jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
wallpaper Fine Art Meets Anime:
delax
08-03 01:08 PM
I remember very clearly from last year that NOT having an A# on your approved I-140 is not a problem - Sheela Murthy was very clear about this on her calls for her clients. The 485 receipt though should have an A#.
FP is a different story. You have to get it done for 485 approval.
Disclaimer: My approved I-140 has an A# that matches the A# on the 485 receipt
FP is a different story. You have to get it done for 485 approval.
Disclaimer: My approved I-140 has an A# that matches the A# on the 485 receipt
ramus
06-28 04:42 PM
I am sorry.. I don't mean to hurt your feelings.. But this is rumer..
Can you give me link or any other offical source which is saying same thing..
You could have just put this in rumer thred.. Tell me is this helping one...
Everybody is so busy and workiing hard on getting paper work done.. Why do we want to put more burden on them? IF this is true then everybody will know it from different sources. And plus even if this is true what can you do? Can you fight against USCIS?
Hi ramus can you point to the others threads going on this subject?:o I did check other threads to put this info. In fact I don�t want create any new threads. After looking for one that is appropriate, which I did not find, I started this one. The closest one would be the �June 1st filers - receipt � which is a diffrent subject.
This is not a rumor, this a fact and I thought I should share with all so that every one will chill, take it easy and will not stressout in anticipation of 485 approval.
thx.
Can you give me link or any other offical source which is saying same thing..
You could have just put this in rumer thred.. Tell me is this helping one...
Everybody is so busy and workiing hard on getting paper work done.. Why do we want to put more burden on them? IF this is true then everybody will know it from different sources. And plus even if this is true what can you do? Can you fight against USCIS?
Hi ramus can you point to the others threads going on this subject?:o I did check other threads to put this info. In fact I don�t want create any new threads. After looking for one that is appropriate, which I did not find, I started this one. The closest one would be the �June 1st filers - receipt � which is a diffrent subject.
This is not a rumor, this a fact and I thought I should share with all so that every one will chill, take it easy and will not stressout in anticipation of 485 approval.
thx.
2011 CUTE ANIME GIRL IN PINK.
enggr
10-02 10:20 AM
you could try getting a letter from university that you had completed all the requirements for your degree in 2000 but your degree was formally awarded in 2002
immi_seeker,
That was a nice idea, but I won't get a letter from university saying that the degree requirements are completed in 2000. Also, the transcripts for one supplementary exam (in 2002) may speak against us. Do you think there's a chance? Please reply
immi_seeker,
That was a nice idea, but I won't get a letter from university saying that the degree requirements are completed in 2000. Also, the transcripts for one supplementary exam (in 2002) may speak against us. Do you think there's a chance? Please reply
more...
reddyram
07-18 12:46 PM
First of consult some American Lawyer who is close to labor law , because even lawyers act at times with some point of interest , which need not be yours . There is no such thing as a "bond" in US ( Unless you are on L1 ) so to BOMK , you are fine.
invincibleasian
01-31 12:28 PM
guys please quit all this begging. If yu guys need help do your research or contact an immigration attorney!
more...
cableman
08-15 07:44 PM
If you are sick of the GC retrogression and Canada is not your cup of tea, UK is another option for you. You can calculate your points online to see if you are qualified for the UK Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP). It is always good to more than one option.
http://www.workpermit.com/uk/hsmp_calculator.htm
:cool:
http://www.workpermit.com/uk/hsmp_calculator.htm
:cool:
2010 anime raynkazuya wallpapers
it is ok
05-18 05:27 PM
Unfortunately lot of fresh PhDs who apply as EB-1 even after getting a faculty position are usually denied on grounds of lacking enough professional experience. It is not easy to be qualified as a n EB-1 even if you have a PhD. So, most of the PhD's I know are in the EB-2 queue.
But with this provision, those PHDs will get their own quota, they would not have to contend with EB2 or EB1, right?
But with this provision, those PHDs will get their own quota, they would not have to contend with EB2 or EB1, right?
more...
nousername
04-07 01:48 PM
Thanks for a quick explanation.. So basically we are hosed if we leave our employer on a bad note and he decides to use our labor for someone else.
Follow up questions:
1. If I understand this correctly then simply revoking the labor won't kill the I-485 application but the employer needs to substitute the original application for another employee.
2. Also, by pre-July 2007 you mean people who filed their labor or I-485 before July 2007, or both?
3. Will this affect people who applied (and approved) for their labor before July'07 but filed their I-485 during / after July'07 fiasco i.e. majority of IV members.
4. If people in point # 3 are not affected then are they off the leash?
Thanks.
In very basic terms.
If you have left your employer after filing AC21(140 approved and 485 pending for 180 days), your employer then revoked your 140 and used the original labor to file 140 for another person(substitution). Another person has applied for 485.
Then original applicant's 485 will be denied.....because AAO is saying One Labor can be used only for one Green Card....
Mind you this is all relates to pre July 2007.
Follow up questions:
1. If I understand this correctly then simply revoking the labor won't kill the I-485 application but the employer needs to substitute the original application for another employee.
2. Also, by pre-July 2007 you mean people who filed their labor or I-485 before July 2007, or both?
3. Will this affect people who applied (and approved) for their labor before July'07 but filed their I-485 during / after July'07 fiasco i.e. majority of IV members.
4. If people in point # 3 are not affected then are they off the leash?
Thanks.
In very basic terms.
If you have left your employer after filing AC21(140 approved and 485 pending for 180 days), your employer then revoked your 140 and used the original labor to file 140 for another person(substitution). Another person has applied for 485.
Then original applicant's 485 will be denied.....because AAO is saying One Labor can be used only for one Green Card....
Mind you this is all relates to pre July 2007.
hair is a cute anime gift chibi
alterego
12-10 07:00 PM
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
more...
kumjay
06-28 03:46 PM
USCIS is thinking of setting the priority date to ......India's independence day Aug-15-1945. Mera Bharat Mahaan.
hot Some of the cute girls of
sandy_anand
04-08 05:11 PM
Well glad that at least all the lawyers' websites experienced lots of traffic these past few days. Happy for them. Only visible benefit from Mr.Oppenheim's dramatic announcement about the 12000 additional visas. :rolleyes:
more...
house hairstyles cute anime emo oy.
raju123
07-08 05:06 PM
I don't know the thinking of some people. immigration-law has nicely covered flower campaign. What is the reason to criticize?
We have very fewwwwwww friends for our cause. Mathew Oh is one of them. Do you guys want to loose few friends???? Are we going to win any battle without others support???
Please delete your negative comments and I request not to do any negative comments for like minded organization or person.
We have very fewwwwwww friends for our cause. Mathew Oh is one of them. Do you guys want to loose few friends???? Are we going to win any battle without others support???
Please delete your negative comments and I request not to do any negative comments for like minded organization or person.
tattoo Two Anime lions.
letstalklc
11-06 01:39 PM
Whats up, guys!
FYI:
My employer got a letter today stating that my form ETA9089 has been certified. Finally, after about 13 months waiting.
I got audited on November 2007. I filed the petition on October 2007.
Good luck with all of you guys.
Thanks for the supports!
Congratulations...great news.....good luck for the next steps...
Is your perm is filed by Fragomen Law Firm?
My PD is Sep 5th 2007...still pending....dont know when it's gonna approve...
FYI:
My employer got a letter today stating that my form ETA9089 has been certified. Finally, after about 13 months waiting.
I got audited on November 2007. I filed the petition on October 2007.
Good luck with all of you guys.
Thanks for the supports!
Congratulations...great news.....good luck for the next steps...
Is your perm is filed by Fragomen Law Firm?
