ragz4u
03-16 03:29 PM
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today reached agreement on proposals for a new guest-worker program and a plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to become permanent residents.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
wallpaper University of Pennsylvania
DreamGC
07-15 07:38 PM
Just sent my high five via billpay
EB3-I (Jan-2007)
EB3-I (Jan-2007)
amit_sp
04-26 11:32 PM
Hello, I have been through the same situation for past 2 years. Just carry your receipt for extension to the local MVC and they will give you 3-month extension on your licence. During that course, your actual extension should arrive upon which you will have to renew your licence. It's better to spend $24 for licence renewal that spending $1000 for premium processing.
My H1 extension is under process. I had applied in Dec 2006. My DL expires on May 6. Is it possible to renew my license with the H1 extension receipt?. Is it possible to do Premium Processing now?
My H1 extension is under process. I had applied in Dec 2006. My DL expires on May 6. Is it possible to renew my license with the H1 extension receipt?. Is it possible to do Premium Processing now?
2011 University of Pennsylvania
gctest
09-15 04:19 PM
That memo/document you pointed out is an interpretation. We have already said that USCIS's interpretation is incorrect. We intend to correct this interpretation with this lawsuit.
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
more...
ilikekilo
04-30 05:09 PM
Some idiot gave me a red for asking for this translation...Whoever that is, please note that not all speak Hindi and I wanted to know what the poster was saying. So, go screw yourself if you don't like it.:mad::mad:
how do u know if someone gives u red?
how do u know if someone gives u red?
nk2006
10-21 03:32 PM
I am sending PMs to senior members of forum requesting to send emails. Started with "A" :)
Thank you for doing this.
Thank you for doing this.
more...
PD_Dec2002
06-02 10:12 PM
Canadian_Dream, I think your interpretation is wrong..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what AILA, our core group and other attorneys are trying to say is that as long as you filed before May 15, 2007 you will be fine regardless of whether your petition is pending or approved. There is no dispute about this point. Any applications that were filed after May 15, 2007 will become null and void the day this bill is signed by the president to make it a law. The 'effective date' ( Oct 1, 2008 ) does not apply for applications filed after May 15, 2007. I will be glad if you can prove me wrong :)
java_jaggu :
yes, we both are saying the same thing.
Thanks,
Jayant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what AILA, our core group and other attorneys are trying to say is that as long as you filed before May 15, 2007 you will be fine regardless of whether your petition is pending or approved. There is no dispute about this point. Any applications that were filed after May 15, 2007 will become null and void the day this bill is signed by the president to make it a law. The 'effective date' ( Oct 1, 2008 ) does not apply for applications filed after May 15, 2007. I will be glad if you can prove me wrong :)
java_jaggu :
yes, we both are saying the same thing.
Thanks,
Jayant
2010 University of Pennsylvania
Struggle
09-12 07:53 PM
I was at SJ rally and it was an awesome feeling to participate and hear all the honks.
Unfortunately cannot make it to the DC rally, but have been spreading the word through emails and diggs.
Milind i have contributed $100 now.
paypal transaction id: 88886835PG920640K
Thanks for your support.
Unfortunately cannot make it to the DC rally, but have been spreading the word through emails and diggs.
Milind i have contributed $100 now.
paypal transaction id: 88886835PG920640K
Thanks for your support.
more...
arnab221
07-28 01:30 PM
Folks ,
Any approvals for the month of June ? Is there any hope for June filers ? There seems to lot of approvals since last 2 weeks folks . Can IV core provide some direction and guidance to the people stuck at Atlanta service center ?
Any approvals for the month of June ? Is there any hope for June filers ? There seems to lot of approvals since last 2 weeks folks . Can IV core provide some direction and guidance to the people stuck at Atlanta service center ?
hair University of Pennsylvania
SkilledWorker4GC
07-15 10:37 AM
Money raised in a day = $1014.00
Lets raise $2000 today.
Please keep track of $$ raised. It helps motivate ppl. to come forward
Lets raise $2000 today.
Please keep track of $$ raised. It helps motivate ppl. to come forward
more...
pcs
07-05 10:45 AM
Why Dont You Do It ??????????
hot University of Pennsylvania
Green.Tech
05-23 03:19 PM
Keep the contributions coming guys! These bills are a golden opportunity for us...We don't want IV to stop short of funds on its efforts, do we?
more...
house university of pennsylvania
tinamatthew
07-22 10:48 PM
^^^^^
tattoo University of Pennsylvania
ramaonline
09-04 07:16 PM
H1 status ends once u start using EAD (This happens after u file I9 with employer) Once you start working using EAD card, you cannot maintain h1b status at the same time.
more...
pictures University of Pennsylvania
Mahatma
07-14 01:15 PM
Could you give me IV address wherein I can send my cheque?
Small is beautiful. Kaizen means small change but consistent change. It brings good results.
Thanks for doing this.
Small is beautiful. Kaizen means small change but consistent change. It brings good results.
Thanks for doing this.
dresses University of Pennsylvania
9years
10-29 11:13 AM
NO LUD on I-485 yet.
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
makeup University of Pennsylvania
Karthikthiru
09-12 12:04 PM
I will also start to work on this
Karthik
Karthik
girlfriend University of Pennsylvania
continuedProgress
01-06 06:07 PM
Looking for info on ADIT photographs?
Option 1 - looking up photograph specifications in AP filing info.
Option 2 - search on google.
HTH
Option 1 - looking up photograph specifications in AP filing info.
Option 2 - search on google.
HTH
hairstyles University of Pennsylvania
truthinspector
09-14 10:12 PM
Well said ! It seems some people are under the assumption here that every EB2 has a higher IQ and skill than every EB3. I dont know where that logic comes from. Not to offend any highly educated EB2/EB1, but I have personally known so many highly qualified engineers who are extremely incompentent. A person's skill has no direct correlation with the EB category under which (s)he is filed. In my current job, I also know a EB1 engineer whose skills were questionable and was recently kicked out.
There is no reason to divide the community further. The notion of fairness is already destroyed due to pre-approved labor. I know someone who used it, and has a GC now. But guess what, he gets kicked out of any job every 6 months since he has no skills. Now , its easy for him to find a new job, since he has the GC. But 6 more months (or sometimes lesser) and he is jobless.
A lot of people had applied in EB3 since EB3 was current for a fairly long time and their lawyers suggested them
to do so to avoid additional documentation. Many of these people could have applied in EB2 as they had the required qualification including me (US masters). Just like you could have applied in EB1 since you have a Ph.D; but you decided to apply in EB2.
The catagory on which a person applies for greencard doesn't necessarily reflect his/her capability or intelligence. After all, if Michael Dell or Bill Gates had to apply for green card they had to apply in EB3. On the other hand, a lot of EB2 filers just fabricated their resumes with years of experience to qualify for EB2. But that shouldn't overcast shadows on real EB2 peoples ability.
I don't know from where you got your Ph.D but it definitely didn't inprove your ability to think rationally as evident in your post.
There is no reason to divide the community further. The notion of fairness is already destroyed due to pre-approved labor. I know someone who used it, and has a GC now. But guess what, he gets kicked out of any job every 6 months since he has no skills. Now , its easy for him to find a new job, since he has the GC. But 6 more months (or sometimes lesser) and he is jobless.
A lot of people had applied in EB3 since EB3 was current for a fairly long time and their lawyers suggested them
to do so to avoid additional documentation. Many of these people could have applied in EB2 as they had the required qualification including me (US masters). Just like you could have applied in EB1 since you have a Ph.D; but you decided to apply in EB2.
The catagory on which a person applies for greencard doesn't necessarily reflect his/her capability or intelligence. After all, if Michael Dell or Bill Gates had to apply for green card they had to apply in EB3. On the other hand, a lot of EB2 filers just fabricated their resumes with years of experience to qualify for EB2. But that shouldn't overcast shadows on real EB2 peoples ability.
I don't know from where you got your Ph.D but it definitely didn't inprove your ability to think rationally as evident in your post.
piyu7444
09-12 07:40 PM
I am in....will do what the group decides for...........clock, call whatever...
Ann Ruben
05-14 04:53 PM
I believe so. I assume that USCIS eventually sends a letter acknowledging the revocation, but I don't know for sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment