darslee
07-11 12:21 AM
Phew! Even I hate for you to be nitpicking :eek:
I agree......:D
I agree......:D
wallpaper Indian Patriotic wallpaper; india wallpaper. Chak de india; Chak de india
.jpg "india wallpapers")
pappu
06-26 12:22 PM
Multiple 485 and EAD filing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
My wife and I both got our LC approved. She filed I-140 and I-485 concurrently for both of us in Nov.2006 (Nebraska Center), based on her LC. Then I filed I-140 and I-485 concurrently for both of us again in Jan,2007 (Texas Center), based on my LC.
The EADs she applied got aproved pretty quickly. Several days ago, my EAD applications got denied. The denial reason is, we already have approved EAD.
Originally our plan is: My wife will switch to a Finance related job soon (her LC is based on Software job), I will wait for GC. (The reason we still filed for multiple 485 and EAD is that we want to postpone the decision on who should wait for GC). Now I'm totally confused on whether she can use the EAD, and whether I can renew the approved EAD (because they are based on her application).
Any inputs or clarifications will be greatly appreciated.
tkiller
Yup. One should be ready for the consequences when they apply. Think carefully before you do something and do not make any errors in decisions.There are both advantages and disadvantages. A lawyer office that has done this in the past quoted a case to me. Another non-desi expensive lawyer who always gives accurate information and is not greedy told me that he would not advice multiple filing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
My wife and I both got our LC approved. She filed I-140 and I-485 concurrently for both of us in Nov.2006 (Nebraska Center), based on her LC. Then I filed I-140 and I-485 concurrently for both of us again in Jan,2007 (Texas Center), based on my LC.
The EADs she applied got aproved pretty quickly. Several days ago, my EAD applications got denied. The denial reason is, we already have approved EAD.
Originally our plan is: My wife will switch to a Finance related job soon (her LC is based on Software job), I will wait for GC. (The reason we still filed for multiple 485 and EAD is that we want to postpone the decision on who should wait for GC). Now I'm totally confused on whether she can use the EAD, and whether I can renew the approved EAD (because they are based on her application).
Any inputs or clarifications will be greatly appreciated.
tkiller
Yup. One should be ready for the consequences when they apply. Think carefully before you do something and do not make any errors in decisions.There are both advantages and disadvantages. A lawyer office that has done this in the past quoted a case to me. Another non-desi expensive lawyer who always gives accurate information and is not greedy told me that he would not advice multiple filing.
Libra
01-11 12:45 PM
guys, please send letters to President and IV.
2011 india wallpapers
pani_6
08-21 10:18 PM
Yes..OCT bullettin holds the key to EB-3..if its bacck logged..then EB-3 call SOS and port to EB-2..none else will work
I have read it in Ron Gotcher's forum that what Sept bulletin talked about was only for Mexico and people should not mix it with EB-3 India. Also Apr'2001 was the PD given to the asylum(245i) cases by the Clinton administration. But with dates moving to Nov'2001 I believe that hump have gone past. My personal belief is EB-3 India should go around Jun-2002. But In case it remains in 2001, EB-3 Indians should take some drastic decisions. You may call me pessimist but I don't see any help coming from the congress, rather there could be some weird irrational decisions which could leave us paralysed. There are more foes than friends in the congress and lawmakers do what there pupil tells them to do. Right now the under current in US is anti immigrant..
I have read it in Ron Gotcher's forum that what Sept bulletin talked about was only for Mexico and people should not mix it with EB-3 India. Also Apr'2001 was the PD given to the asylum(245i) cases by the Clinton administration. But with dates moving to Nov'2001 I believe that hump have gone past. My personal belief is EB-3 India should go around Jun-2002. But In case it remains in 2001, EB-3 Indians should take some drastic decisions. You may call me pessimist but I don't see any help coming from the congress, rather there could be some weird irrational decisions which could leave us paralysed. There are more foes than friends in the congress and lawmakers do what there pupil tells them to do. Right now the under current in US is anti immigrant..
more...
Googler
09-26 03:42 PM
more interestinly I am seeing that only Indians are being subjected to this name check crap , everyone else seems to be doing just fine
I have to disagree with that. Check out the names in the Writs of Mandamus lawsuits or the thread on Immig Portal about people filing writs of mandamus (http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=173311)-- it is not "only Indians." It is anyone whose name, when run through FBI's name combination algorithm (http://www.cyrusmehta.com/related/Ayetes_Memo_on_Name_Checks.pdf) (see pg 2 onwards in link), generates a hit in the FBI reference files.
Just for the sake of illustration -- check out the names that appear in this google spreadsheet (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pBQx8tqZHHU2A6Q-Pv9sULw&hl=en) (you need a gmail account to view it) with a list of significant recent mandamus rulings.
I have to disagree with that. Check out the names in the Writs of Mandamus lawsuits or the thread on Immig Portal about people filing writs of mandamus (http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=173311)-- it is not "only Indians." It is anyone whose name, when run through FBI's name combination algorithm (http://www.cyrusmehta.com/related/Ayetes_Memo_on_Name_Checks.pdf) (see pg 2 onwards in link), generates a hit in the FBI reference files.
Just for the sake of illustration -- check out the names that appear in this google spreadsheet (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pBQx8tqZHHU2A6Q-Pv9sULw&hl=en) (you need a gmail account to view it) with a list of significant recent mandamus rulings.
caliguy
10-25 02:10 PM
@ fatjoe
I am glad you are finally out of this rut. Heartiest congratulations to you again!
I will call the CIS om. number you provided again on Monday. I got a letter in the mail from DHS (CIS Om) saying they were looking into my case and it would take anywhere between 45-90 days. I have around 10 letters from different senators, USCIS that tell me the same thing - wait 45- 90 days.
I will keep trying....
Cheers!
I am glad you are finally out of this rut. Heartiest congratulations to you again!
I will call the CIS om. number you provided again on Monday. I got a letter in the mail from DHS (CIS Om) saying they were looking into my case and it would take anywhere between 45-90 days. I have around 10 letters from different senators, USCIS that tell me the same thing - wait 45- 90 days.
I will keep trying....
Cheers!
more...
ashshef
09-24 05:07 PM
1) Each (EB1/2/3) - 28.6% WW quota = 40040
2) 5 subscription cataegories under each EB category: I,P,C,M,ROW
3) Assumption - USCIS distributes equal share among these 5 different subscription categories = 40040/5 =8008 in each EB category for a particular subscription category.
Example:
EB3 All = 40040 ( 0.286 x 140000)
EB3 ALL = EB3 I + EB3 C + EB3 M + EB3 P + EB3 ROW
Assuming equal share of all of these 5 subscription categories - 40040/5 = 8008 applications to be worked for "Assigning the visa number" not " for granting the visa (IN other words physical greencard order)"
7% + 2% = 9% country specific limit is meant for "Granting the visa - Ordering Physical Green card" out of "Applications which have been assigned a visa number"
Number 2) and hence number 3) are definitely wrong.
As I mentioned in my other post, the categorisation for I,P,C,M and ROW is based on the fact that I,P,C,M are the only countries with demand exceeding the annual limit.
ROW = All countries not hitting the 7%(or 9%) country limit. That doesn't mean they are capped at X/5. What would be the basis of that cap.
Assuming USCIS acts like it is supposed to, follows all rules etc........They start using new numbers on Oct1st of the new FY with a fresh slate of 140k available.
Now by law, they will first divide the cap into the 5 EB categories -EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4 and EB5. Now once they reach the 7%(or 9) cap in any of the categories, they will have to stop assigning numbers for that country. So for EB3, once they reach the 7 or 9% quota for I,C,M,P - they will need to stop. The rest of the countries(ROW) will get the 100 - (7 x 4) = 72% of the quota. This could be divied up between UK, France, Pak, Germany etc etc. As none of them are going over the 7%, the country cap doesn't affect them. But Since there are a lot of apps under EB3-ROW, there's never any number to spill over to the capped countries.
In case of EB2, only 2 countries hit the cap - India and China. In this case even P and M are part of ROW. But since the apps from ROW is less than the remaining quota of (100 - 7 x 2)% of the EB2 quota, the remaining will be spilled over. The spillover rules will determine who these go to.
The way the current spillover rules stand, your final calculations will still hold true for EB2 due to the spillover ultimately remaining the same to EB2. But not for EB3.
2) 5 subscription cataegories under each EB category: I,P,C,M,ROW
3) Assumption - USCIS distributes equal share among these 5 different subscription categories = 40040/5 =8008 in each EB category for a particular subscription category.
Example:
EB3 All = 40040 ( 0.286 x 140000)
EB3 ALL = EB3 I + EB3 C + EB3 M + EB3 P + EB3 ROW
Assuming equal share of all of these 5 subscription categories - 40040/5 = 8008 applications to be worked for "Assigning the visa number" not " for granting the visa (IN other words physical greencard order)"
7% + 2% = 9% country specific limit is meant for "Granting the visa - Ordering Physical Green card" out of "Applications which have been assigned a visa number"
Number 2) and hence number 3) are definitely wrong.
As I mentioned in my other post, the categorisation for I,P,C,M and ROW is based on the fact that I,P,C,M are the only countries with demand exceeding the annual limit.
ROW = All countries not hitting the 7%(or 9%) country limit. That doesn't mean they are capped at X/5. What would be the basis of that cap.
Assuming USCIS acts like it is supposed to, follows all rules etc........They start using new numbers on Oct1st of the new FY with a fresh slate of 140k available.
Now by law, they will first divide the cap into the 5 EB categories -EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4 and EB5. Now once they reach the 7%(or 9) cap in any of the categories, they will have to stop assigning numbers for that country. So for EB3, once they reach the 7 or 9% quota for I,C,M,P - they will need to stop. The rest of the countries(ROW) will get the 100 - (7 x 4) = 72% of the quota. This could be divied up between UK, France, Pak, Germany etc etc. As none of them are going over the 7%, the country cap doesn't affect them. But Since there are a lot of apps under EB3-ROW, there's never any number to spill over to the capped countries.
In case of EB2, only 2 countries hit the cap - India and China. In this case even P and M are part of ROW. But since the apps from ROW is less than the remaining quota of (100 - 7 x 2)% of the EB2 quota, the remaining will be spilled over. The spillover rules will determine who these go to.
The way the current spillover rules stand, your final calculations will still hold true for EB2 due to the spillover ultimately remaining the same to EB2. But not for EB3.
2010 Yeh Mera India Wallpaper
-782827.jpg "Facts About India")
caliguy
10-06 02:18 PM
@ SOP
Hope your wife is feeling better now.
I wish USCIS could see how much emotional toll it has taken on people who have been patiently waiting for their turn. Nothing is worse than being in a broken system and not knowing what to expect but that is USCIS for you....
I have sent your a private message. Could you please provide the mailing address for Mr. President? I dont mind sending him a copy of the letter too, what the heck, I have nothing to lose.
Hope your wife is feeling better now.
I wish USCIS could see how much emotional toll it has taken on people who have been patiently waiting for their turn. Nothing is worse than being in a broken system and not knowing what to expect but that is USCIS for you....
I have sent your a private message. Could you please provide the mailing address for Mr. President? I dont mind sending him a copy of the letter too, what the heck, I have nothing to lose.
more...
grupak
08-21 11:02 AM
Guys,
EB2 guys( those who do not want to support EB3)::
What will you do, in EB3 shoes, if the numbers are not moving in 2-3 months. You got it. MOst of them will change to EB2, right. I will too. I am sure you can imagine the scene then. I know 8 of my 15 friends have already jumped to EB2. And I am sure they have much higher priority date than most of EB2s there. So you know what to expect. Lets ALL support for the common cause.
Sri.
I understand the frustration. Until two months back my PD was retro. Now, I already have my GC on my EB2-NIW I-140 and also had an approved EB1-OR I-140 recently. I am not here to suggest anyone shouldn't do what they think is best for them.
My own understanding of the law is that EB1 gets the left over EB5, EB2 gets the unused numbers from EB1 and the EB5 that went into EB1 but unused. EB3 gets the unused numbers from EB2 and those from EB1+EB5 unused by EB2. This maintains the preference categories (USCIS's definition, I am not saying EB2 is better than EB3).
No matter how the numbers are distributed, there is more demand than supply. It is unlikely all the unused EB1 and EB2 ROW numbers would fall to EB3 ROW and then to EB3-C/I. Some would surely go to EB2-C/I. Right now everyone is retro except EB1 and EB2 ROW. So, redistribution doesn't fix the problem just redistributes the retrogression.
If we can get the recapture and elimination of country ceiling then everybody benefits. The fact that we have an immigration bill is in itself quite something.
No matter how USCIS or DOS allocates the numbers, there will be backlog and its in everyone's interest whether C/I or ROW to think about pushing for the immigration reform bills.
EB2 guys( those who do not want to support EB3)::
What will you do, in EB3 shoes, if the numbers are not moving in 2-3 months. You got it. MOst of them will change to EB2, right. I will too. I am sure you can imagine the scene then. I know 8 of my 15 friends have already jumped to EB2. And I am sure they have much higher priority date than most of EB2s there. So you know what to expect. Lets ALL support for the common cause.
Sri.
I understand the frustration. Until two months back my PD was retro. Now, I already have my GC on my EB2-NIW I-140 and also had an approved EB1-OR I-140 recently. I am not here to suggest anyone shouldn't do what they think is best for them.
My own understanding of the law is that EB1 gets the left over EB5, EB2 gets the unused numbers from EB1 and the EB5 that went into EB1 but unused. EB3 gets the unused numbers from EB2 and those from EB1+EB5 unused by EB2. This maintains the preference categories (USCIS's definition, I am not saying EB2 is better than EB3).
No matter how the numbers are distributed, there is more demand than supply. It is unlikely all the unused EB1 and EB2 ROW numbers would fall to EB3 ROW and then to EB3-C/I. Some would surely go to EB2-C/I. Right now everyone is retro except EB1 and EB2 ROW. So, redistribution doesn't fix the problem just redistributes the retrogression.
If we can get the recapture and elimination of country ceiling then everybody benefits. The fact that we have an immigration bill is in itself quite something.
No matter how USCIS or DOS allocates the numbers, there will be backlog and its in everyone's interest whether C/I or ROW to think about pushing for the immigration reform bills.
hair Tiger vs Lion
syedajmal
08-21 12:44 PM
I just received my 2 year EAD. Priority date is Nov 2002 - EB3 -India. Well I guess that says it all. If USCIS thinks that Nov 2002 will take at least another 2 years then I dunno what about the rest. I didn't wanna think about EB2 porting being so close and spend another 10k, I guess just need to stop worrying about it now. :)
more...
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]
hot Flag of India, Live Wallpaper
l1fraud
06-14 09:58 AM
rsharma, l1fraud,
There is nothing wrong in reporting fraud.
However your argument that you are reporting it since you cannot tolerate fraud isn't that convincing.
If you were always against injustice/lawlessness, you will see a lot of it in your daily life. Do you report or take action against each of those ? I don't think so.
After living in India for long and seeing people put up with all injustice and sometimes doing it themselves, it is hard to believe your argument that you are doing it just for the sake of law.
How many times in this thread I have mentioned that I am getting replaced by one of these L-1B resource, I am a poor Oracle/DB developer who fortunately cannot be replaced by L-1B visa resources (as my skills is a common technical one). So once these violations impact your day to day life you look around for ways to stop this fraud. Its true that if I was a Nuero Surgeon in Phily or a Astro Scientist in Houston I wouldn't be interested in this violation :-) .... tomorrow let this scenario happen to you ... you would be first one to raise the alert.
Regarding 'getting burnt', I don't think there is bigger burn than loosing our jobs (which already is happening) and hope you know that there is something called 'anonymity'... ya lets see whos going to get 'burnt' here. We'll definetly keep you updated regarding the outcome.
There is nothing wrong in reporting fraud.
However your argument that you are reporting it since you cannot tolerate fraud isn't that convincing.
If you were always against injustice/lawlessness, you will see a lot of it in your daily life. Do you report or take action against each of those ? I don't think so.
After living in India for long and seeing people put up with all injustice and sometimes doing it themselves, it is hard to believe your argument that you are doing it just for the sake of law.
How many times in this thread I have mentioned that I am getting replaced by one of these L-1B resource, I am a poor Oracle/DB developer who fortunately cannot be replaced by L-1B visa resources (as my skills is a common technical one). So once these violations impact your day to day life you look around for ways to stop this fraud. Its true that if I was a Nuero Surgeon in Phily or a Astro Scientist in Houston I wouldn't be interested in this violation :-) .... tomorrow let this scenario happen to you ... you would be first one to raise the alert.
Regarding 'getting burnt', I don't think there is bigger burn than loosing our jobs (which already is happening) and hope you know that there is something called 'anonymity'... ya lets see whos going to get 'burnt' here. We'll definetly keep you updated regarding the outcome.
more...
house Labels: 2010 Holi Wallpapers,
Saralayar
04-09 02:08 PM
Well it is their country. We are serving through our volition.
We have an expectation, but in a free market it is demand and supply.
i am Not trying to be negative - just a reality check on where we stand and how we can approach.
It is a fact that immigration from Asia shot up at the turn of the millennium. This may look disproportionate to proponents of diversity.
Now 1/6th of the world population comes from one country. But the quota for Iceland and India remains the same.
Consequently many like us cannot: change employers, give up opportunities (lure of which we came here for) and wait for the same outcome that others achieve much faster, simply because they were born somewhere else or their employers & lawyer decided their immigration category. So much for free country and meritocracy.
i believe our main point should be a level playing field and transparent
system so that expectations are clear.
For those of us who have suffered due to lack of clarity, for all fairness, must lobby for a chance to parity after multiple (say 10) years of serving LEGALLY.
^^^Bump^^^
We have an expectation, but in a free market it is demand and supply.
i am Not trying to be negative - just a reality check on where we stand and how we can approach.
It is a fact that immigration from Asia shot up at the turn of the millennium. This may look disproportionate to proponents of diversity.
Now 1/6th of the world population comes from one country. But the quota for Iceland and India remains the same.
Consequently many like us cannot: change employers, give up opportunities (lure of which we came here for) and wait for the same outcome that others achieve much faster, simply because they were born somewhere else or their employers & lawyer decided their immigration category. So much for free country and meritocracy.
i believe our main point should be a level playing field and transparent
system so that expectations are clear.
For those of us who have suffered due to lack of clarity, for all fairness, must lobby for a chance to parity after multiple (say 10) years of serving LEGALLY.
^^^Bump^^^
tattoo Wallpaper
acecupid
08-21 12:28 PM
All of you guys are smart ,highly skilled immigrants.
Let me make one thing clear. Govt has defined EB categories : EB1 , Eb2 and EB3 . based on level of exp and education etc..
Now that your employer has applied for you in Eb3 even though you were qualified under Eb1 or Eb2 then govt can't do any thing. Like if you are making 70k with 5 years exp and which is ok as per your labor cert of H1b then govt cannot do any thing . Even though u r less paid compare to market.
same thing here.. If you think you can qualify for Eb2 and your employer want to apply as EB2 . It should not be issue. You are most welcome to do so. But I see common ground as HR 5882. Why dont we work hard and hard to get HR 5882 pass. One of my friend has MS from USA from top uni. with 18 years of exp from India and 3 years of exp in big 5 from USA. Still his recent employer applied under Eb3 . Should he complained to govt ???
He left current employer and found another who willing to apply under Eb2.
Unless Eb1 current Eb2 should not get any spill over same way unless Eb2 current Eb3 should not get Spill over. No matter what way you fight govt wont agree to give high priority to Eb3 compare to Eb1 or Eb2 . as from VDLRAO's post Eb2 does not need much visa to become current so if we get recaptured visa then eb2 will be current and Eb3 will get most of visa out of those recaptured visa.
CALL CALL CALL CALL unless you win.. Dont need to fight here which is not going to work out for any one.
Dude if people are taking initiative to do something on their own, what is your problem? If you dont support the initiative you dont support it. STOP discouraging others. Everyone supports HR 5882, we all know that and will continue to support it.
Let me make one thing clear. Govt has defined EB categories : EB1 , Eb2 and EB3 . based on level of exp and education etc..
Now that your employer has applied for you in Eb3 even though you were qualified under Eb1 or Eb2 then govt can't do any thing. Like if you are making 70k with 5 years exp and which is ok as per your labor cert of H1b then govt cannot do any thing . Even though u r less paid compare to market.
same thing here.. If you think you can qualify for Eb2 and your employer want to apply as EB2 . It should not be issue. You are most welcome to do so. But I see common ground as HR 5882. Why dont we work hard and hard to get HR 5882 pass. One of my friend has MS from USA from top uni. with 18 years of exp from India and 3 years of exp in big 5 from USA. Still his recent employer applied under Eb3 . Should he complained to govt ???
He left current employer and found another who willing to apply under Eb2.
Unless Eb1 current Eb2 should not get any spill over same way unless Eb2 current Eb3 should not get Spill over. No matter what way you fight govt wont agree to give high priority to Eb3 compare to Eb1 or Eb2 . as from VDLRAO's post Eb2 does not need much visa to become current so if we get recaptured visa then eb2 will be current and Eb3 will get most of visa out of those recaptured visa.
CALL CALL CALL CALL unless you win.. Dont need to fight here which is not going to work out for any one.
Dude if people are taking initiative to do something on their own, what is your problem? If you dont support the initiative you dont support it. STOP discouraging others. Everyone supports HR 5882, we all know that and will continue to support it.
more...
pictures Indian indian wallpaper.
vdlrao
04-01 07:25 AM
Guys,
Not sure whether below information is any helpful.
My Priority date is : July 2007
I-140 approval date : March 2009
Processing : Consular
Today i received a mail from NVC to pay immigration processing fee of $794.
Does any ones what is this for ? does it help to know the demand ?
Regards
Somebody please comment on this.
Not sure whether below information is any helpful.
My Priority date is : July 2007
I-140 approval date : March 2009
Processing : Consular
Today i received a mail from NVC to pay immigration processing fee of $794.
Does any ones what is this for ? does it help to know the demand ?
Regards
Somebody please comment on this.
dresses in Mumbai India wallpaper
gcny2006
07-11 12:17 AM
This is a three page article, but worth the read. Especially, I didn't think it would mention my name -->
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071002055.html?referrer=emailarticle
Redemption Maan !!
Anand Sharma
I hate to be nitpicking but
The irony is, in this whole migration debate, our issues are probably easiest to solve," said Bajaj.
Bajaj its not migrationits immigration. bird migrate people immigrate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071002055.html?referrer=emailarticle
Redemption Maan !!
Anand Sharma
I hate to be nitpicking but
The irony is, in this whole migration debate, our issues are probably easiest to solve," said Bajaj.
Bajaj its not migrationits immigration. bird migrate people immigrate
more...
makeup Chak de india
geesee
08-20 11:30 AM
Karthik,
what is DH....? means
go to Vonage - VoIP Internet Phone Service for Home, Business and International Calling: Vonage - A Better Way to Phone for Less (http://www.vonage.com) and click on plans
Its D**KH**D honey
Btw, gr8 post! Repped! Will check out the offer today itself
what is DH....? means
go to Vonage - VoIP Internet Phone Service for Home, Business and International Calling: Vonage - A Better Way to Phone for Less (http://www.vonage.com) and click on plans
Its D**KH**D honey
Btw, gr8 post! Repped! Will check out the offer today itself
girlfriend City Palace Jaipur India
eb2_mumbai
09-25 10:24 AM
I agree the numbers seem to include dependents. I mean while looking at EB2 numbers you can see average 1000 - 1500 applications per month which translates to roughly 400 - 700 primary applications (labor) filed each month. That looks reasonable.
hairstyles Mr india
asanghi
05-15 12:27 PM
A few months back, when there was no visibility when priority dates will become current, my wife had converted from H4 to F1 so that she could work. She is currently working on CPT, and also has applied for OPT, which will start in August.
Now with my priority date June 2002 becoming current, we must decide what to do. My lawyer had told me earlier that filing 485 while on F1 is not advisable.
Has anyone been in similar situation? What is the best way to take advantage of priority dates, so that my wife does not have to be away from job for a long time.
Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Now with my priority date June 2002 becoming current, we must decide what to do. My lawyer had told me earlier that filing 485 while on F1 is not advisable.
Has anyone been in similar situation? What is the best way to take advantage of priority dates, so that my wife does not have to be away from job for a long time.
Any suggestions will be appreciated.
bomber
06-29 07:11 PM
You are absolutely right. We visit Mr Oh's website several times a day to get the latest on immigration. We should credit him for being the first in alerting us about everything. If in fact USCIS comes up with a statement rejecting all aplpications filed after a certain date, I'm sure there would be thousands who would be saved by Mr. Oh's timely warning.
I dont know why everybody started to spit on ohio law firm. They just pointed out some news that they got from AILA, right? Lets hope its just a rumor and USCIS doesn't proceed with this revised thing. I am pretty sure that wont happen. Dont worry guys, but dont blame everything on ohio firm. I saw this on several other law firms too.
I dont know why everybody started to spit on ohio law firm. They just pointed out some news that they got from AILA, right? Lets hope its just a rumor and USCIS doesn't proceed with this revised thing. I am pretty sure that wont happen. Dont worry guys, but dont blame everything on ohio firm. I saw this on several other law firms too.
punjabi77
09-09 02:35 PM
I am from Ga.. So i called Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605..
I will try to call some more people..
I will try to call some more people..
No comments:
Post a Comment