english_august
07-09 07:17 PM
USCIS has decided that the flowers sent by skilled, legal immigrants to director Dr. Emilio Gonzalez will be forwarded to injured service members recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
We welcome the fact that Dr. Gonzalez acknowledged the symbolic gesture of our protest. We are even more happy that these flowers will brighten the day of our injured service brethren. It is their contribution to the American freedom that has made this country such a desirable destination for highly skilled professionals from all over the world.
We also want to convey to the service personnel receiving those flowers that our message accompanying those flowers is, "Thank You and God Bless You".
---------------------------------
We welcome the fact that Dr. Gonzalez acknowledged the symbolic gesture of our protest. We are even more happy that these flowers will brighten the day of our injured service brethren. It is their contribution to the American freedom that has made this country such a desirable destination for highly skilled professionals from all over the world.
We also want to convey to the service personnel receiving those flowers that our message accompanying those flowers is, "Thank You and God Bless You".
---------------------------------
wallpaper terrell owens wallpaper.
MeraNaamJoker
08-12 01:06 PM
Is USCIS following any pattern while approving I485 cases when the dates are current?.
Nothing in particular. Some patterns which were discussed here were mere coincedence.
Nothing in particular. Some patterns which were discussed here were mere coincedence.
ramaonline
07-10 08:06 PM
The flower campaign is mentioned on the homepage of ilw.com along with a link to IV. This is a very popular site for Immigration related information and articles
2011 TERRELL OWENS
bobzibub
06-22 09:59 AM
The real question is whether 2 files is ok with USCIS. Lawyers are giving different opinion on whether u can do it or not.
If u can file 2 sets, then do ead/ap on one.
They probably won't even look at my wife's 485 for a year. But I *think* that the EAD/ap should be under my wife's. Not sure though. I would like both asap.
If u can file 2 sets, then do ead/ap on one.
They probably won't even look at my wife's 485 for a year. But I *think* that the EAD/ap should be under my wife's. Not sure though. I would like both asap.
more...
ncrtpMay2004
08-07 07:47 AM
Best of Luck.
Before you file the law suit consider this,
The system is designed to get GC faster to the smarter (EB1, EB2, EB3 etc) or the rich (Investor). Sometimes circumstances decide in which queue you start the journey, Employer, attorney, how many days left in h1b etc, etc, etc
I do not like to jump queues and resent people who jump queues. But these are the people who look for opportunities and exploit them. These are the smart ones.
System favors people who are skilled (higher the better), By finding (new Labor, new I140) and using an opportunity these people have proved that they are worthy of the faster queue (eb3 to eb2, eb2 to eb1 etc).
What is wrong in rewarding the hardworking smart person with the original PD. After all that PD was established for that person(thank god LC sub is gone). That is the day an employer decided to sponsor GC for that person.
I know you are asking
�What about me, I was working hard in the University (MS/PhD)?�
Your reward is you get to start the journey in EB2, 1 year+ in EAD and 6 years in H1. If you are really smart you would have got your employer to apply for GC with at least 5 years left on your H1 clock.
The system is designed to create conflict.
Having to exit the freeway to change lanes does not make sense to me.
Before you file the law suit consider this,
The system is designed to get GC faster to the smarter (EB1, EB2, EB3 etc) or the rich (Investor). Sometimes circumstances decide in which queue you start the journey, Employer, attorney, how many days left in h1b etc, etc, etc
I do not like to jump queues and resent people who jump queues. But these are the people who look for opportunities and exploit them. These are the smart ones.
System favors people who are skilled (higher the better), By finding (new Labor, new I140) and using an opportunity these people have proved that they are worthy of the faster queue (eb3 to eb2, eb2 to eb1 etc).
What is wrong in rewarding the hardworking smart person with the original PD. After all that PD was established for that person(thank god LC sub is gone). That is the day an employer decided to sponsor GC for that person.
I know you are asking
�What about me, I was working hard in the University (MS/PhD)?�
Your reward is you get to start the journey in EB2, 1 year+ in EAD and 6 years in H1. If you are really smart you would have got your employer to apply for GC with at least 5 years left on your H1 clock.
The system is designed to create conflict.
Having to exit the freeway to change lanes does not make sense to me.
rcr_bulk
08-25 05:01 PM
Vonage was just responding to the competition.
Lingo has a world plan which included unlimited calling to 30 countries( India not included)
India calls were just 2 cents per minute. I switched to Lingo from Vonage 2 months back. Sensing this mass exodus, vonage came up with an even more aggressive plan.
Competition is good !
How is your experience with Lingo customer service. Last year, I tried to switch to Lingo and the lady at customer service is very rude. She is so tired to answer questions and asked me to get all from website. I stopped switching to them.
Lingo has a world plan which included unlimited calling to 30 countries( India not included)
India calls were just 2 cents per minute. I switched to Lingo from Vonage 2 months back. Sensing this mass exodus, vonage came up with an even more aggressive plan.
Competition is good !
How is your experience with Lingo customer service. Last year, I tried to switch to Lingo and the lady at customer service is very rude. She is so tired to answer questions and asked me to get all from website. I stopped switching to them.
more...
arun397
08-05 09:49 PM
When does his Citizenship promotion act 2007 come for the debate!!!!
2010 Terrell Owens @ Drai#39;s
sc3
08-20 02:50 PM
The item mentioned above is for EB2, meaning any spill over to EB2 is from unused EB1.
for EB3 the ACT mentions the following
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
The meaning is EB3 gets all unused from EB1 and EB2... This is the catch, does this mean spillover from EB1 after EB2 catches up (or) spillover from EB1 even if EB2 is not current..
If they have done spillover from EB1 to EB3, even when EB2 is not current...we can give this a try.
Sorry for the confusion...Just got excited and went over the allocation of visas from the ACT
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
It actually comes down to the language. I haven't read the rollover from EB to FB (if at all it happens), but look at the language for EB1. It talks about regular number + any not used by EB5. The language for EB5 is lost when it trickles down.
Does it mean: 1. EB5 can only be used by Eb1 and not rolled down further?
or
2) Does it mean that any of the EB5 unused numbers that are also not required by Eb1 rolls down to EB2.
If it is choice 1, then I suspect we have no case. If however, it is choice 2, then it is clear through the language that spill over Eb1 goes to Eb2 and EB3 at the same time. If not, based on the language of EB1, Eb3 would have just said "unused numbers of EB2", which means it would use Eb1 numbers only if Eb2 did not need them.
Suggestion to go via AILA is a good one, but do we have contact into AILA??
for EB3 the ACT mentions the following
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
The meaning is EB3 gets all unused from EB1 and EB2... This is the catch, does this mean spillover from EB1 after EB2 catches up (or) spillover from EB1 even if EB2 is not current..
If they have done spillover from EB1 to EB3, even when EB2 is not current...we can give this a try.
Sorry for the confusion...Just got excited and went over the allocation of visas from the ACT
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
It actually comes down to the language. I haven't read the rollover from EB to FB (if at all it happens), but look at the language for EB1. It talks about regular number + any not used by EB5. The language for EB5 is lost when it trickles down.
Does it mean: 1. EB5 can only be used by Eb1 and not rolled down further?
or
2) Does it mean that any of the EB5 unused numbers that are also not required by Eb1 rolls down to EB2.
If it is choice 1, then I suspect we have no case. If however, it is choice 2, then it is clear through the language that spill over Eb1 goes to Eb2 and EB3 at the same time. If not, based on the language of EB1, Eb3 would have just said "unused numbers of EB2", which means it would use Eb1 numbers only if Eb2 did not need them.
Suggestion to go via AILA is a good one, but do we have contact into AILA??
more...
Ramba
08-21 05:25 PM
. The ambiguity of the law for the preference of vertical vs. horizontal spill-over allowed them to do that.
There is no ambiguity in law. The law is clear. One law (and one rule) should yield one interpretation. If someone interperting the languge of law differently; then that is their mistake. Thats what DOS was doing in between 2001 and 2006. This could be possible for them because no one was going after DOS. Now somehow they realized (or some affected applicants notified DOS). If the old practice is a result of correct interpretation of law, why they should change now? This is very high sensitive area; DOS might have not changed their practice without risk analysis. They should not care about how much retrogression in India; They should only care about implementing the law correctly, as becuase they are executive branch of government not legislative branch to worry about retrogression.
There is no ambiguity in law. The law is clear. One law (and one rule) should yield one interpretation. If someone interperting the languge of law differently; then that is their mistake. Thats what DOS was doing in between 2001 and 2006. This could be possible for them because no one was going after DOS. Now somehow they realized (or some affected applicants notified DOS). If the old practice is a result of correct interpretation of law, why they should change now? This is very high sensitive area; DOS might have not changed their practice without risk analysis. They should not care about how much retrogression in India; They should only care about implementing the law correctly, as becuase they are executive branch of government not legislative branch to worry about retrogression.
hair Terrell Owens | Super Bowl
anilkumar0902
08-17 03:40 PM
I just found this old post about ADIT and it should clear any doubts..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/21012-what-is-adit-processing-in-gc-process.html
Enjoy..
Cheers
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/21012-what-is-adit-processing-in-gc-process.html
Enjoy..
Cheers
more...
ItIsNotFunny
11-06 10:43 AM
Too lazy
Too scary
Too selfish
So far I am lazy. I am sending them today.
Its pity that we call our selves as most educated intellectual group but can't stand for group efforts. Intelligence has no value if you can not stand for yourself. This is why Joe the plumber gets more attention than us.
Too scary
Too selfish
So far I am lazy. I am sending them today.
Its pity that we call our selves as most educated intellectual group but can't stand for group efforts. Intelligence has no value if you can not stand for yourself. This is why Joe the plumber gets more attention than us.
hot Terrell Owens decided to show
vshar
04-08 10:22 PM
Hello ajaysuri, Nil, saralayaar, trueguy and all those who support this idea,
I just happened to look at this thread and I give my 100% support to this idea.
I will mail the letter mentioned at page 10.
Please let me know what else I can do.
I think IV core has gone on long vacation or they already got their GCs.
:eek:
I just happened to look at this thread and I give my 100% support to this idea.
I will mail the letter mentioned at page 10.
Please let me know what else I can do.
I think IV core has gone on long vacation or they already got their GCs.
:eek:
more...
house of NFL star Terrell Owens.
nomad
07-12 02:22 AM
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/262484.html
Editorial: Green card fiasco
Stop mistreating those who play by rules
-
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, July 9, 2007
If you want to know what's really wrong with our immigration system, consider the July debacle at the Citizen and Immigration Service.
Individuals and businesses typically have to wait years to apply for "green cards" for permanent residency based on job skills. The backlogs have been so severe that an engineer from India or China has had to wait six years to apply for a green card. In other employment categories, the wait can be nine to 11 years. For people from the Philippines, the wait in some work categories is 22 years.
But then in the monthly Visa Bulletin issued June 13, the State Department said that employment-based visas would be available.
This set off a rush among sponsoring businesses and individuals who have waited in line for years to apply for green cards. Thousands prepared applications and mailed them in time for the immigration service to receive them by July 2, the first day of the application window.
Then on that very day, the State Department issued a "never mind" update, announcing that the 60,000 green cards it had expected to offer would no longer be available. The thousands who submitted applications will have their applications sent back to them.
As Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said last Tuesday, "We're right back to square one, with scientists, engineers, teachers and health care workers having to wait in endless lines for employment-based visas."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law sent irate letters to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. She said that changing course midmonth is contrary to years of practice, would result in the loss of thousands of dollars already expended by sponsoring businesses and individuals to prepare applications and, more important, would "threaten the integrity and predictability of our immigration system."
This is no way to treat people who try to play by the rules.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman notes in his 2007 annual report to Congress that the nation has a "perpetual backlog" of employment-based green card applications. This backlog means that even green cards that should be available aren't used. This contributes to the backlog; if green cards are not issued in the year they are authorized, they are lost.
In 2006, more than 10,000 employment-based green cards were lost, even though the immigration service had 100,000 to 150,000 applications waiting to be processed. Since 1994, nearly 219,000 employment-based green cards have been lost because the immigration service isn't processing enough applications in a timely manner.
It gets worse. The funds appropriated by Congress to jumpstart a backlog elimination project expired Sept. 30. The backlog will continue.
In the long term, this country needs to increase the number of employment-based green cards to meet demand. But if the immigration service cannot even process applications in a timely fashion for the current numbers of employment-based green cards that are supposed to be available, what's the point?