My PD is Sep 5th 2007...still pending....dont know when it's gonna approve...
more...
pictures highlights the cute anime
punjabi77
08-06 12:12 PM
In my particular case, when i signed the contract, the employer agreed to pay for my GC process. But as usual, My employer also did not follow the contract and when my labor was approved, he asked me to pay for the Labor and take care of GC application fees hence forth. I was kind of surprised and did argue with my employer. But Employer gave me an option to leave his company and move to a diff company if needed. But since the labor was approved and the current project was going fine, i thought of sticking with the company and agreed on paying the GC fees.
I dont know if we can really go and harass our employer to re-imburse the GC expenses as they know what they are doing and what are the consequences if they go back on their words..I think they know pretty well about all the loopholes in this immigration process.
I dont know if we can really go and harass our employer to re-imburse the GC expenses as they know what they are doing and what are the consequences if they go back on their words..I think they know pretty well about all the loopholes in this immigration process.
dresses on such a cute anime girl.
glus
10-09 01:07 PM
I came to the USA on 3rd November, 2006 in company A. I did not work a single day in company A. I joined to company B on 17th January, 2007. I have no idea how my employer filed my H1B in company B without any paystub. I joined to company C on 24th July as they started my GC process right away. My H1B with company B and C are still pending. Company C has filed my labor on 31st August and got approval on 11th September. I am planning to file I-140, I-485, I-765 and I-131 together. So my questions are:
1) Is there any possibility to get denied/RFE for my GC as my last two H1B are still pending ?
2) What are the risks to be considered if I go back to my country and come back on AP as I don't have a visa stamp on my passport ? I am from a non-retrogressed country.
3) I heard that it takes too much time to bring spouse here if I marry after GC approval. I am planning to go back and marry and come back but don't want to bring my future wife on H4. Will it help me later to avoid unnecessesary waiting time to bring her here once my GC is approved ?
I shall be thankful to you to get my answer.
Thanks & regards,
SU1979
This is a complicated situation. Technically you are in "authorized status" stay because your H1 transfer is pending. I don't know what happens if and when USCIS realizes you never worked for company A. I assume, they will grant your H1 transfer but will not extend your period of stay in H1 and you would need to re-enter on a vailid H1. I would suggest contacting a good lawyer regarding this quickly. Once you are out-of-status for 181days you should not file I485 as it would not be approvable.
As for the second question; if you manage to receive AP and at the time you re-enter the US your I485 is pending, normally you will be able to re-enter without any visas in your passport.
Third question; yes, If you get married after you get GC, it will take much longer; about 4 years at this time, for her to get a GC. If you marry her before your I485 is approved, you can attach her to your GC and she will receive GC at the same time (approximately) as you do assuming all other conditions are met.
Speak to attorney regarding item 1 as soon as possible or do H1 premium to see what happens.
1) Is there any possibility to get denied/RFE for my GC as my last two H1B are still pending ?
2) What are the risks to be considered if I go back to my country and come back on AP as I don't have a visa stamp on my passport ? I am from a non-retrogressed country.
3) I heard that it takes too much time to bring spouse here if I marry after GC approval. I am planning to go back and marry and come back but don't want to bring my future wife on H4. Will it help me later to avoid unnecessesary waiting time to bring her here once my GC is approved ?
I shall be thankful to you to get my answer.
Thanks & regards,
SU1979
This is a complicated situation. Technically you are in "authorized status" stay because your H1 transfer is pending. I don't know what happens if and when USCIS realizes you never worked for company A. I assume, they will grant your H1 transfer but will not extend your period of stay in H1 and you would need to re-enter on a vailid H1. I would suggest contacting a good lawyer regarding this quickly. Once you are out-of-status for 181days you should not file I485 as it would not be approvable.
As for the second question; if you manage to receive AP and at the time you re-enter the US your I485 is pending, normally you will be able to re-enter without any visas in your passport.
Third question; yes, If you get married after you get GC, it will take much longer; about 4 years at this time, for her to get a GC. If you marry her before your I485 is approved, you can attach her to your GC and she will receive GC at the same time (approximately) as you do assuming all other conditions are met.
