akp
07-20 12:37 PM
If you assume 30 people, you get 1 year per your calculations. Make it 90 and we get it in 3 months:D
piyu7444
04-30 07:30 PM
.................................................. .................................................. ...........
rajenk
12-14 02:35 PM
I need something which removes employer dependency with approved i140 until u file 485.
I hate working at the same employer just becasue my PD is not current. And by the time my PD becomes current, may be employer is not doing good, I am not happy at the job.... and I have to start from PERM again at new employer. Also if employer revokes i140, I loose the PD as well!!
Hi supers789,
You don't loose your PD if I-140 is revoked. All you need is an approved I-140. USCIS does honor the PD from a revoked I-140. That is what I have heard from various immigration attorneys. The PD is yours to keep. I think USCIS is generous enough to not push a person out of the queue once you have started your GC and progressed until I-140 approval.
I agree, I am definitely breathing from the July'07 filing. Otherwise it would be worse for me and my family to be working for my first GC employer. I am on your side for that.
A general advice don't stress yourself too much about it. It is definitely not good for your health. I use to check the status on my case every single day during my I-140 stage and got stressed out a lot and eventually earned some health problems from which I am slowly recovering. This is just a friendly advice.
I hate working at the same employer just becasue my PD is not current. And by the time my PD becomes current, may be employer is not doing good, I am not happy at the job.... and I have to start from PERM again at new employer. Also if employer revokes i140, I loose the PD as well!!
Hi supers789,
You don't loose your PD if I-140 is revoked. All you need is an approved I-140. USCIS does honor the PD from a revoked I-140. That is what I have heard from various immigration attorneys. The PD is yours to keep. I think USCIS is generous enough to not push a person out of the queue once you have started your GC and progressed until I-140 approval.
I agree, I am definitely breathing from the July'07 filing. Otherwise it would be worse for me and my family to be working for my first GC employer. I am on your side for that.
A general advice don't stress yourself too much about it. It is definitely not good for your health. I use to check the status on my case every single day during my I-140 stage and got stressed out a lot and eventually earned some health problems from which I am slowly recovering. This is just a friendly advice.
arunmohan
01-03 05:59 PM
i came to US in 1999.since 99 i gave my half of the savings for expenses of my father like my sister wedding ,bought a new car and others which my dad think should be in the house as his son is in US(social status).if i would be in india i would never had think of that.for me GC is freedom card to change job ,my wife can work and i live happy life.I think now it is not possible for me to work in india inspite of tremondous growth.as the expectation of the family members is too much now and because those must be the first one whom i have to explain that why i am coming back to india.so i think there is no way going back until you are forced to do that.i don't miss my family as i talk to them daily and i can ask them to travel here any time i want.its not 60s and 70s in which you have to think several times before visiting india.so my suggestion whatever the decision you make just belive in yourself.explore all the options before making any decision.
more...
sundevil
07-19 02:43 PM
I have a question about a unique situation of getting stuck in BEC and applying 485 with a newer PERM case. If LC is stuck in BEC at this time, but the person has a new PERM+140 from a different location and applies 485. Can this person change the priority date of 485 when the old LC from BEC gets approved, and 140 approved, to the BEC PD?
venkata555
09-10 01:49 AM
just donated 100$ thru google checkout . transaction id Google Order #312235194400027
more...
Wendyzhu77
06-05 10:51 AM
Numerous students on F1 visa applied 485 and got their GC these years.
One's I-485 can be filed only for visas with dual intent status. For instance, an F visa or a B2 visa person (currently not dual intent visas) cannot apply for I-485. This was the basis on which I made that statement. Everyone is free to interpret differently. Again, I am not an attorney and I might be wrong.
One's I-485 can be filed only for visas with dual intent status. For instance, an F visa or a B2 visa person (currently not dual intent visas) cannot apply for I-485. This was the basis on which I made that statement. Everyone is free to interpret differently. Again, I am not an attorney and I might be wrong.
jgh_res
07-20 03:09 PM
Contact TANA. I think they donated a million or so to clinton's.
Lest contact USINPAC!!!!!!!
Lest see what they can do...
Lest contact USINPAC!!!!!!!
Lest see what they can do...
more...
addsf345
11-24 02:21 PM
If you are beyond 6 years and I-485 denied then applicant is doomed weather you are in H1 or EAD. Only route is MTR. My attorney confirmed it.
She suggest unless MTR get open. You should not even work to avoid the issues.
So it does depend attorney to attorney. I don't think we have any case examples in either senarios. So bottom-line, do whatever you feel correct and make you happy. :)
Personally, I think RG is seems more logical. If you use EAD your H1 becomes invalid. No one revokes but it happens. Similarly, H1 becomes invalid as underline petition get denied.
Read on some other thread: Only reason why H1B doesn't get revoked immediately post 6 years is not having a full-proof integrated system, and such system may soon be here. I will post any link if I find this again.
She suggest unless MTR get open. You should not even work to avoid the issues.
So it does depend attorney to attorney. I don't think we have any case examples in either senarios. So bottom-line, do whatever you feel correct and make you happy. :)
Personally, I think RG is seems more logical. If you use EAD your H1 becomes invalid. No one revokes but it happens. Similarly, H1 becomes invalid as underline petition get denied.
Read on some other thread: Only reason why H1B doesn't get revoked immediately post 6 years is not having a full-proof integrated system, and such system may soon be here. I will post any link if I find this again.
raju123
06-01 04:00 PM
This might be useful to you.
Age-Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "Child Status Protection Act"
The "Child Status Protection Act", effective August 6, 2002, addresses the problems of minor children losing their eligibility for certain immigration benefits as a result of INS (now USCIS) processing delays. Prior to the passage of this law, a child's eligibility in Employment-Based Immigration situations to be part of his or her parent's application as a derivative beneficiary was based on the child's age at the time that the child's I-485 was adjudicated. Because of enormous backlogs and processing delays, many children turned 21 before the their I-485 applications were adjudicated. In such cases, the children "age-out" and are no longer considered to be part of the parent's application and lose their eligibility to obtain green cards as a derivative beneficiary.
Children who otherwise would have aged out may successfully adjust their status through the additional interplay of the new Concurrent Filing rule and the "Child Status Protection Act." According to the "Child Status Protection Act," the eligibility of these aging-out children will be determined by their age at the date a visa becomes available to them minus the number of days that the Employment-Based immigration petition was pending. Furthermore, these children must file for permanent resident status within one year of such availability. For a clearer illustration of this rule, please see the different scenarios below.
Example 1
The Labor Certification application that was submitted on John's behalf on January 1, 2000 was later approved on December 31, 2000. Afterwards, his employer submits an I-140 (EB-2) immigration petition on John's behalf on January 1, 2002. At that time, John's son, Junior, is 20 years and 7 months old. John's I-140 petition was pending for six months and was approved on July 1, 2002, one month after Junior turns 21 years of age. The visa number for EB-2 was available for John on July 1, 2002. Under the old law without the Child Status Protection Act, Junior has aged out because he is now 21 years old. However, under the new law, his age is fixed as of the date that a visa number becomes available minus the number of days that the I-140 was pending. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, these six months must be subtracted from Junior's age at the time the visa number became available on July 1, 2002. Subtracting six months from Junior's age of 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, Junior's age is fixed at 20 years and 7 months. Thus, even though he was already 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, he is still considered a "child" for purposes of accompanying his parents in adjusting his status to permanent residence. However, Junior has to file his I-485 within one year from the date of I-140 approval, that is before July 1, 2003. The length of time that is takes the USCIS to adjudicate Junior's case is no longer important in these cases.
According to "Child Status Protection Act", if through the above calculation, the child's age is fixed at 21 or older, the child would be automatically reclassified to an appropriate category and retains the principal beneficiary's original priority date. Please see the next example below.
Example 2
Same facts as above except that Junior is 21 years and seven months old at the time of John's I-140 approval. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, Junior's age will be fixed at 21 years and one month. Even with the Child Status Protection Act, Junior still ages out and may not adjust his status at this time. However, he will automatically be reclassified to an appropriate category, family-based 2B, and retain his father's original priority date, January 1, 2000, which is the date John's employer filed John's Labor Certification application.
Example 3
Richard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. Richard's son, Simon, is 21 years and one month old. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Richard filed his I-485 because the visa number was currently available for Richard at that time. However, Simon cannot file his I-485 with his father because he aged out.
Example 4
Howard's daughter, Rachel, is 20 years and 10 months old. Howard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Howard and Rachel filed their I-485 since the visa number was available for Howard at that time. Thus, according to the "Child Status Protection Act," no matter how much time Howard's I-140 is pending, Rachel will not age out.
Visa numbers are currently available to all EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. Thus, with the new Concurrent Filing rule, any person who is a beneficiary (or applicant) of an I-140 petition that has already been filed or is filing the I-140 at this time is now eligible to file the I-485 application as well. Family members will be eligible to file the I-485 along with the principal alien. However, since the Concurrent Filing rule became effective, visa numbers may become unavailable in the future because more eligible aliens will be filing their I-485. Thus, eligible aliens with aging-out children should file their I-485 as soon as possible. Please see next example.
Example 5
Jenny filed her I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 10, 2002. Jenny has a son, Benny, who is 20 years and eleven months old. However, due to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, many aliens have filed their I-140 and I-485 together and the visa number for EB-2 has been exhausted. However, the visa number will not be current until December 2002 when Benny will be 21 years and three months old. If Jenny's I-140 is pending for six months and will be approved in February 2003, these six months will be reduced from Benny's age in December 2002 when he is 21 years and three months old. Thus, his age is fixed as 20 years nine months. However, if Jenny's I-140 petition is pending for only two months and will be approved in October 2002, Benny's age will be fixed as 21 years and one month. Thus, Benny ages out in this scenario and must wait until his priority date under family-based 2B immigration becomes current.
Example 6
Jason filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on June 30, 2002. Jason has a son, Ken, who is 20 years and ten months old at that time. According to the visa bulletin, an immigration visa number became available for Jason on July 31, 2002. Ken was 20 years and eleven months on July 31, and he is not in the U.S. but in his home country. Because of the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule Jason filed his I-485 on August 10, 2002. If Jason's I-140 is pending for 6 months until December 31, 2002, one month pending period from June 30 to July 31, 2002 should be subtracted from Ken's age on July 31, 2002. Thus, Ken's age is fixed as 20 years and 10 months. Ken may apply for his immigrant visa through Consular Processing at U.S. Consulate in his home country within one year from July 31, 2002.
For more information about "Age Out", please click the following topics:
What is "Age Out"
Child Status Protection Act
If you are a USC, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
If you are an LPR or will be an LPR, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
Age Out Problems in Employment-Based Immigration
Age Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "CSPA"
Child of Asylee and Refugee
Unmarried Sons or Daughters of Naturalized Citizens
Effective Date of the CSPA
Hi All,
I want to know if my 19 year old son can be affected by aging out.
I have just received ALC certification and will now file I140 and I485 concurrently as my priority date NOV 22 2004 EB3 Rest of World will be current in June.
Can someone who understands the aging out rules tell me if my son may have a problem?
Thanks in advance...
Age-Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "Child Status Protection Act"
The "Child Status Protection Act", effective August 6, 2002, addresses the problems of minor children losing their eligibility for certain immigration benefits as a result of INS (now USCIS) processing delays. Prior to the passage of this law, a child's eligibility in Employment-Based Immigration situations to be part of his or her parent's application as a derivative beneficiary was based on the child's age at the time that the child's I-485 was adjudicated. Because of enormous backlogs and processing delays, many children turned 21 before the their I-485 applications were adjudicated. In such cases, the children "age-out" and are no longer considered to be part of the parent's application and lose their eligibility to obtain green cards as a derivative beneficiary.
Children who otherwise would have aged out may successfully adjust their status through the additional interplay of the new Concurrent Filing rule and the "Child Status Protection Act." According to the "Child Status Protection Act," the eligibility of these aging-out children will be determined by their age at the date a visa becomes available to them minus the number of days that the Employment-Based immigration petition was pending. Furthermore, these children must file for permanent resident status within one year of such availability. For a clearer illustration of this rule, please see the different scenarios below.
Example 1
The Labor Certification application that was submitted on John's behalf on January 1, 2000 was later approved on December 31, 2000. Afterwards, his employer submits an I-140 (EB-2) immigration petition on John's behalf on January 1, 2002. At that time, John's son, Junior, is 20 years and 7 months old. John's I-140 petition was pending for six months and was approved on July 1, 2002, one month after Junior turns 21 years of age. The visa number for EB-2 was available for John on July 1, 2002. Under the old law without the Child Status Protection Act, Junior has aged out because he is now 21 years old. However, under the new law, his age is fixed as of the date that a visa number becomes available minus the number of days that the I-140 was pending. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, these six months must be subtracted from Junior's age at the time the visa number became available on July 1, 2002. Subtracting six months from Junior's age of 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, Junior's age is fixed at 20 years and 7 months. Thus, even though he was already 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, he is still considered a "child" for purposes of accompanying his parents in adjusting his status to permanent residence. However, Junior has to file his I-485 within one year from the date of I-140 approval, that is before July 1, 2003. The length of time that is takes the USCIS to adjudicate Junior's case is no longer important in these cases.
According to "Child Status Protection Act", if through the above calculation, the child's age is fixed at 21 or older, the child would be automatically reclassified to an appropriate category and retains the principal beneficiary's original priority date. Please see the next example below.
Example 2
Same facts as above except that Junior is 21 years and seven months old at the time of John's I-140 approval. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, Junior's age will be fixed at 21 years and one month. Even with the Child Status Protection Act, Junior still ages out and may not adjust his status at this time. However, he will automatically be reclassified to an appropriate category, family-based 2B, and retain his father's original priority date, January 1, 2000, which is the date John's employer filed John's Labor Certification application.
Example 3
Richard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. Richard's son, Simon, is 21 years and one month old. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Richard filed his I-485 because the visa number was currently available for Richard at that time. However, Simon cannot file his I-485 with his father because he aged out.
Example 4
Howard's daughter, Rachel, is 20 years and 10 months old. Howard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Howard and Rachel filed their I-485 since the visa number was available for Howard at that time. Thus, according to the "Child Status Protection Act," no matter how much time Howard's I-140 is pending, Rachel will not age out.
Visa numbers are currently available to all EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. Thus, with the new Concurrent Filing rule, any person who is a beneficiary (or applicant) of an I-140 petition that has already been filed or is filing the I-140 at this time is now eligible to file the I-485 application as well. Family members will be eligible to file the I-485 along with the principal alien. However, since the Concurrent Filing rule became effective, visa numbers may become unavailable in the future because more eligible aliens will be filing their I-485. Thus, eligible aliens with aging-out children should file their I-485 as soon as possible. Please see next example.
Example 5
Jenny filed her I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 10, 2002. Jenny has a son, Benny, who is 20 years and eleven months old. However, due to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, many aliens have filed their I-140 and I-485 together and the visa number for EB-2 has been exhausted. However, the visa number will not be current until December 2002 when Benny will be 21 years and three months old. If Jenny's I-140 is pending for six months and will be approved in February 2003, these six months will be reduced from Benny's age in December 2002 when he is 21 years and three months old. Thus, his age is fixed as 20 years nine months. However, if Jenny's I-140 petition is pending for only two months and will be approved in October 2002, Benny's age will be fixed as 21 years and one month. Thus, Benny ages out in this scenario and must wait until his priority date under family-based 2B immigration becomes current.
Example 6
Jason filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on June 30, 2002. Jason has a son, Ken, who is 20 years and ten months old at that time. According to the visa bulletin, an immigration visa number became available for Jason on July 31, 2002. Ken was 20 years and eleven months on July 31, and he is not in the U.S. but in his home country. Because of the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule Jason filed his I-485 on August 10, 2002. If Jason's I-140 is pending for 6 months until December 31, 2002, one month pending period from June 30 to July 31, 2002 should be subtracted from Ken's age on July 31, 2002. Thus, Ken's age is fixed as 20 years and 10 months. Ken may apply for his immigrant visa through Consular Processing at U.S. Consulate in his home country within one year from July 31, 2002.
For more information about "Age Out", please click the following topics:
What is "Age Out"
Child Status Protection Act
If you are a USC, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
If you are an LPR or will be an LPR, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
Age Out Problems in Employment-Based Immigration
Age Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "CSPA"
Child of Asylee and Refugee
Unmarried Sons or Daughters of Naturalized Citizens
Effective Date of the CSPA
Hi All,
I want to know if my 19 year old son can be affected by aging out.
I have just received ALC certification and will now file I140 and I485 concurrently as my priority date NOV 22 2004 EB3 Rest of World will be current in June.
Can someone who understands the aging out rules tell me if my son may have a problem?
Thanks in advance...
more...
Abhinaym
09-10 11:18 AM
I think these guys are just playing with our minds. They know how many applications are pending. At least they have a estimate and idea.
Now they will sit on these pending applications until the end of year and then suddenly move dates 2-3 years ahead and approve some GCs. Few will be happy and most of us will be disappointed.
Just curious, is it possible they have some reasoning to push applications to the end of the year? it'll be interesting to think of what could be the reason...
Now they will sit on these pending applications until the end of year and then suddenly move dates 2-3 years ahead and approve some GCs. Few will be happy and most of us will be disappointed.
Just curious, is it possible they have some reasoning to push applications to the end of the year? it'll be interesting to think of what could be the reason...
ravi.shah
08-24 09:37 AM
No point in bashing each other guys....
Its not like, USCIS is reading these forums and are going to do something about it.
Just take it easy....
Its not like, USCIS is reading these forums and are going to do something about it.
Just take it easy....
more...
beppenyc
03-16 10:51 AM
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0316Immigration16-ON.html
Senators debate immigrant worker measure
Associated Press
Mar. 16, 2006 09:35 AM
WASHINGTON - Senators writing a major immigration law overhaul bill moved Thursday toward accepting an approach under which undocumented immigrants could stay in the United States while working toward permanent residence and eventual citizenship.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., stressed that his plan moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee would not constitute an amnesty, a policy rejected by the Bush administration and most Americans, according to polls. Kennedy said it would not give the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally any advantage over the 3 million living overseas while waiting for a decision on green card applications.
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said the panel would consider the proposal put forward by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., when it reconvenes on March 27 after a weeklong recess. advertisement
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has made clear that immigration reform will be on the chamber's floor that week, regardless of whether the Judiciary Committee comes up with a comprehensive bill.
Congress, at the urging of President Bush, has made comprehensive immigration reform a top priority for this election-year session, pushing forward proposals combining immigration enforcement, a guest worker program and a policy toward people living in the country illegally.
The future treatment of undocumented immigrants, Kennedy said, "really is the heart and soul of this whole undertaking."
The McCain-Kennedy plan would allow those in the country illegally to obtain six-year nonimmigrant visas under which they could work in the country and travel outside the country. They would have to pay a $1,000 fine and undergo background checks.
After six years, the immigrant who pays back taxes, is learning English and pays an additional $1,000 fine can apply for a green card, or permanent residency.
Specter, R-Pa., said the committee would vote on a version of the McCain-Kennedy proposal on the 27th. There would also be a vote on the chief alternative, offered by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that would give undocumented immigrants up to five years to leave the country. These immigrants could apply from their home country to return, either as temporary workers or for permanent residency.
"Our intention is not to strand anyone outside the country," Kyl said. But he said that the McCain-Kennedy plan would give an undocumented immigrant allowed to stay and work in the country a "huge advantage" over a person having to wait for years in his or her own country for a green card.
But with Democrats, and several Republicans, on the committee behind McCain-Kennedy, it appeared to have the edge.
Cornyn and Kennedy said they would work over the recess next week on the structure of a guest worker program, which would start out with 400,000 visas. The committee is also expected to take up a separate provision for temporary agriculture workers in preparation for debate on the floor.
Senators from both parties in the committee on Wednesday objected to voting on a bill before the panel reaches a consensus on guest workers. Several Republicans suggested that the Senate first deal with enforcement, and take up the guest worker issue later in the year.
"This is a very complicated bill," Specter said. "And I think we have to get it done right."
Bush, in a State of the Union address two years ago, urged Congress to create a worker program under which participants could gain legal status for a specific time and then be required to return home. It would not provide an automatic path to citizenship.
The House at the end of last year passed a bill that increases penalties for illegal immigration activities and requires employers to verify the legal status of their employees. But it did not address the guest worker issue, and critics argued that it was futile to try to close the border when demand for low-wage workers in this country remains so strong.
"We have a broken system," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday. "It needs to be fixed and it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way."
Senators debate immigrant worker measure
Associated Press
Mar. 16, 2006 09:35 AM
WASHINGTON - Senators writing a major immigration law overhaul bill moved Thursday toward accepting an approach under which undocumented immigrants could stay in the United States while working toward permanent residence and eventual citizenship.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., stressed that his plan moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee would not constitute an amnesty, a policy rejected by the Bush administration and most Americans, according to polls. Kennedy said it would not give the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally any advantage over the 3 million living overseas while waiting for a decision on green card applications.
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said the panel would consider the proposal put forward by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., when it reconvenes on March 27 after a weeklong recess. advertisement
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has made clear that immigration reform will be on the chamber's floor that week, regardless of whether the Judiciary Committee comes up with a comprehensive bill.
Congress, at the urging of President Bush, has made comprehensive immigration reform a top priority for this election-year session, pushing forward proposals combining immigration enforcement, a guest worker program and a policy toward people living in the country illegally.
The future treatment of undocumented immigrants, Kennedy said, "really is the heart and soul of this whole undertaking."
The McCain-Kennedy plan would allow those in the country illegally to obtain six-year nonimmigrant visas under which they could work in the country and travel outside the country. They would have to pay a $1,000 fine and undergo background checks.
After six years, the immigrant who pays back taxes, is learning English and pays an additional $1,000 fine can apply for a green card, or permanent residency.
Specter, R-Pa., said the committee would vote on a version of the McCain-Kennedy proposal on the 27th. There would also be a vote on the chief alternative, offered by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that would give undocumented immigrants up to five years to leave the country. These immigrants could apply from their home country to return, either as temporary workers or for permanent residency.
"Our intention is not to strand anyone outside the country," Kyl said. But he said that the McCain-Kennedy plan would give an undocumented immigrant allowed to stay and work in the country a "huge advantage" over a person having to wait for years in his or her own country for a green card.
But with Democrats, and several Republicans, on the committee behind McCain-Kennedy, it appeared to have the edge.
Cornyn and Kennedy said they would work over the recess next week on the structure of a guest worker program, which would start out with 400,000 visas. The committee is also expected to take up a separate provision for temporary agriculture workers in preparation for debate on the floor.
Senators from both parties in the committee on Wednesday objected to voting on a bill before the panel reaches a consensus on guest workers. Several Republicans suggested that the Senate first deal with enforcement, and take up the guest worker issue later in the year.
"This is a very complicated bill," Specter said. "And I think we have to get it done right."
Bush, in a State of the Union address two years ago, urged Congress to create a worker program under which participants could gain legal status for a specific time and then be required to return home. It would not provide an automatic path to citizenship.
The House at the end of last year passed a bill that increases penalties for illegal immigration activities and requires employers to verify the legal status of their employees. But it did not address the guest worker issue, and critics argued that it was futile to try to close the border when demand for low-wage workers in this country remains so strong.
"We have a broken system," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday. "It needs to be fixed and it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way."
needhelp!
09-12 03:02 PM
http://www.prleap.com/pr/93560/
http://www.express-press-release.com
http://www.texas-press-release.com
http://www.pressmethod.com/releasestorage/22524.htm
http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200709/1189618576.html
http://www.i-newswire.com
http://www.express-press-release.com
http://www.texas-press-release.com
http://www.pressmethod.com/releasestorage/22524.htm
http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200709/1189618576.html
http://www.i-newswire.com
more...
abhijitp
07-06 09:47 AM
Can anyone post the email of the reporter?
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/julia_preston/index.html?inline=nyt-per
Then click on Send an email to Julia Preston
The following page comes up:
Send a Message to JULIA PRESTON
Delivery of this e-mail may be delayed. If you need to reach The Times immediately, please call 212-556-1234.
Your name:
Your Email Address:
Your Message:
URL of article related to your message:
<button>Click to send message</button>
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/julia_preston/index.html?inline=nyt-per
Then click on Send an email to Julia Preston
The following page comes up:
Send a Message to JULIA PRESTON
Delivery of this e-mail may be delayed. If you need to reach The Times immediately, please call 212-556-1234.
Your name:
Your Email Address:
Your Message:
URL of article related to your message:
<button>Click to send message</button>
needhelp!
09-10 03:26 PM
Thank you k3GC, ngodisha, Karthikthiru, deba, watcher , ek_akela, mpadapa
more...
glus
07-06 01:09 PM
chertoff will be the one who will be questioning/grilling/waterboarding USCIS....not resigning....
OK, so , let his loose some nerves like we did. Let him have a few weeks of sleepless nights and then he will understand.....:mad:
OK, so , let his loose some nerves like we did. Let him have a few weeks of sleepless nights and then he will understand.....:mad:
jonty_11
07-06 05:37 PM
look closely..I think this fiasco is affecting the basic senses also.
Miya Maqbool
09-10 03:32 PM
HI Pappu,
PLease post the total amount received end of the day on the web site....
Hopefully we will exceed the required amount....
Go IV!!!
PLease post the total amount received end of the day on the web site....
Hopefully we will exceed the required amount....
Go IV!!!
uma001
09-27 09:44 AM
Landed on 03/1997 on H1B. Didn't file for GC until 2003 as plan was to work for 2-3 years, get into an MBA program, and then go back.
MBA resulted in loans of $120K which in turn meant spending some more time in the US which resulted in buying a house which resulted in even bigger loan.
Now living the American "dream" on EAD.
You must be earning more than the debts you have from MBA per year. With that you should have paid the loans.
MBA resulted in loans of $120K which in turn meant spending some more time in the US which resulted in buying a house which resulted in even bigger loan.
Now living the American "dream" on EAD.
You must be earning more than the debts you have from MBA per year. With that you should have paid the loans.
rb_248
06-10 08:13 AM
Atleast EB2 is not moving back. I hope EB2 moves forward begining this October.
EB3 guys - Hope it dosen't nove back from where it was last month come October for you all.
EB3 guys - Hope it dosen't nove back from where it was last month come October for you all.
No comments:
Post a Comment