In the short term, if Congress and the president do nothing else regarding immigration reform, they should at least make sure that the immigration service processes green card applications in timely fashion. The backlog is inexcusable and contributes to the nation's illegal immigration problem. If we want people to play by the rules, we have to make it possible for them to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial: Green card fiasco
Stop mistreating those who play by rules
-
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, July 9, 2007
If you want to know what's really wrong with our immigration system, consider the July debacle at the Citizen and Immigration Service.
Individuals and businesses typically have to wait years to apply for "green cards" for permanent residency based on job skills. The backlogs have been so severe that an engineer from India or China has had to wait six years to apply for a green card. In other employment categories, the wait can be nine to 11 years. For people from the Philippines, the wait in some work categories is 22 years.
But then in the monthly Visa Bulletin issued June 13, the State Department said that employment-based visas would be available.
This set off a rush among sponsoring businesses and individuals who have waited in line for years to apply for green cards. Thousands prepared applications and mailed them in time for the immigration service to receive them by July 2, the first day of the application window.
Then on that very day, the State Department issued a "never mind" update, announcing that the 60,000 green cards it had expected to offer would no longer be available. The thousands who submitted applications will have their applications sent back to them.
As Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said last Tuesday, "We're right back to square one, with scientists, engineers, teachers and health care workers having to wait in endless lines for employment-based visas."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law sent irate letters to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. She said that changing course midmonth is contrary to years of practice, would result in the loss of thousands of dollars already expended by sponsoring businesses and individuals to prepare applications and, more important, would "threaten the integrity and predictability of our immigration system."
This is no way to treat people who try to play by the rules.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman notes in his 2007 annual report to Congress that the nation has a "perpetual backlog" of employment-based green card applications. This backlog means that even green cards that should be available aren't used. This contributes to the backlog; if green cards are not issued in the year they are authorized, they are lost.
In 2006, more than 10,000 employment-based green cards were lost, even though the immigration service had 100,000 to 150,000 applications waiting to be processed. Since 1994, nearly 219,000 employment-based green cards have been lost because the immigration service isn't processing enough applications in a timely manner.
It gets worse. The funds appropriated by Congress to jumpstart a backlog elimination project expired Sept. 30. The backlog will continue.
In the long term, this country needs to increase the number of employment-based green cards to meet demand. But if the immigration service cannot even process applications in a timely fashion for the current numbers of employment-based green cards that are supposed to be available, what's the point?
In the short term, if Congress and the president do nothing else regarding immigration reform, they should at least make sure that the immigration service processes green card applications in timely fashion. The backlog is inexcusable and contributes to the nation's illegal immigration problem. If we want people to play by the rules, we have to make it possible for them to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tattoo Terrell Owens wants Michael
tempy
09-15 08:01 AM
I was wondering why the status went backwards (from CPO to Decision) and if that that is a normal process.
Thanks,
I got one more email with the update (this is third email with the same staus "CPO"). This time I have SLUD on EAD and AP also. Here is the email...
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production
On September 14, 2010 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
My wife received here Welcome letter but I did not get one yet. Here is my timeline...
09/08/2010 - CPO emails for self and wife
09/09/2010 - Got emails updating the status to Decision for self and wife
09/10/2010 - Standard CPO email to self
09/11/2010 - Wife got the welcome letter (I-797) by USPS
09/15/2010 - CPO email to self with the new message (Document sent to address on file)
Still waiting for cards in hand.
Thanks,
Tempy
Thanks,
I got one more email with the update (this is third email with the same staus "CPO"). This time I have SLUD on EAD and AP also. Here is the email...
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production
On September 14, 2010 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
My wife received here Welcome letter but I did not get one yet. Here is my timeline...
09/08/2010 - CPO emails for self and wife
09/09/2010 - Got emails updating the status to Decision for self and wife
09/10/2010 - Standard CPO email to self
09/11/2010 - Wife got the welcome letter (I-797) by USPS
09/15/2010 - CPO email to self with the new message (Document sent to address on file)
Still waiting for cards in hand.
Thanks,
Tempy
more...
pictures Terrell Owens picture gallery
chantu
09-09 04:21 PM
I agree. Other non-useful threads are more active than this.
I am surprised that all other threads are getting updated quite frequently. People are posting question related to their RFE and as usual once they get answer to their problems, they vanish. People are posting jokes on IV, but when it is their turn to call, we've to "bump" this thread and send e-mails to members. So pathetic.