Speak to attorney regarding item 1 as soon as possible or do H1 premium to see what happens.
more...
makeup expression is priceless!
jediknight
01-20 11:12 AM
Short pass plays
WEST COAST OFFENSE OVERVIEW (http://www.westcoastoffense.com/overview.htm)
Obama needs to stop Congress from doing the big comprehensive things and focus them on smaller and faster laws that help americans.
The current healthcare, climate change, immigration reform should be broken up in dozens of smaller bills. They will either pass or he can paint the republicans as siding with the Insurance companies to block access to healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions for example.
There are lots of parts in Healthcare, Energy, CIS, etc, that can pass right now and he should take a lead on that. Otherwise the base that voted for him in 2008 is not going to turn up in 2010.
- JZ
WEST COAST OFFENSE OVERVIEW (http://www.westcoastoffense.com/overview.htm)
Obama needs to stop Congress from doing the big comprehensive things and focus them on smaller and faster laws that help americans.
The current healthcare, climate change, immigration reform should be broken up in dozens of smaller bills. They will either pass or he can paint the republicans as siding with the Insurance companies to block access to healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions for example.
There are lots of parts in Healthcare, Energy, CIS, etc, that can pass right now and he should take a lead on that. Otherwise the base that voted for him in 2008 is not going to turn up in 2010.
- JZ
girlfriend i agree he#39;s so cute.
salvador marley
06-07 06:40 PM
wow i got two in - great prizes too.
:)
:)
hairstyles and have vivid expression,
sameer2730
11-15 12:52 PM
You can travel back to USA from CANADA or MEXICO if you have a expired I-94 and a h1B which is valid while you are travelling (Its called Automatic Revalidation) if you are returning within 30 days and have not left the above mentioned countries during that period . I did it. Please do not give over your I-94 at the border or airport if asked. Let them you are returning in 30 days. However make sure you have copies of all your previous H1b and spouses H4b if any. My wife had converted from H4 to H1 3 years ago but has changed a job since. The customs officer at the border wanted to see her previous H1b.
Also you can take an appointment in BAHAMAS. I know a lot of people who got stamps from there. I think but am not sure , you do not need a visitor VISA to bahamas if you are a candian permanant resident.
About the Automatic Visa revalidation mentioned in the first paragragh its very clear and well known law. So 99.99% nothing will go wrong. Just try to travel by road (I have heard airport customs officers are not that familiar). Also travel along a busy border like Rainbow bridge . They know the law more in such places.
Also you can take an appointment in BAHAMAS. I know a lot of people who got stamps from there. I think but am not sure , you do not need a visitor VISA to bahamas if you are a candian permanant resident.
About the Automatic Visa revalidation mentioned in the first paragragh its very clear and well known law. So 99.99% nothing will go wrong. Just try to travel by road (I have heard airport customs officers are not that familiar). Also travel along a busy border like Rainbow bridge . They know the law more in such places.
samswas
09-28 03:43 PM
All,
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
Siddharta
09-26 12:02 AM
1)Incase my 485 application gets denied, can I start the process again and use the PD of my current application?
2) Can I move to and start the GC process with another company and use the current PD (I140 approved, 180 days passed), even if my current company revokes I140 and my Job description is very different --- I'm assuming yes.
3) What if I leave the country and come back after 2-3 years and reapply. Can I reuse the PD of my current application?
I was told by a friend that the priority date is mine forever since my I140 is approved. Is that correct?
Thanks
2) Can I move to and start the GC process with another company and use the current PD (I140 approved, 180 days passed), even if my current company revokes I140 and my Job description is very different --- I'm assuming yes.
3) What if I leave the country and come back after 2-3 years and reapply. Can I reuse the PD of my current application?
I was told by a friend that the priority date is mine forever since my I140 is approved. Is that correct?
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment