pappu
05-22 04:57 PM
Lets focus on action items.
Thanks
Thanks
wallpaper Colour Magic-Burgundy hair
LayoffBlog
01-27 01:32 PM
Ashland Inc. (NYSE: ASH) said Tuesday it lost $119 million in its first fiscal quarter, and plans to cut its work force by 1,300 jobs, freeze wages and adopt a two-week furlough program.The chemical company blamed the loss in the first quarter on a severance charge, writedown and the acquisition of Hercules Inc. It said [...]http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=layoffblog.com&blog=5255291&post=1256&subd=layoffblog&ref=&feed=1
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/27/ashland-posts-1q-loss-plans-1300-job-cuts/)
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/27/ashland-posts-1q-loss-plans-1300-job-cuts/)
tikka
08-07 10:24 AM
Could not attend the coffee appt. Hopefully will be able to attend the lunch.
you can make it..
you can make it..
2011 loreal hair color burgundy.
neoneo
07-30 12:03 AM
IMHO.. one thing for sure is that post school u need to join the same position as filed for GC. However being non resident has nothing to do with USICS. It's to do with IRS and the state tax agencies. Also, you wont go on "F-1" visa since you'll use AP. But you do need an I-20.(two different things ...similar to I-797 and H1)
So, the question to be asked is not "Can one goto F-1 visa after filing EAD" rather "Can one goto school after filing EAD ?".
I don't quite understand why one can't ( I'm sure there are reasons) If a person can stay at home or be self employed after applying for EAD/AP. Then IMHO that person can goto school too.
I think you can, however u need to join the same position for which the GC was filed and u need to be paying taxes.
Any suggestions ? .. also, what happens if your spouse is on F1 when the primary applicant files for 485/EAD/AP?
So, the question to be asked is not "Can one goto F-1 visa after filing EAD" rather "Can one goto school after filing EAD ?".
I don't quite understand why one can't ( I'm sure there are reasons) If a person can stay at home or be self employed after applying for EAD/AP. Then IMHO that person can goto school too.
I think you can, however u need to join the same position for which the GC was filed and u need to be paying taxes.
Any suggestions ? .. also, what happens if your spouse is on F1 when the primary applicant files for 485/EAD/AP?
more...
ivuser9
03-28 07:42 PM
Thank you all for their replies, this helped
ssnd03
08-16 08:15 AM
Hi -
Does anyone have good or bad experiences with Indian immigration officers in the airport with AP while coming back to US?
I mean, do these guys know what an AP is?
Is it better to get the H1B stamping done?
I am sure folks on this forum will be going to India for the winter vacations, so any responses would benefit a lot of people..
I think sometimes Indian immigration officers and even airline staff get confused with AP. Even in Germany the guy checking the passports was looking at AP funny.
But on average I think they know what it is. I have traveled to India through Germany and I made it back with some anxious moments when they all looked confused at AP.
You may need a transit visa through Europe if you don't have a US visa except AP. I didn't have it though and I was ok. But I had an emergency trip so no time to get these visas.
Does anyone have good or bad experiences with Indian immigration officers in the airport with AP while coming back to US?
I mean, do these guys know what an AP is?
Is it better to get the H1B stamping done?
I am sure folks on this forum will be going to India for the winter vacations, so any responses would benefit a lot of people..
I think sometimes Indian immigration officers and even airline staff get confused with AP. Even in Germany the guy checking the passports was looking at AP funny.
But on average I think they know what it is. I have traveled to India through Germany and I made it back with some anxious moments when they all looked confused at AP.
You may need a transit visa through Europe if you don't have a US visa except AP. I didn't have it though and I was ok. But I had an emergency trip so no time to get these visas.
more...
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
2010 urgundy hair color , Low
Legal
09-20 07:22 PM
K_SING,
You can invest, but be careful.
You can invest and earn money, but you shoulddn't be "working" to generate money. If you "work" at stock trading, and generate money this is a violation of your H1B status. You could land in trouble, if I were you I will stop it.
Attorney Siskind addressed this issue recently (visalaw.com), i don't have the web link.
You can do passive investing in mutual funds or stocks. you can invest in real estate funds, but if you actively manage a property and make money you could be in trouble.;)
You can invest, but be careful.
You can invest and earn money, but you shoulddn't be "working" to generate money. If you "work" at stock trading, and generate money this is a violation of your H1B status. You could land in trouble, if I were you I will stop it.
Attorney Siskind addressed this issue recently (visalaw.com), i don't have the web link.
You can do passive investing in mutual funds or stocks. you can invest in real estate funds, but if you actively manage a property and make money you could be in trouble.;)
more...
superdude
08-15 02:03 PM
One of my buddies got his GC approved yesterday and his Priority Date is June 2005, EB2 India. I am here waiting since 2004 March to file for my I485. There are no methods to USCIS Madness.