I felt very sad when I read 30000+ members donated some 4000 dollars in last two months. I felt my donation of about 1000 dollars since 2006 is being wasted to answer questions of or to solve the problems of these free riders &/or one question members.
I am surprised that all other threads are getting updated quite frequently. People are posting question related to their RFE and as usual once they get answer to their problems, they vanish. People are posting jokes on IV, but when it is their turn to call, we've to "bump" this thread and send e-mails to members. So pathetic.
I felt very sad when I read 30000+ members donated some 4000 dollars in last two months. I felt my donation of about 1000 dollars since 2006 is being wasted to answer questions of or to solve the problems of these free riders &/or one question members.
dresses Terrell Owens Pictures
Macaca
12-05 04:15 PM
AMY GOODMAN: In the beginning of the broadcast, we played a clip�
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: �of you talking about various concerns that you have around immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: The last part of that clip�and maybe we can play it again�
LOU DOBBS: Illegal immigrants, if I may, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Illegal immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Only illegal immigrants.
AMY GOODMAN: Maybe we can play a last part of this clip that we played, just to go through it again. We�ll see if our folks have that clip ready. And this is the clip that we played in the billboard. It�s�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I can recall what was said if it�s at all helpful. I said that according to a study�I didn�t use the attribution, but according to a study that Jorge Borjas at Harvard University had completed, that the cost of excess immigration into this country amounts to $200 billion a year in wages, that the cost of incarceration, medical care, social services approximates $50 billion in this country per year. And the reality is that about a third of the crimes that are of those in state prisons�federal prisons, excuse me, federal prisons, are�I�m sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: Are�?
LOU DOBBS: Are those who are in this country illegally.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s play it.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: And then let�s talk about it.
Let�s say the number is eleven million, although some studies put the number as high as twenty million illegal aliens in this country. That not only amounts to a shift of six to ten congressional seats among the states based on the population of illegal immigration. The fact is, those illegal aliens are costing our economy $200 billion in depressed wages for working Americans. It is costing $50 billion a year in social and medical costs. And it�s costing us, no one knows precisely how much, to incarcerate what is about a third of our prison population who are illegal aliens.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it�s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.
LOU DOBBS: Well, it�s actually�I think it�s 26% in federal prison.
AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.
LOU DOBBS: I said about�yes, but I�and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn�t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn�t, but then I just explained it to you.
AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.
LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.
AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants�
LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.
AMY GOODMAN: �in this country, of prisoners�
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: �are immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we�ve established�we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That�s what I was referring to. I did not�I misspoke when I said �prisons.� I was referring to the federal prisons, because that�s the federal crime: immigration. And that�
AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of�?
LOU DOBBS: I�m sure we have. We�ve reported�absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: We didn�t see it.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know how many reports we�ve done on illegal immigration in this country?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, many.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, my god.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, but I�d like to get into this issue�I mean, aside from the fact that the GAO report�
LOU DOBBS: Excuse me, just one second.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Sure.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, what if I were to sit here and just hound you because you said I was anti-immigrant, when I am, point of fact, I�m anti-illegal immigrant, and it�s absolutely a matter of fact. We could quarrel over the terminology, if you want. But why should people of good faith and intelligence sit there and be so absurd about it?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we agree on that. But this is precisely the lumping of illegal or undocumented immigrants and legal immigrants in one category that�s a problem�
LOU DOBBS: Right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �because, for instance�
LOU DOBBS: Right, I agree with you.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �the total percentage of the non-citizen population of the United States right now is about thirty-five million, 12% of the population.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know this?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, this is Census Bureau�
LOU DOBBS: I was just�I was just�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Wait, wait, Lou. Let me finish. Let me finish, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: I have to say, I was laughing about the NIE, because, as you heard Steve Hadley talk about�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: �high confidence levels in those estimates,�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Right, but let me�
LOU DOBBS: What do you suppose the confidence level is of the United States government in the number of people in this country illegally, the number of people�
JUAN GONZALEZ: We�re assuming now�the legal population is pretty well documented, right? But the�
LOU DOBBS: Documented, undocumented.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The legal immigrant population is pretty well documented. It�s about twenty-three million. And then you add maybe another eleven to twelve million of the undocumented population, and you get thirty-five million. The point is�my point is this: if 12% of the non-citizen population of the United States�non-citizens comprise 12% of the population. They comprise 6% of the prison population. That suggests to me that crime rates are far lower among non-citizen immigrants�legal and illegal�than they are among the general population of the United States.
