was delivered on July 31. I have no receipts, my checks have not been cashed. I called NCS, they asked me to wait two more weeks.
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
Hinglish
06-13 12:22 PM
Not to derail this discussion ...but the post below is classic hinglish !! :D
When did processing time became on or after your Receipt Date: 06/06/07 and your Notice Date: 06/15/2008.
Is it because file misplaced - too many followups (3 SRs, Infopass, letters, calling IO)? At lease people have been able to find whether name check is cleared on not - could you figureout that? If not, I think, there is reason to be concerned.
Try simple question - name check is cleared or not?
When did processing time became on or after your Receipt Date: 06/06/07 and your Notice Date: 06/15/2008.
Is it because file misplaced - too many followups (3 SRs, Infopass, letters, calling IO)? At lease people have been able to find whether name check is cleared on not - could you figureout that? If not, I think, there is reason to be concerned.
Try simple question - name check is cleared or not?
No comments:
Post a Comment