How was he able to file for 485?
How was he able to file for 485?
hair urgundy hair colour.
optimist578
03-18 01:05 PM
Most of the pro-immigrant bills donot seem to have cosponsors, whereas, the anti-immigrant/security-enhancing/american-jobs-protecting bills have a lot of support.
A small list of bills I found somewhat relevant to our issues...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.R.133 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (5)
H.R.938 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes related to family-sponsored immigrants and to reduce the number of such immigrants.
Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] (introduced 2/8/2007) Cosponsors (17)
H.R.19 : To require employers to conduct employment eligibility verification.
Sponsor: Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.132 : To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to depart the United States after securing permission to do so, or who unlawfully returns to the United States after voluntarily departing.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (2)
H.R.98 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to enforce restrictions on employment in the United States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved Social Security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.842 : To provide for enhanced Federal, State, and local assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to authorize appropriations to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] (introduced 2/6/2007) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.131 : To impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a deportable alien who fails to depart or fails to attend a removal proceeding.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (1)
A small list of bills I found somewhat relevant to our issues...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.R.133 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (5)
H.R.938 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes related to family-sponsored immigrants and to reduce the number of such immigrants.
Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] (introduced 2/8/2007) Cosponsors (17)
H.R.19 : To require employers to conduct employment eligibility verification.
Sponsor: Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.132 : To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to depart the United States after securing permission to do so, or who unlawfully returns to the United States after voluntarily departing.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (2)
H.R.98 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to enforce restrictions on employment in the United States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved Social Security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.842 : To provide for enhanced Federal, State, and local assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to authorize appropriations to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] (introduced 2/6/2007) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.131 : To impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a deportable alien who fails to depart or fails to attend a removal proceeding.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (1)
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
hot house urgundy hair color on
MatsP
November 14th, 2007, 03:41 AM
I don't know the Nikon story on sensor cleaning, but most cameras have a "mode" for sensor cleaning, which essentially leaves the mirror up until you switch it out of that mode.
As to formatting your memory card, my principle is "whenever there is a problem with them". I don't format my cards "to prevent problems". Most problems are caused by "user errors", such as removing the card from the slot before whatever it's in is finished with it - e.g taking the card out of the camera when it's still writing, or unplugging it from the computer before it's been erased. Others may have other ideas of what's "appropriate" here. But formatting doesn't do anything particularly different from deleting the files on the card. The main difference is that the "root directory" is recreated by the formatting, so if there's antyhing wrong there, it will be "fixed up" by the formatting - but you usually know immediately if there's anything wrong there.
Finally, in about 5500 pictures that I've taken, I've lost three pictures because the card went wrong. The camera said "CF error" or some such, so it was pretty obvious that something was wrong. Formatting in the camera solved the problem, but carrying a spare card is ALWAYS a good idea.
Edit: This site seems useful. http://www.bythom.com/cleaning.htm
I haven't cleaned my sensor ever, so I can't say if it's a good account or not [not that I have a Nikon anyways, but I don't think that really makes much difference].
--
Mats
As to formatting your memory card, my principle is "whenever there is a problem with them". I don't format my cards "to prevent problems". Most problems are caused by "user errors", such as removing the card from the slot before whatever it's in is finished with it - e.g taking the card out of the camera when it's still writing, or unplugging it from the computer before it's been erased. Others may have other ideas of what's "appropriate" here. But formatting doesn't do anything particularly different from deleting the files on the card. The main difference is that the "root directory" is recreated by the formatting, so if there's antyhing wrong there, it will be "fixed up" by the formatting - but you usually know immediately if there's anything wrong there.
Finally, in about 5500 pictures that I've taken, I've lost three pictures because the card went wrong. The camera said "CF error" or some such, so it was pretty obvious that something was wrong. Formatting in the camera solved the problem, but carrying a spare card is ALWAYS a good idea.
Edit: This site seems useful. http://www.bythom.com/cleaning.htm
I haven't cleaned my sensor ever, so I can't say if it's a good account or not [not that I have a Nikon anyways, but I don't think that really makes much difference].
--
Mats
more...
house BLOWOUT BURGUNDY HAIR COLOUR
martinvisalaw
12-01 06:01 PM
The relevant dates, as I see it, are:
10/06: H-1B ext filed
12/06: H-1B expired, ext still pending
7/07: 485 filed.
??: H-1B ext denied?
Using INA 245k you may be able to argue that you are eligible to adjust because you may not have violated status for over 180 days, or at all, before filing the 485. Recent CIS memos on the issue of unlawful presence and related topics have made this a very complicated subject, so you really need to review the entire history with an immigration attorney in a formal consultation if you want a 2nd opinion.
10/06: H-1B ext filed
12/06: H-1B expired, ext still pending
7/07: 485 filed.
??: H-1B ext denied?
Using INA 245k you may be able to argue that you are eligible to adjust because you may not have violated status for over 180 days, or at all, before filing the 485. Recent CIS memos on the issue of unlawful presence and related topics have made this a very complicated subject, so you really need to review the entire history with an immigration attorney in a formal consultation if you want a 2nd opinion.
tattoo Such a Dark red hair color
arihant
03-14 04:43 PM
http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/consular_services/visa/transit.html
after a legal stay in the USA (this includes holders of valid approval notices), Canada or Switzerland- return to the country whose citizenship they hold
do not need an airport transit visa
I presume the above is what you are referring to. My wife (on H4) and I (on H1B) are planning to fly to India later this year on Lufthansa. Both of our Visas have expired although we hold valid H extension approval notices. Will we need transit visas or will the above rule apply? Any body with experience of similar situation?
after a legal stay in the USA (this includes holders of valid approval notices), Canada or Switzerland- return to the country whose citizenship they hold
do not need an airport transit visa
I presume the above is what you are referring to. My wife (on H4) and I (on H1B) are planning to fly to India later this year on Lufthansa. Both of our Visas have expired although we hold valid H extension approval notices. Will we need transit visas or will the above rule apply? Any body with experience of similar situation?
more...
pictures Burgundy Hair Colour
GKBest
10-24 04:45 PM
It said in the online instructions to call them if you didn't receive the cards within 30 days.
dresses tattoo urgundy hair color , Low urgundy hair colour. with urgundy hair
mirage
03-06 01:03 PM
Just a little update, Called up my Senator's office this morning..Started talking about country Cap issue, the guy knew everything about it, he took notes & promised he will pass it on to the Senator. Here's what I suggested him
1) Lift the Country Cap for Temporary period of time, may be just for 2 years.
2) Limit the Maximum waiting time, say if one applicant is waiting for 5 years than country cap should be exempted and he should be given a preference over a person who�s PD is just 1 year old.
He specifically told me 'your second point is very good, I'll certainly share these with the Senator'...
I urge you guys to contact your senators & Congressmen/Congresswomen
We have a group which is focusing on this issue, if you want to join us here's the link
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/yourvoiceiv/
1) Lift the Country Cap for Temporary period of time, may be just for 2 years.
2) Limit the Maximum waiting time, say if one applicant is waiting for 5 years than country cap should be exempted and he should be given a preference over a person who�s PD is just 1 year old.
He specifically told me 'your second point is very good, I'll certainly share these with the Senator'...
I urge you guys to contact your senators & Congressmen/Congresswomen
We have a group which is focusing on this issue, if you want to join us here's the link
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/yourvoiceiv/
more...
makeup HAIR COLOUR BURGUNDY 4/6
mrajatish
11-17 12:00 PM
Yes, I think this is absolutely true - infact, I have given myself till 2007 end for that specific reason. If nothing changes by 2007 June/July, I will start looking at Australia, Canada, UK and India (most likely I will go back to India).
I might come back when this country changes, and believe me, it will change, esp. when people from baby-boomer generation retires.
I might come back when this country changes, and believe me, it will change, esp. when people from baby-boomer generation retires.
girlfriend Burgundy Hair Color
vikki76
09-01 02:04 AM
I was just about to post this article and then saw someone already did this good deed. Apart from core issue of isolation of elderly immigration,this debate between unrestricted family based GC and employment quota will never end.
hairstyles but this hair color.
JunRN
12-17 03:49 PM
New job must match the LC...that's the trick. If it doesn't, it will get rejected and potentially, GC denied.
Career progression from Junior Programmer to Senior Programmer is possible. But to manager with less technical stuff and more management stuff, then it might get rejected because of huge difference from LC.
Always remember, get a job that is according to your LC because that is the one certified.
Career progression from Junior Programmer to Senior Programmer is possible. But to manager with less technical stuff and more management stuff, then it might get rejected because of huge difference from LC.
Always remember, get a job that is according to your LC because that is the one certified.
pushkarw
12-21 01:27 PM
Have you contributed to the MILLION dollar drive? Please visit the funding thread!
kamal
08-04 04:05 PM
Dude whats the consulting company name? If you want to land your employer in soup send his details to Dept of labor at "info@dol.gov"
hey ,
Thanks for your response. Actually I dont want to do that as long as my previuos employer doesn't proceed legally against me. But anyways I'll not hesitate to reveal all the details and will definitly mail everything to DOL. I am feeling much better now.
hey ,
Thanks for your response. Actually I dont want to do that as long as my previuos employer doesn't proceed legally against me. But anyways I'll not hesitate to reveal all the details and will definitly mail everything to DOL. I am feeling much better now.
No comments:
Post a Comment