LOU DOBBS: Can I ask you a question?
JUAN GONZALEZ: You have raised the issue of crime�you�ve raised the issue of crime in relationship to immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Well, silly me, silly me. MS-13, all sorts of gangs. You know, the fact that Mexico is the largest source of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, marijuana entering the United States. Silly me for bringing up crack.
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: But may I ask you a question?
AMY GOODMAN: I think you agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: I think you would agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: �that facts matter.
LOU DOBBS: Of course, they do. Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: And so�
LOU DOBBS: I am an empericist to the bone.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, if 6% of prisoners are immigrants�documented and undocumented�and you said 30% of prisoners, a third of the population of prisons in this country, are prisoners, it conveys a very different sense.
LOU DOBBS: Different meaning.
AMY GOODMAN: And as you�ve pointed out�
LOU DOBBS: I agree.
AMY GOODMAN: �you�ve done hundreds of shows on these issues.
LOU DOBBS: More than that. More like thousands.
AMY GOODMAN: And that reinforces the feeling that people have, who watch the show�
LOU DOBBS: So, your point is?
AMY GOODMAN: �either they believe you or�either they don�t believe you, or they believe you and are being fed wrong information.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I don�t�you know, I think it�s important for all of us, because, as you say, I�m�we�re all interested in the facts. So let me ask both of you, please, a question that seeks a fact: Does the United States government and do state governments inquire of their prisoners as to whether they are legal or illegal, and can they under the law? Or are these estimates that we�re talking about?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, if the government doesn�t know, how do you know?
LOU DOBBS: No, that�s as straightforward question.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you know?
LOU DOBBS: Well, because in the federal prisons, they are permitted to make a decision as to whether or not they can ask if they�re citizens or non-citizens, but cannot ask if they�re legal or illegal. So it is, at best, a projection. When Juan says eleven million to twelve million illegal aliens, you and I both know that the Bear Stearns study suggests twenty million people. There is no one in this country today�that�s why I referred to the National Intelligence�
AMY GOODMAN: And the Bear Stearns study has been critiqued over and over again�
LOU DOBBS: By whom?
AMY GOODMAN: �by the top economists.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on!
AMY GOODMAN: Bear Stearns study, saying it is wildly exaggerated, that their�
LOU DOBBS: The National Intelligence Estimate is closer probably on Iran today than it is on the makeup of the US population today. I mean, if you want to talk about this nonsense, I mean, that�s what it is.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s go to break, and we�ll come back.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Lou Dobbs. He is the well-known anchor of CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight and has written a new book called Independents Day. We�ll be back with him in a minute.
[break]
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: �of you talking about various concerns that you have around immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: The last part of that clip�and maybe we can play it again�
LOU DOBBS: Illegal immigrants, if I may, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Illegal immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Only illegal immigrants.
AMY GOODMAN: Maybe we can play a last part of this clip that we played, just to go through it again. We�ll see if our folks have that clip ready. And this is the clip that we played in the billboard. It�s�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I can recall what was said if it�s at all helpful. I said that according to a study�I didn�t use the attribution, but according to a study that Jorge Borjas at Harvard University had completed, that the cost of excess immigration into this country amounts to $200 billion a year in wages, that the cost of incarceration, medical care, social services approximates $50 billion in this country per year. And the reality is that about a third of the crimes that are of those in state prisons�federal prisons, excuse me, federal prisons, are�I�m sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: Are�?
LOU DOBBS: Are those who are in this country illegally.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s play it.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: And then let�s talk about it.
Let�s say the number is eleven million, although some studies put the number as high as twenty million illegal aliens in this country. That not only amounts to a shift of six to ten congressional seats among the states based on the population of illegal immigration. The fact is, those illegal aliens are costing our economy $200 billion in depressed wages for working Americans. It is costing $50 billion a year in social and medical costs. And it�s costing us, no one knows precisely how much, to incarcerate what is about a third of our prison population who are illegal aliens.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it�s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.
LOU DOBBS: Well, it�s actually�I think it�s 26% in federal prison.
AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.
LOU DOBBS: I said about�yes, but I�and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn�t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn�t, but then I just explained it to you.
AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.
LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.
AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants�
LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.
AMY GOODMAN: �in this country, of prisoners�
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: �are immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we�ve established�we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That�s what I was referring to. I did not�I misspoke when I said �prisons.� I was referring to the federal prisons, because that�s the federal crime: immigration. And that�
AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of�?
LOU DOBBS: I�m sure we have. We�ve reported�absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: We didn�t see it.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know how many reports we�ve done on illegal immigration in this country?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, many.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, my god.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, but I�d like to get into this issue�I mean, aside from the fact that the GAO report�
LOU DOBBS: Excuse me, just one second.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Sure.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, what if I were to sit here and just hound you because you said I was anti-immigrant, when I am, point of fact, I�m anti-illegal immigrant, and it�s absolutely a matter of fact. We could quarrel over the terminology, if you want. But why should people of good faith and intelligence sit there and be so absurd about it?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we agree on that. But this is precisely the lumping of illegal or undocumented immigrants and legal immigrants in one category that�s a problem�
LOU DOBBS: Right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �because, for instance�
LOU DOBBS: Right, I agree with you.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �the total percentage of the non-citizen population of the United States right now is about thirty-five million, 12% of the population.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know this?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, this is Census Bureau�
LOU DOBBS: I was just�I was just�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Wait, wait, Lou. Let me finish. Let me finish, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: I have to say, I was laughing about the NIE, because, as you heard Steve Hadley talk about�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: �high confidence levels in those estimates,�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Right, but let me�
LOU DOBBS: What do you suppose the confidence level is of the United States government in the number of people in this country illegally, the number of people�
JUAN GONZALEZ: We�re assuming now�the legal population is pretty well documented, right? But the�
LOU DOBBS: Documented, undocumented.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The legal immigrant population is pretty well documented. It�s about twenty-three million. And then you add maybe another eleven to twelve million of the undocumented population, and you get thirty-five million. The point is�my point is this: if 12% of the non-citizen population of the United States�non-citizens comprise 12% of the population. They comprise 6% of the prison population. That suggests to me that crime rates are far lower among non-citizen immigrants�legal and illegal�than they are among the general population of the United States.
LOU DOBBS: Can I ask you a question?
JUAN GONZALEZ: You have raised the issue of crime�you�ve raised the issue of crime in relationship to immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Well, silly me, silly me. MS-13, all sorts of gangs. You know, the fact that Mexico is the largest source of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, marijuana entering the United States. Silly me for bringing up crack.
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: But may I ask you a question?
AMY GOODMAN: I think you agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: I think you would agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: �that facts matter.
LOU DOBBS: Of course, they do. Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: And so�
LOU DOBBS: I am an empericist to the bone.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, if 6% of prisoners are immigrants�documented and undocumented�and you said 30% of prisoners, a third of the population of prisons in this country, are prisoners, it conveys a very different sense.
LOU DOBBS: Different meaning.
AMY GOODMAN: And as you�ve pointed out�
LOU DOBBS: I agree.
AMY GOODMAN: �you�ve done hundreds of shows on these issues.
LOU DOBBS: More than that. More like thousands.
AMY GOODMAN: And that reinforces the feeling that people have, who watch the show�
LOU DOBBS: So, your point is?
AMY GOODMAN: �either they believe you or�either they don�t believe you, or they believe you and are being fed wrong information.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I don�t�you know, I think it�s important for all of us, because, as you say, I�m�we�re all interested in the facts. So let me ask both of you, please, a question that seeks a fact: Does the United States government and do state governments inquire of their prisoners as to whether they are legal or illegal, and can they under the law? Or are these estimates that we�re talking about?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, if the government doesn�t know, how do you know?
LOU DOBBS: No, that�s as straightforward question.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you know?
LOU DOBBS: Well, because in the federal prisons, they are permitted to make a decision as to whether or not they can ask if they�re citizens or non-citizens, but cannot ask if they�re legal or illegal. So it is, at best, a projection. When Juan says eleven million to twelve million illegal aliens, you and I both know that the Bear Stearns study suggests twenty million people. There is no one in this country today�that�s why I referred to the National Intelligence�
AMY GOODMAN: And the Bear Stearns study has been critiqued over and over again�
LOU DOBBS: By whom?
AMY GOODMAN: �by the top economists.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on!
AMY GOODMAN: Bear Stearns study, saying it is wildly exaggerated, that their�
LOU DOBBS: The National Intelligence Estimate is closer probably on Iran today than it is on the makeup of the US population today. I mean, if you want to talk about this nonsense, I mean, that�s what it is.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s go to break, and we�ll come back.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Lou Dobbs. He is the well-known anchor of CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight and has written a new book called Independents Day. We�ll be back with him in a minute.
[break]
more...
makeup Terrell Owens tackles a
logiclife
01-05 03:39 PM
ON this org. I am one of them. My PD is Sept 2004 and my labor is approved but I am on EB3 sitting and waiting for I-485 to open up for me. In fact, my guessestimate is that there might be more EB3s here than EB2s but that's something not important right now.
We are going to push for quota raise for all EB GCs, not just EB2 or EB1. Also, the biggest and most critical push is going to be for allowing people to apply for I-485 even during retrogression.
We are going to push for quota raise for all EB GCs, not just EB2 or EB1. Also, the biggest and most critical push is going to be for allowing people to apply for I-485 even during retrogression.
girlfriend Terrell Owens Photos
ski_dude12
09-24 07:10 PM
So they approved your case even before you could reply to the RFE?
Well I got RFE then within a week got Card Production ordered email then within 12 hrs got mail undelivered email..
I have not replied to RFE yet.
Contacted USCIS but *** they are telling talk to Post office :eek:
Well I got RFE then within a week got Card Production ordered email then within 12 hrs got mail undelivered email..
I have not replied to RFE yet.
Contacted USCIS but *** they are telling talk to Post office :eek:
hairstyles player Terrell Owens,
GCwaitforever
03-26 11:05 AM
Always complain, even if there is no hard proof. The companies may not tell you on your face that they do not hire EADs. But the hiring manager or recruiter must be acting on a policy made elsewhere in the company, directed by some higher-up officials. It will be written somewhere. In that case, OSC can ask for archived e-mails, and phone conversations for a record of discrimination. If discrimination is proved, company is liable for fines, and the higher-up official is sacked. If there is no official communication, the company can claim that the hiring manager or recruiter is acting on his/her own and it is not the company policy. Then the hiring manager or recruiter is fired and the company pledges to enforce the rules strictly. Always a positive outcome for us.
Complain to EEOC also in addition to OSC. Double the pressure on the erring company and you would see quick results.
Complain to EEOC also in addition to OSC. Double the pressure on the erring company and you would see quick results.
ab_tak_chappan
08-20 11:58 PM
Guys why dont you get it??? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
EB1 is the most imp for US, followed by EB2, followed by EB3?
Why should USCIS follow the approach of oldest priority first? without any regards to the EB categories?
EB categories were created for a reason, doesn't matter how smart you are. If you are in lower skill category your wait is bound to be more. I don't see anything wrong in that.
If EB1 is current and EB2 takes 4-5 years you can't just start crying. Similarly if EB2 takes 2 years and Eb3 takes 7-8 years you can't panic. Stop being a cry baby and start respecting the inter EB level priority.
EB1 is the most imp for US, followed by EB2, followed by EB3?
Why should USCIS follow the approach of oldest priority first? without any regards to the EB categories?
EB categories were created for a reason, doesn't matter how smart you are. If you are in lower skill category your wait is bound to be more. I don't see anything wrong in that.
If EB1 is current and EB2 takes 4-5 years you can't just start crying. Similarly if EB2 takes 2 years and Eb3 takes 7-8 years you can't panic. Stop being a cry baby and start respecting the inter EB level priority.
sundarpn
02-16 09:59 PM
R u going to Nogales or just called to inquire???
Nogales embassy number: 52-631-3118150
I called just to enquire. I am hoping that the PIMS is centralized so if they were able to pull it up, so will any other consulate.
Nogales embassy number: 52-631-3118150
I called just to enquire. I am hoping that the PIMS is centralized so if they were able to pull it up, so will any other consulate.
No comments:
Post a Comment