bskrishna
06-03 11:11 AM
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=855283
Armed with bipartisan support, an Arizona congressman is moving ahead with legislation that could solve a series of illegal immigration issues.
Rep. Raul Grijalva said the measures will be introduced soon and would provide expedited citizenship for active duty military members who are not U.S. citizens, and permanent resident status for their families.
House Resolution 6020 would help some of the more than 45,000 noncitizens serving in the U.S. military as of March 2007, said Grijalva, a southern Arizona Democrat.
``Some families fear immediate deportation if their noncitizen soldier is killed on active duty,'' he said.
The bill would permit family members of such soldiers to become lawful permanent residents.
A second bill calls for basic health care for detained immigrants.
House Resolution 5950 would set medical care standards for immigrant detainees.
The secretary of the U.S. Department of Health Services would be required to establish procedures for the timely and effective delivery of health care to detainees and to report the deaths of detainees to the agency and Congress. It would require any necessary medications be provided upon detention.
Grijalva may not he done yet. The congressman said he is considering co-sponsoring two more immigration bills that have bipartisan support.
One eliminates the per country limits on foreign workers who can obtain employment-based visas to work in the United States.
The second would allow about 12,000 masters or doctorate-level graduates of U.S. colleges each year who are noncitizens to obtain green cards to work in science, technology, engineering and math.
Armed with bipartisan support, an Arizona congressman is moving ahead with legislation that could solve a series of illegal immigration issues.
Rep. Raul Grijalva said the measures will be introduced soon and would provide expedited citizenship for active duty military members who are not U.S. citizens, and permanent resident status for their families.
House Resolution 6020 would help some of the more than 45,000 noncitizens serving in the U.S. military as of March 2007, said Grijalva, a southern Arizona Democrat.
``Some families fear immediate deportation if their noncitizen soldier is killed on active duty,'' he said.
The bill would permit family members of such soldiers to become lawful permanent residents.
A second bill calls for basic health care for detained immigrants.
House Resolution 5950 would set medical care standards for immigrant detainees.
The secretary of the U.S. Department of Health Services would be required to establish procedures for the timely and effective delivery of health care to detainees and to report the deaths of detainees to the agency and Congress. It would require any necessary medications be provided upon detention.
Grijalva may not he done yet. The congressman said he is considering co-sponsoring two more immigration bills that have bipartisan support.
One eliminates the per country limits on foreign workers who can obtain employment-based visas to work in the United States.
The second would allow about 12,000 masters or doctorate-level graduates of U.S. colleges each year who are noncitizens to obtain green cards to work in science, technology, engineering and math.
wallpaper classic mini cooper wallpapers
eyeswe
03-17 05:22 AM
I thought EB2 vs EB3 is mainly determined by what your job requires.. You may have a Masters but if your JD does not require one, the company cannot file you on EB2.
walking_dude
11-28 12:09 PM
Tommorrow is the D-Day. Let's try to call-in and bust his arguments. What all troublesome questions can we ask him?
2011 Mini Cooper 2010 modified limo
kubmilegaGC
09-15 11:10 PM
kubmilegaGC, Thank Q, Infact I have scheduled infopass appointment on Sept 22nd, Which I will cancel it tomorrow, I don't know you have tried the infopass,
Don't miss any opps, Try them all, Good Luck and Best Wishes
wife's SR yielded in a response of "assigned to an officer on 9/11" and my infopass today (9/15) also had the same result....so I guess its a waiting game for us! I tried normal "outside of processing window" method to file SRs but now learnt about getting to directly to talk to IO...will try that tomorrow - I wish I could bug them ay this hour :)
Don't miss any opps, Try them all, Good Luck and Best Wishes
wife's SR yielded in a response of "assigned to an officer on 9/11" and my infopass today (9/15) also had the same result....so I guess its a waiting game for us! I tried normal "outside of processing window" method to file SRs but now learnt about getting to directly to talk to IO...will try that tomorrow - I wish I could bug them ay this hour :)
more...
viva
02-05 05:55 PM
Hello everyone,
I was just thinking about this the past couple of months and maybe we dont even need to ask for Green cards. MAYBE our approach should be "Let the H4s work". Once husband and wife can both work, the green card can take its time. Right now the Biggest problem with most people is that "my spouse cannot work!". Maybe if we lobby for h4s to be eligible to work that may solve the problem.
Now before this suggestion creates a HUGE "Dhoom", this is JUST a suggestion. The current political climate does not look like it is going to be easy in any way to put any provisions for Green card increases. Besides if the logic is "Let temporary workers be temporary", this approach fits in with that logic, coz we are not asking for GCs (permanent residency), just more temporary EADs.
This is a blatant violation of what IV stands for. When you are asking for your spouse to work, you are indirectly saying that it is your priority instead of a GC.
So, are you just interested in making more money or getting a GC? If you are interested in your spouse working, it indicated you want to make more money. This will come at a cost of IV not being able to push the GC as a priority item.
Please analyze your requests, its impact on the organization and the morale of the core team before posting such irrelevant posts. Right now, the goal of the organization is to push forward the GC agenda without getting distracted with "H-4 needs to work request".
Go IV!!!!!!!!!!! Go IV Core!!!!!!
I was just thinking about this the past couple of months and maybe we dont even need to ask for Green cards. MAYBE our approach should be "Let the H4s work". Once husband and wife can both work, the green card can take its time. Right now the Biggest problem with most people is that "my spouse cannot work!". Maybe if we lobby for h4s to be eligible to work that may solve the problem.
Now before this suggestion creates a HUGE "Dhoom", this is JUST a suggestion. The current political climate does not look like it is going to be easy in any way to put any provisions for Green card increases. Besides if the logic is "Let temporary workers be temporary", this approach fits in with that logic, coz we are not asking for GCs (permanent residency), just more temporary EADs.
This is a blatant violation of what IV stands for. When you are asking for your spouse to work, you are indirectly saying that it is your priority instead of a GC.
So, are you just interested in making more money or getting a GC? If you are interested in your spouse working, it indicated you want to make more money. This will come at a cost of IV not being able to push the GC as a priority item.
Please analyze your requests, its impact on the organization and the morale of the core team before posting such irrelevant posts. Right now, the goal of the organization is to push forward the GC agenda without getting distracted with "H-4 needs to work request".
Go IV!!!!!!!!!!! Go IV Core!!!!!!
gc28262
01-28 03:56 PM
I don't think AILA is fighting this memo on the grounds that it is illegal because of the fact that E-E relationship is illegally defined by USCIS, but they are fighting on the grounds that it is illegal because such directives should come in the form of laws!
Simply put, they are telling USCIS to follow the laws passed by the Congress without providing their own interpretation. This could very well apply to AC21!
EDIT:
After re-reading AILA's response, it appears to me that they actually don't have a strong case to say that the "EE relationship" definition is illegal. They are going with the argument that a precedence has been set for 50 years, and that is one of the main reasons why USCIS should continue to interpret the EE relationship that way. I'm not sure how strong a case this can be.
Re-read AILA memo once again. You haven't noticed the main point yet. Precedence is not their main point. Precedent just provides an additional support. E-E is the most controversial item in the USCIS memo which also is illegal.
Simply put, they are telling USCIS to follow the laws passed by the Congress without providing their own interpretation. This could very well apply to AC21!
EDIT:
After re-reading AILA's response, it appears to me that they actually don't have a strong case to say that the "EE relationship" definition is illegal. They are going with the argument that a precedence has been set for 50 years, and that is one of the main reasons why USCIS should continue to interpret the EE relationship that way. I'm not sure how strong a case this can be.
Re-read AILA memo once again. You haven't noticed the main point yet. Precedence is not their main point. Precedent just provides an additional support. E-E is the most controversial item in the USCIS memo which also is illegal.
more...
anzerraja
07-19 06:21 PM
Thanks Husker !
We are getting started out as a new thread towards this administrative costs.
As a couple of members mentioned that the core will not take any money from the funds members contributed, and its is really unfortunate that Aman + all the core team have to spend a lot of money out of their pocket. I am not a CPA but have seen that a lot of NOP do set aside administrative funds. That how the organization would work. The good ones will have only 10% of funds towards administrative cost. The BEST ONE LIKE IV has NONE (No money for administrative cost!!!). I am sure the core will not want to dive into the funds people are giving BUT can members send money seperately to set up an administrative fund.
I like khodalmd idea, I know not everyone is going to chip in, but if we have atleat 1000 people we can all send $100, so that atleast the core team dont take on the financial burden of the entire community. People sent flowers, a lot of people sent flowers...I am sure atleat 1000 appreciative members can shell out $100 for IV.
I am game for the $100 suggested by anzerraja (I think)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Contribution: Till now $300 + $50 re-occuring
We are getting started out as a new thread towards this administrative costs.
As a couple of members mentioned that the core will not take any money from the funds members contributed, and its is really unfortunate that Aman + all the core team have to spend a lot of money out of their pocket. I am not a CPA but have seen that a lot of NOP do set aside administrative funds. That how the organization would work. The good ones will have only 10% of funds towards administrative cost. The BEST ONE LIKE IV has NONE (No money for administrative cost!!!). I am sure the core will not want to dive into the funds people are giving BUT can members send money seperately to set up an administrative fund.
I like khodalmd idea, I know not everyone is going to chip in, but if we have atleat 1000 people we can all send $100, so that atleast the core team dont take on the financial burden of the entire community. People sent flowers, a lot of people sent flowers...I am sure atleat 1000 appreciative members can shell out $100 for IV.
I am game for the $100 suggested by anzerraja (I think)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Contribution: Till now $300 + $50 re-occuring
2010 Mini Cooper Classic 7
logiclife
02-11 01:23 PM
Friends,
I did a quick search and did not find answer to this. Apologise if this is a repost.
But a co-worker of mine wants to travel on AP. After coming back, he will join my company (right now he is a contractor) as a perm employee on H1. Is it possible and allowed? Can he transfer H1 after using AP?
Our company attorney confirmed that his H1B will remain valid even after using AP. But she is not sure about transfer. I will post her reply once she gets back to him. But in meantime, if anyone has any idea about this, please share.
Given the fact that everything is driven by I-94, including your status and your proof of legal presence, I think this may be true. However, I have not read any experience of anyone who came back on AP and then filed for an H1 transfer. Most people who want to continue on H1 have not used AP (so far on this forum, I dont know about everyone ofcourse) and they have gone thru the pain of getting restamped in consulate abroad.
I did a quick search and did not find answer to this. Apologise if this is a repost.
But a co-worker of mine wants to travel on AP. After coming back, he will join my company (right now he is a contractor) as a perm employee on H1. Is it possible and allowed? Can he transfer H1 after using AP?
Our company attorney confirmed that his H1B will remain valid even after using AP. But she is not sure about transfer. I will post her reply once she gets back to him. But in meantime, if anyone has any idea about this, please share.
Given the fact that everything is driven by I-94, including your status and your proof of legal presence, I think this may be true. However, I have not read any experience of anyone who came back on AP and then filed for an H1 transfer. Most people who want to continue on H1 have not used AP (so far on this forum, I dont know about everyone ofcourse) and they have gone thru the pain of getting restamped in consulate abroad.
more...
pa_arora
10-01 03:20 PM
One of my friends(who was in my company earlier) got his old H1 case reopened. He is not that worried as he already has left the employer and joined someone else.
This is little strange as USCIS is digging the dead.
I am keeping a close eye on my case which got approved in 03/2005 and has LUD of 08/2006. Seems like they opened the case earlier but I didnt notice it.
-p
This is little strange as USCIS is digging the dead.
I am keeping a close eye on my case which got approved in 03/2005 and has LUD of 08/2006. Seems like they opened the case earlier but I didnt notice it.
-p
hair Mini Cooper Classic Wallpaper
cliffmacnab
11-19 04:22 PM
name check has been pending since dec. 2006. I just check it again today. It is still pending.
more...
guyfromsg
07-17 10:26 PM
After you apply for AP its only 1 year H1 increments.
Can you please clarify on this; If 485 is not current at the time of H1 extension and if 140 is approved should get 3 year extension. How does applying for AP change this? Do you mean using AP when traveling or mere applying of
AP will make you not eligible for 3 year extensions?
Can you please clarify on this; If 485 is not current at the time of H1 extension and if 140 is approved should get 3 year extension. How does applying for AP change this? Do you mean using AP when traveling or mere applying of
AP will make you not eligible for 3 year extensions?
hot wallpaper of mini c 22 Classic
senthil1
05-24 06:43 PM
Is it passed already?
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 1223
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 1223
more...
house Mini Cooper Convertible
Vexir
06-02 02:19 AM
Introducing the Apple iBOY. Wish I could have spent more time on it, but I'm too lazy ;).
Edit: I just realized this is not really a skin... more of a modification. Is it legal? If not, I'd like to have this entry voided so I can try again hehe.
:lol: I love the concept but I don'th think its legal.
Edit: I just realized this is not really a skin... more of a modification. Is it legal? If not, I'd like to have this entry voided so I can try again hehe.
:lol: I love the concept but I don'th think its legal.
tattoo ackground Mini Cooper
2ndJuly
09-17 02:21 PM
you mean LEGAL aliens...:)
well there is nothing like Illegal Aliens. Aliens need to have I-94 or paroled to land in US
well there is nothing like Illegal Aliens. Aliens need to have I-94 or paroled to land in US
more...
pictures The MINI John Cooper Works
venkat_gc
02-15 03:57 PM
Logiclife. I know why you are responding to these comments you all are frustrated with such comments. I know it is hard to not respond but please ignore these asinine comments. Please have some of these comments linked to the main page. But believe me "barking dogs seldom bite." Such people will ultimately sap your energy. But, just like how IV is asking people to contribute please also ask them to use their own judgment, they do this at their own risk. There are many people like us who have faith in your group although we know you cannot do miracles. Please have faith and I sincerely request to all members & moderator that once we see these comments let us move this to the some thread called �IV bashing thread� and let the rest of us completely ignore them.
Well Said
Well Said
dresses classic mini cooper wallpaper.
gc28262
01-28 04:39 PM
I didn't find where in the PDF AILA is saying the definition is illegal!
They provide one example a court ruling where the EE definition was established in the case of an insurance agent. But such an issue has already been address by the EE memo by USCIS (Temporary/Occasional Off-Site Employment).
Is it your own interpretation that the EE definition in the memo is illegal or did you read it somewhere in AILA's response?
AILA Memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf)
Page 3
The AAO�s analysis contained in non-precedent decisions but cited repeatedly by adjudicators to justify RFEs, NOIDs and Denials -- and now expressed in the AFM revisions regarding H-1B petitions -- begins with the proposition that the beneficiary in any employment-based nonimmigrant or immigrant petition must be an �employee� of the petitioning employer. The AAO then notes that the term �employee� is not clearly defined anywhere in the INA and concludes that absent such a definition, under Darden and Clackamas, it must look to the common law definition of employee to determine who is and is not eligible for employment-based benefits under the INA.2 While the common law definition employs a multi-factor test, the AAO and subsequent adjudications, and the Neufeld Memorandum, have focused almost exclusively on one element: control.
AILA memo deals with multiple issues in the memo, not just consulting company scenario. (L1, Self sponsoring employee etc) Hence we can get lost while reading the memo. Central to the argument is "Common Law" that AILA hasn't gone in depth.
desi3933,
Please refer AILA memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf) as they have already detailed the law points in it.
Also you seem to be quoting USCIS documents. If USCIS was clear about the law, they wouldn't have issued this memo in the first place. If USCIS memo contradicts INA, INA prevails.
They provide one example a court ruling where the EE definition was established in the case of an insurance agent. But such an issue has already been address by the EE memo by USCIS (Temporary/Occasional Off-Site Employment).
Is it your own interpretation that the EE definition in the memo is illegal or did you read it somewhere in AILA's response?
AILA Memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf)
Page 3
The AAO�s analysis contained in non-precedent decisions but cited repeatedly by adjudicators to justify RFEs, NOIDs and Denials -- and now expressed in the AFM revisions regarding H-1B petitions -- begins with the proposition that the beneficiary in any employment-based nonimmigrant or immigrant petition must be an �employee� of the petitioning employer. The AAO then notes that the term �employee� is not clearly defined anywhere in the INA and concludes that absent such a definition, under Darden and Clackamas, it must look to the common law definition of employee to determine who is and is not eligible for employment-based benefits under the INA.2 While the common law definition employs a multi-factor test, the AAO and subsequent adjudications, and the Neufeld Memorandum, have focused almost exclusively on one element: control.
AILA memo deals with multiple issues in the memo, not just consulting company scenario. (L1, Self sponsoring employee etc) Hence we can get lost while reading the memo. Central to the argument is "Common Law" that AILA hasn't gone in depth.
desi3933,
Please refer AILA memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf) as they have already detailed the law points in it.
Also you seem to be quoting USCIS documents. If USCIS was clear about the law, they wouldn't have issued this memo in the first place. If USCIS memo contradicts INA, INA prevails.
more...
makeup John Cooper and Mini Cooper
rimco99
11-02 09:28 PM
Why are u coming up with such vague ideas.
girlfriend Mini Cooper Classic 6
bkarnik
09-17 11:31 AM
Done..now on to 6020
King...now talking..he is withdrawing hs amendment on 6020. Zoe now on.
King...now talking..he is withdrawing hs amendment on 6020. Zoe now on.
hairstyles Mini Cooper Gathering
JazzByTheBay
12-12 09:48 PM
Let's just compare it with membership-based organizations like IEEE, for instance.
You enroll/become a member, you get access to member-only areas of the web site, and plenty of other benefits to make membership worthwhile.
Earlier today I received a mailer from "The Club" (Commonwealth Club of California, iirc). For the benefits offered, and for the general spirit and intent of the club, I thought the $85/110 membership dues were quite reasonable.
My question comes back to IV - why can't 10,000 or all 25,000 of IV's members decide what we're doing is worth it, the access to information is worth it, the free legal guidance and advice is worth it, and other benefits (that may be thought up... for instance travel discounts, etc.) are worth it - to "contribute" to IV (call it whatever you will - contribution/membership dues)?
Next, of course, is the concept of "premium" membership for web sites like WSJ.com, or technical ones like Experts-Exchange for instance. You join, you get premium content. IV has much more to offer than just premium content here.
(As a sidenote, one example is members getting newsletters - online or paper - with expert legal opinions and answers on our most common questions. Authoritative, as much as they can be, with documentation where required... rather than spending 2 hours searching the forums and still coming up blank or inconclusive... )
There are other logistics issues that can be resolved, and *we* = all members, will empower IV to do a lot more by doing that, imho. I can think of 20 things we can do in addition to this lobbying effort - and we won't have to start a funding drive each time we decide to do something.
Thanks for participating in this debate and making your opinions known. Most importantly, this is about brainstorming and coming up with more ideas - regardless of whether we take this membership-only approach or not.
Ultimately, whatever IV is able to accomplish will benefit the entire legal immigrant community, regardless of contributions/memberships. However, the need of the hour is to realize the opportunities we are missing because of lack of resources and hands in most cases.
cheers!
jazz
I guess you are talking about premium membership like wsj etc. I am not sure a free exchange of ideas can occur if we put our membership for sale by restricting access to some parts of the website. IV will lose some of its sheen and I am not sure the tradeoff in membership $ is worth it- dunno just doesn't feel right in the gut
You enroll/become a member, you get access to member-only areas of the web site, and plenty of other benefits to make membership worthwhile.
Earlier today I received a mailer from "The Club" (Commonwealth Club of California, iirc). For the benefits offered, and for the general spirit and intent of the club, I thought the $85/110 membership dues were quite reasonable.
My question comes back to IV - why can't 10,000 or all 25,000 of IV's members decide what we're doing is worth it, the access to information is worth it, the free legal guidance and advice is worth it, and other benefits (that may be thought up... for instance travel discounts, etc.) are worth it - to "contribute" to IV (call it whatever you will - contribution/membership dues)?
Next, of course, is the concept of "premium" membership for web sites like WSJ.com, or technical ones like Experts-Exchange for instance. You join, you get premium content. IV has much more to offer than just premium content here.
(As a sidenote, one example is members getting newsletters - online or paper - with expert legal opinions and answers on our most common questions. Authoritative, as much as they can be, with documentation where required... rather than spending 2 hours searching the forums and still coming up blank or inconclusive... )
There are other logistics issues that can be resolved, and *we* = all members, will empower IV to do a lot more by doing that, imho. I can think of 20 things we can do in addition to this lobbying effort - and we won't have to start a funding drive each time we decide to do something.
Thanks for participating in this debate and making your opinions known. Most importantly, this is about brainstorming and coming up with more ideas - regardless of whether we take this membership-only approach or not.
Ultimately, whatever IV is able to accomplish will benefit the entire legal immigrant community, regardless of contributions/memberships. However, the need of the hour is to realize the opportunities we are missing because of lack of resources and hands in most cases.
cheers!
jazz
I guess you are talking about premium membership like wsj etc. I am not sure a free exchange of ideas can occur if we put our membership for sale by restricting access to some parts of the website. IV will lose some of its sheen and I am not sure the tradeoff in membership $ is worth it- dunno just doesn't feel right in the gut
tonyHK12
04-20 06:01 PM
It seems that some of us want to fight, but don't have a dedicated thread. Instead we have been hijacking other useful threads.
What I propose here is a FIGHT THREAD.
Yes, this is a copycat idea from FIGHT CLUB
How we go about:
1.) Establish a dedicated thread - just for fighting.
2.) At a pre-determined time (of day or night), fighters login.
3.) They start fighting and all posts/fights will be restricted to FIGHT THREAD only.
4.) Fight ends at a specificed time.
5.) Fighters take a break until the next schedule (may be daily or thrice a week)
6.) Fighters donot desecrate other threads, if they do, they will be banned from FIGHT THREAD.
how's the idea :D?
Agreed, let everybody keep this to topic and stop making personal remarks. I haven't made any personal attacks in this thread. A couple of notorious people are at it as usual.
What I propose here is a FIGHT THREAD.
Yes, this is a copycat idea from FIGHT CLUB
How we go about:
1.) Establish a dedicated thread - just for fighting.
2.) At a pre-determined time (of day or night), fighters login.
3.) They start fighting and all posts/fights will be restricted to FIGHT THREAD only.
4.) Fight ends at a specificed time.
5.) Fighters take a break until the next schedule (may be daily or thrice a week)
6.) Fighters donot desecrate other threads, if they do, they will be banned from FIGHT THREAD.
how's the idea :D?
Agreed, let everybody keep this to topic and stop making personal remarks. I haven't made any personal attacks in this thread. A couple of notorious people are at it as usual.
chicago60607
09-17 11:29 AM
Sorry it is about Impeachement of U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous
No comments:
Post a Comment