TheOmbudsman
06-26 12:20 PM
I respect your opinion.
There is no indication that "Republicans" are taking a hit by not passing the bill. In fact, if you go to Congress.org you will polls there showing that Americans prefer no bill instead of "a bad bill". By bad bill they mean, the amnesty one, CIR.
Folks, what we need to remember is that this country is still a democracy. When you see AILA - which is a reliable source in this case - reporting that 400:1 calls are being placed against CIR, that is a serious business. Looking at results of recent elections, you can tell that there is increasing indication that voters are paying attention to candidates which are strong in immigration records. Sen. Bilbray (R) recently won the election in spite of Republicans poor performance. In my state, Maria Cantwell (D) is showing no gaps against an incumbent, who happens to be Republican. In Utah, Sen. Cannon (R) but pro CIR is fighting very hard against an incumbent. Election results for this will be known tomorrow, but the fact that he is fighting is the indication one needs to believe that representatives fighting against CIR/amnesty are looking good, regardless which party the individual is in. CIR is known mainly is an amnesty bill. Therefore not passing CIR seems to be perceived by voters as a good thing. Also, there are already many laws that if executed, could aleviate the flow of illegal immigration and provide some security to the border until the House gathers enough support to pass a more enforcement only bill. Personally I have hopes that IF the House proposals prevail after the elections in November, then it is when we could see a kind of Cornyn/Kyl bill passed ?
Now you say, how can the above post help our cause ?
I think we need to start by having a clear picture of what's going on. If we continue this route of expecting that a bill with amnesty provisions on it will save us, you many need to be prepared for a long wait to see that happening. If it is true that our lobbying efforts are useless and have no chances to leverage a bill of our own cause, so darn, I will just pray, watch, give no donations and wait in a very passive way and see what happens.
IV has done a great job by making all the contact information with the lobbying group, now we need to engage them to lobby for our bill only. If that's not possible, then I think there is no major reason to donate or take action on this anymore. Just wait and let the big guys (AILA, Catholic Curch, Laraza) battle for CIR and see what happens.
I find it slightly amusing that your perception is that my perception is distorted. I am not a member of the core team and my remarks are my personal opinion. If I am wrong, well, then I'm wrong. If I'm right, these posts will be buried so far in the thread that it won't matter at that time.
There is no indication that "Republicans" are taking a hit by not passing the bill. In fact, if you go to Congress.org you will polls there showing that Americans prefer no bill instead of "a bad bill". By bad bill they mean, the amnesty one, CIR.
Folks, what we need to remember is that this country is still a democracy. When you see AILA - which is a reliable source in this case - reporting that 400:1 calls are being placed against CIR, that is a serious business. Looking at results of recent elections, you can tell that there is increasing indication that voters are paying attention to candidates which are strong in immigration records. Sen. Bilbray (R) recently won the election in spite of Republicans poor performance. In my state, Maria Cantwell (D) is showing no gaps against an incumbent, who happens to be Republican. In Utah, Sen. Cannon (R) but pro CIR is fighting very hard against an incumbent. Election results for this will be known tomorrow, but the fact that he is fighting is the indication one needs to believe that representatives fighting against CIR/amnesty are looking good, regardless which party the individual is in. CIR is known mainly is an amnesty bill. Therefore not passing CIR seems to be perceived by voters as a good thing. Also, there are already many laws that if executed, could aleviate the flow of illegal immigration and provide some security to the border until the House gathers enough support to pass a more enforcement only bill. Personally I have hopes that IF the House proposals prevail after the elections in November, then it is when we could see a kind of Cornyn/Kyl bill passed ?
Now you say, how can the above post help our cause ?
I think we need to start by having a clear picture of what's going on. If we continue this route of expecting that a bill with amnesty provisions on it will save us, you many need to be prepared for a long wait to see that happening. If it is true that our lobbying efforts are useless and have no chances to leverage a bill of our own cause, so darn, I will just pray, watch, give no donations and wait in a very passive way and see what happens.
IV has done a great job by making all the contact information with the lobbying group, now we need to engage them to lobby for our bill only. If that's not possible, then I think there is no major reason to donate or take action on this anymore. Just wait and let the big guys (AILA, Catholic Curch, Laraza) battle for CIR and see what happens.
I find it slightly amusing that your perception is that my perception is distorted. I am not a member of the core team and my remarks are my personal opinion. If I am wrong, well, then I'm wrong. If I'm right, these posts will be buried so far in the thread that it won't matter at that time.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
tonyHK12
02-21 01:27 PM
Donated $50 via paypal)
thanks updated total above.
C'mon guys - Only about 90 have donated to this event out of an estimated 500,000 people in the queue. What is the message you're sending to Americans, including law makers about being able to work together?
thanks updated total above.
C'mon guys - Only about 90 have donated to this event out of an estimated 500,000 people in the queue. What is the message you're sending to Americans, including law makers about being able to work together?
msp1976
03-10 06:28 AM
And yes in the 8 yrs I have been with my company I have got 3 promotions and am now a Manager. My companys immigration lawyer said thats ok. He just joked that when you get your green card just make sure you get tripple demotion to new role.
So when new kids on the block (<5 yrs in US) talk about GC process being screwed up, I say pick a number and wait in line. The closest example to this feeling is waiting to go to the restroom when you live in a slum and there is line of 100 ppl ahead of you to use the loo and you have loose motions :)
well you have a cooperative lawyer and a co operative employer...That is not always the case...Sometimes the employers are just using this excuse to keep folks working in the same position just because it suits employer's interests....
So when new kids on the block (<5 yrs in US) talk about GC process being screwed up, I say pick a number and wait in line. The closest example to this feeling is waiting to go to the restroom when you live in a slum and there is line of 100 ppl ahead of you to use the loo and you have loose motions :)
well you have a cooperative lawyer and a co operative employer...That is not always the case...Sometimes the employers are just using this excuse to keep folks working in the same position just because it suits employer's interests....
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
dba9ioracle
09-19 01:35 PM
As I discussed earlier in this thread, Mine are the same dates as yours and two minutes ago I got the email of Card Production Ordered. It's been more than a month I got the Approval Notice. It seems atlast they uploaded my and my wife's Biometrics from CSC.
I think my call to IO paid off. After trying couple of times I got in touch with a decent IO for 3rd time. She said that Biometrics are missing and she will upload them from CSC. Three days after the call I got this message.
8/12/08 - Approval Notice sent email
8/18/08 - Approval Notice sent mail (post)
Congratulations..
I think my call to IO paid off. After trying couple of times I got in touch with a decent IO for 3rd time. She said that Biometrics are missing and she will upload them from CSC. Three days after the call I got this message.
8/12/08 - Approval Notice sent email
8/18/08 - Approval Notice sent mail (post)
Congratulations..
more...
chmur
07-27 06:28 PM
Chmur; I appreciate your post. For the sake of a discussion could you share what is the temporary relief that you are seeking. I am curious to know the details. Is it
1. Revert back to the vertical spillover rule. OR
2. Revert back to vertical spillover rule and after EB3-ROW becomes current split the visas equally between EB2-I and EB3-I OR
3. Keep the horizontal spill over in place but any spill over from EB2 ROW should go equally to EB2-Retro and EB3 (ROW and Retro) category.
Let me offer my answers to the questions above:
1. In this case EB3-I is no better off as EB3ROW and EB2-I has to become current before any excess visas can go to EB3-I.
2. Completely negates the categorization as laid out by law after the initial handout is done equally. Is a hybrid approach where the vertical rule would be enforced so long as EB2 and EB3 (both ROW) are current. But after that a selective interpretation of the vertical rule is sought where EB2-I and EB3-I share it equally. The basis of this selective interpretation appears to be length of wait - nowhere does the INA state that length of wait can be used as a basis for negating categorization of EB category.
3. Is against the law - read my earlier post. Again selectively uses horizontal spill over till EB2 ROW demand is satisfied and then use vertical spill over to share visas between EB2-Retro and EB3 category.
I completely respect your right to lobby for change. However I am a little baffled as to how this change can be sought without changing law. Even if the change is approved, I see a strong possibility of a counter EB2 movement to nullify this change. I would appreciate any details from you anybody else on this. Cheers
None ....
Eb3-I has to explain it's position and request DOS to suggest an alternative method to mitigate the starving under the given laws.
As suggested earlier which requires change in law and which does not is not clear to any of us. DOS itself has had contradictory implementations over the years.
I am baffled that you think anyone of us can actually dictate DOS what to do.
1. Revert back to the vertical spillover rule. OR
2. Revert back to vertical spillover rule and after EB3-ROW becomes current split the visas equally between EB2-I and EB3-I OR
3. Keep the horizontal spill over in place but any spill over from EB2 ROW should go equally to EB2-Retro and EB3 (ROW and Retro) category.
Let me offer my answers to the questions above:
1. In this case EB3-I is no better off as EB3ROW and EB2-I has to become current before any excess visas can go to EB3-I.
2. Completely negates the categorization as laid out by law after the initial handout is done equally. Is a hybrid approach where the vertical rule would be enforced so long as EB2 and EB3 (both ROW) are current. But after that a selective interpretation of the vertical rule is sought where EB2-I and EB3-I share it equally. The basis of this selective interpretation appears to be length of wait - nowhere does the INA state that length of wait can be used as a basis for negating categorization of EB category.
3. Is against the law - read my earlier post. Again selectively uses horizontal spill over till EB2 ROW demand is satisfied and then use vertical spill over to share visas between EB2-Retro and EB3 category.
I completely respect your right to lobby for change. However I am a little baffled as to how this change can be sought without changing law. Even if the change is approved, I see a strong possibility of a counter EB2 movement to nullify this change. I would appreciate any details from you anybody else on this. Cheers
None ....
Eb3-I has to explain it's position and request DOS to suggest an alternative method to mitigate the starving under the given laws.
As suggested earlier which requires change in law and which does not is not clear to any of us. DOS itself has had contradictory implementations over the years.
I am baffled that you think anyone of us can actually dictate DOS what to do.
gc4sk
06-27 11:52 AM
Diptam, Don�t leave the employer but force them to terminate you after 160 days of filing I-485. Don't clear any client interview and force them to pay you salary as it is employers job to give you work. Take rest at home on full salary. A time will come when employer will no longer afford to loose any more money and they will terminate you. Also ask for severance package when they terminate you.
This is not a legal advice just a suggestion
This is not a legal advice just a suggestion
more...
kondur_007
09-27 01:40 PM
Sorry for my French guys...I generally dont like to use bad words, but this Charles Oppenheim boils my blood...
Look at all his previous statements...I dont know under what kind of influence he makes his statements...
He has BSed us in the past (look at his prior statement that he made in VEGAS) ....
Now he is BSing us again....
And we take his words seriously and start another set of arguments....
God bless every one; I need to calm down now. If possible please ignore this Oppehemi guy; he is just another joker.
Look at all his previous statements...I dont know under what kind of influence he makes his statements...
He has BSed us in the past (look at his prior statement that he made in VEGAS) ....
Now he is BSing us again....
And we take his words seriously and start another set of arguments....
God bless every one; I need to calm down now. If possible please ignore this Oppehemi guy; he is just another joker.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
desi3933
07-10 03:04 PM
Did you see I said "legally speaking?" If our attorneys answered Yes to the question you mentioned, then according to you they all lied, since "no H-1B job is permanent!"
I-140 is for future GC and hence, must be full time and permanent.
I-140 is not for current H-1B job.
You are mixing two things.
I-140 is for future GC and hence, must be full time and permanent.
I-140 is not for current H-1B job.
You are mixing two things.
more...
amitjoey
07-11 12:20 PM
Flower campaign has been a tremendous success. Look at how many inquiries we are getting. If you are in the particular city or state, where a reporter is trying to do a story, please come forward and contact these reporters.
What good is it to just hide behind an IV handle and suggest all kinds of ideas.
What good is it to just hide behind an IV handle and suggest all kinds of ideas.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
priderock
06-27 04:12 PM
I am really surprised that you guys are contemplating on going against your employer for a employment letter and filing your GC. I mean, how hard is it for you guys to agree to the terms of your employer that you will work till you get your GC and upto 6 months beyond that..
If you guys came before 2001-2002 and seen how the situation was for green card filers you will now what I am talking about..
1. There was no concurrent filing of I-140/485
2. There was no premium processing for Labor
3. There was no premium processing for I-140
4. There was no AC-21, so there is no way of switching jobs..
Still it used to take 4-5 years to get a GC.
And you guys are complaining about your employer because you worked for 1-2 years and you want to quit as soon as you get EAD..
Just imagine what would have happened if the dates were not CURRENT.. How many more years you would have worked, cursing USCIS
Your greed will ruin you in future, just like you are cursing your employer's greed..
Also, before you curse your employer, it was you who joined the company and you had many months to find out what kind of employer you have and it quit the company long time back.. You could have switched to different company long time back..
I agree , and if the cost of leaving this stupid employer is just $10K, I would gladly pay and have some peace of mind.
Also don't make decissions based on the current provisions/laws only. It is safe to assume you are going to be with your employer (who filed your GC) until you get your GC. You make a decision assuming that you can use AC21 after 6 months, but what happens if they remove AC21 in two months ??? People got burned when they assume status quo with the laws/provisions and they subsequently change.
If you guys came before 2001-2002 and seen how the situation was for green card filers you will now what I am talking about..
1. There was no concurrent filing of I-140/485
2. There was no premium processing for Labor
3. There was no premium processing for I-140
4. There was no AC-21, so there is no way of switching jobs..
Still it used to take 4-5 years to get a GC.
And you guys are complaining about your employer because you worked for 1-2 years and you want to quit as soon as you get EAD..
Just imagine what would have happened if the dates were not CURRENT.. How many more years you would have worked, cursing USCIS
Your greed will ruin you in future, just like you are cursing your employer's greed..
Also, before you curse your employer, it was you who joined the company and you had many months to find out what kind of employer you have and it quit the company long time back.. You could have switched to different company long time back..
I agree , and if the cost of leaving this stupid employer is just $10K, I would gladly pay and have some peace of mind.
Also don't make decissions based on the current provisions/laws only. It is safe to assume you are going to be with your employer (who filed your GC) until you get your GC. You make a decision assuming that you can use AC21 after 6 months, but what happens if they remove AC21 in two months ??? People got burned when they assume status quo with the laws/provisions and they subsequently change.
more...
Alabaman
05-02 12:13 PM
This might be too early but something that I notice that is missing is the ability to be able to Self Sponsor for Green Card instead of having to be at the mercy of employers.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
Janisaris
09-07 03:53 PM
Guys,
Since I have not received my receipts or my checks are not cleared, I am hoping that my case got transfered to TSC or CSC. Nebraska is now producing receipts for applications filed on the first week of August. I see this big void from July 3rd to July 20th that people did not get their receipts. How many of you got receipts in this time frame from NSC?
Since I have not received my receipts or my checks are not cleared, I am hoping that my case got transfered to TSC or CSC. Nebraska is now producing receipts for applications filed on the first week of August. I see this big void from July 3rd to July 20th that people did not get their receipts. How many of you got receipts in this time frame from NSC?
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
desi3933
08-03 06:34 PM
Did you send out the latest letters...I am getting a positive feed back ..that approximately at least 500 letters have gone out..we started to make noise.. and we will see the results eventually...More action items will follow in comming weeks..Dont forget the high five though campaign though ;)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20452
How do you know that 500 letters have gone out?
Thanks and Good Luck!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20452
How do you know that 500 letters have gone out?
Thanks and Good Luck!
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
texcan
09-14 05:23 PM
finally got to know from my bank that checks were encashed. checked the receipt nos. on back of checks. notice receipt date is 10the sept.
i had mailed the papers on july 27th and NSC receipt date was 30th july.
was your i-140 from TSC
i had mailed the papers on july 27th and NSC receipt date was 30th july.
was your i-140 from TSC
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
deepakjain
05-12 06:46 PM
How do we contribute and participate in any campaign of IV....how to even become a donor???
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
dskhabra
03-27 09:30 AM
We landed in Canada (Rainbow Bridge, Niagara) last week. No questions asked by Canadian immigration regarding stay in US. On the way back (Rainbow Bridge) US IO did not ask anything about 485 or Canada PR.
We filed AOS in July 2007 and have valid H1 visa in the passports. But it all depends on your luck and we had some personal reasons to land in Canada and we took the risk.
We filed AOS in July 2007 and have valid H1 visa in the passports. But it all depends on your luck and we had some personal reasons to land in Canada and we took the risk.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
zoooom
07-20 11:44 AM
Pl. count me in....I pledge $100 towards Aman's expense re-imbursement.
Pl. let me know how to send the amount coz your post clearly says
"do not pay it directly to the IV core funds, yet"
(so far contributed $100 to IV)
Sure will let you know. Please check back the thread on monday for more details...
Pl. let me know how to send the amount coz your post clearly says
"do not pay it directly to the IV core funds, yet"
(so far contributed $100 to IV)
Sure will let you know. Please check back the thread on monday for more details...
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
gchopes
12-26 09:07 AM
I received FP notices for myself and spouse on Saturday, Dec 22 for FP at the Charlotte office on Jan 11.
- gchopes.
- gchopes.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
americandesi
04-22 02:21 PM
I work for company A which sent me to client C through company B(Prefered vendor). After working with the same client for 1.5 yrs, transfered my h1b to company B(PF) due to issues with the pay with company A. Company A has deducted huge sum of money($4000) from my last months pay towards PERM filing(Still under process). Upon demanding them to reimburse my money saying that its against law, they r threatening me saying that based on non-compete agreement they will take legal action against me.
I am not actually aware of the clauses in the agreement. company B(PF) told me that it does not have any clauses in its agreement with company A prohibiting them from taking me.Though i requested company A to provide me a copy of non-compete, they said i signed with them, they haven�t. The company is located in NJ and not sure how non-competes work under NJ state law.
I am really frustated upon this blackmail and going thru lot of pressure. The amount is too big too leave and cannot afford to hire a lawyer in case they file suit based on non-compete. even if i had signed a non compete agreement how does it stand as it is conflicting the agreement which company a signed with PF sayign tht upon my termination of the emplyment with them, Pf can take me without any gap period... what can i do to get my money. they also refused to provide me with experience letter which i need for my future GC filing.
Plz give me ur valuable inputs
Restrictive employment contracts are non-enforcable, atleast in California. Here's a classic case of a H1B employee who successfully sued his employer on a restrictive employment contract and the employer was ordered to pay $215,050.61 in damages.
http://www.news.com/Body-shop-must-pay-fees-in-H-1B-lawsuit/2100-1017_3-256477.html
Also note that all PERM related expenses should be borne only by the employer. Refer the following link and search for "Certain Payments are Employer's Expenses under PERM" and "Employer Must Pay even with Dual Representation "
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_filrem.html
I am not actually aware of the clauses in the agreement. company B(PF) told me that it does not have any clauses in its agreement with company A prohibiting them from taking me.Though i requested company A to provide me a copy of non-compete, they said i signed with them, they haven�t. The company is located in NJ and not sure how non-competes work under NJ state law.
I am really frustated upon this blackmail and going thru lot of pressure. The amount is too big too leave and cannot afford to hire a lawyer in case they file suit based on non-compete. even if i had signed a non compete agreement how does it stand as it is conflicting the agreement which company a signed with PF sayign tht upon my termination of the emplyment with them, Pf can take me without any gap period... what can i do to get my money. they also refused to provide me with experience letter which i need for my future GC filing.
Plz give me ur valuable inputs
Restrictive employment contracts are non-enforcable, atleast in California. Here's a classic case of a H1B employee who successfully sued his employer on a restrictive employment contract and the employer was ordered to pay $215,050.61 in damages.
http://www.news.com/Body-shop-must-pay-fees-in-H-1B-lawsuit/2100-1017_3-256477.html
Also note that all PERM related expenses should be borne only by the employer. Refer the following link and search for "Certain Payments are Employer's Expenses under PERM" and "Employer Must Pay even with Dual Representation "
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_filrem.html
tsnaresh
11-18 12:03 PM
Done, thank you for initiating this campaign.
langagadu
05-10 06:35 PM
I just tried accessing my case status on line and I see the folowing message.
This message is like their Visa Bulletins, 6.00 PM on May 10th,2009?? India, EST, CST, MST, PST, Alaska , Hawaii or china time?
Portions of the CRIS application are unavailable for scheduled maintenance.
We anticipate that the application the will be available by 6:00 PM on May 10th, 2009.
This message is like their Visa Bulletins, 6.00 PM on May 10th,2009?? India, EST, CST, MST, PST, Alaska , Hawaii or china time?
Portions of the CRIS application are unavailable for scheduled maintenance.
We anticipate that the application the will be available by 6:00 PM on May 10th, 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment