Suva
08-14 11:14 AM
Why are you taking all the H1s into the calculation? This only applies to companies which has more than 50% H1 employees. So it does not apply to all the companies.
I dont agree with the laws passed, but here is the math to come up with the $600 million figure they are quoting.
# of possible H1Bs = 85k (65k + 20k)
Fees (additional) = $2000
Total Fees = $170 million ($2k x 85k)
The fee increase is for 4 years = (2010-2014)
GRAND Total = $680 million ($170 million x 4)
I dont agree with the laws passed, but here is the math to come up with the $600 million figure they are quoting.
# of possible H1Bs = 85k (65k + 20k)
Fees (additional) = $2000
Total Fees = $170 million ($2k x 85k)
The fee increase is for 4 years = (2010-2014)
GRAND Total = $680 million ($170 million x 4)
wallpaper Corvette+zr1+engine
meridiani.planum
06-02 02:12 PM
I am just wondering if kaiserrose can get his wife an EAD as well - doesn't that make both on AOS-pending status?
that requires his wife to first file a I-485 for herself, and she can only do that once his PD is current (EB3 INdia is at 2001, he is at 2003 so thats not possible right now)
that requires his wife to first file a I-485 for herself, and she can only do that once his PD is current (EB3 INdia is at 2001, he is at 2003 so thats not possible right now)
astral1977
07-09 11:21 AM
smartboy75,
I-131 form is used for issuing re-entry permits, refugee travel & advance parole documents.
AOS applicants are issued advance parole document. The biometrics rule is only for those individuals who are issued re-entry & refugee travel documents.
If in doubt kindly read through the text that you pasted in your message.
Thanks.
Source www.immigration-law.com
07/09/2008: USCIS Biometric Changes For Re-Entry Permits and Refugee Travel Documents 07/08/2008
USCIS has issued revised instructions for USCIS Form I-131, Application for Travel Document. The instructions include changes effective March 5, 2008 that require applicants for re-entry permits and refugee travel documents to provide biometrics (e.g., fingerprints and photographs) at a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) for background and security checks and to meet requirements for secure travel and entry documents containing biometric identifiers.
Q. May an I-131 applicant for a re-entry permit or refugee travel document complete biometrics outside of the United States?
A. Form I-131 instructions provide guidance for certain persons who are abroad at the time of filing to visit a U.S. Embassy or consulate for fingerprinting, although all applicants are urged to file before leaving the United States. Since certain overseas offices have the discretion to accept and adjudicate applications for refugee travel documents, although it is not mandatory that they do so, an applicant for a refugee travel document may complete biometrics outside of the United States, but is encouraged to wait to travel until his or her biometrics have been collected and the document delivered. As discussed earlier, certain overseas USCIS offices may, in their discretion, adjudicate Form I-131 filed for a refugee travel document (but not re-entry permits), where the applicant has failed to apply while in the U.S. (see 8 C.F.R. � 223.2(b)(2)(ii)). However, applicants for refugee travel documents should not count on the overseas offices necessarily agreeing to adjudicate Form I-131 in all cases, particularly where it is evident that the individual could have applied while in the U.S. and attended his or her biometrics appointment. Applicants for reentry permits should attend their biometric appointment at the designated ASC. If the applicant departs the United States before the biometrics are collected, the application may be denied.
Q. Will Form I-131 re-entry permit or refugee travel document be denied if the applicant leaves the U.S. after the application has been filed and receipted but before biometrics are completed?
A. Form I-131 form instructions state, �Departure from the United States before a decision is made on an application for a Re-entry Permit usually does not affect the application. However, where biometric collection is required and the applicant departs the United States before the biometrics are collected, the application may be denied.� Travel is not advisable. If an applicant leaves and comes back, his or her application may be denied while abroad, and he or she may not be able to get back into the country. Even though an overseas USCIS office may, in its discretion, take the biometrics of an applicant for a refugee travel document, there is no guarantee that the office will necessarily exercise its discretion to do so. Therefore, USCIS again urges all I-131 applicants for whom biometrics will be required to file their applications well in advance of their scheduled departure dates. USCIS suggests applicants apply for a travel document at least 60 days prior to the date of travel.
So if we efile EAD and then 2 months down the line efile AP, do we have to go twice for biometrics ???
I-131 form is used for issuing re-entry permits, refugee travel & advance parole documents.
AOS applicants are issued advance parole document. The biometrics rule is only for those individuals who are issued re-entry & refugee travel documents.
If in doubt kindly read through the text that you pasted in your message.
Thanks.
Source www.immigration-law.com
07/09/2008: USCIS Biometric Changes For Re-Entry Permits and Refugee Travel Documents 07/08/2008
USCIS has issued revised instructions for USCIS Form I-131, Application for Travel Document. The instructions include changes effective March 5, 2008 that require applicants for re-entry permits and refugee travel documents to provide biometrics (e.g., fingerprints and photographs) at a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) for background and security checks and to meet requirements for secure travel and entry documents containing biometric identifiers.
Q. May an I-131 applicant for a re-entry permit or refugee travel document complete biometrics outside of the United States?
A. Form I-131 instructions provide guidance for certain persons who are abroad at the time of filing to visit a U.S. Embassy or consulate for fingerprinting, although all applicants are urged to file before leaving the United States. Since certain overseas offices have the discretion to accept and adjudicate applications for refugee travel documents, although it is not mandatory that they do so, an applicant for a refugee travel document may complete biometrics outside of the United States, but is encouraged to wait to travel until his or her biometrics have been collected and the document delivered. As discussed earlier, certain overseas USCIS offices may, in their discretion, adjudicate Form I-131 filed for a refugee travel document (but not re-entry permits), where the applicant has failed to apply while in the U.S. (see 8 C.F.R. � 223.2(b)(2)(ii)). However, applicants for refugee travel documents should not count on the overseas offices necessarily agreeing to adjudicate Form I-131 in all cases, particularly where it is evident that the individual could have applied while in the U.S. and attended his or her biometrics appointment. Applicants for reentry permits should attend their biometric appointment at the designated ASC. If the applicant departs the United States before the biometrics are collected, the application may be denied.
Q. Will Form I-131 re-entry permit or refugee travel document be denied if the applicant leaves the U.S. after the application has been filed and receipted but before biometrics are completed?
A. Form I-131 form instructions state, �Departure from the United States before a decision is made on an application for a Re-entry Permit usually does not affect the application. However, where biometric collection is required and the applicant departs the United States before the biometrics are collected, the application may be denied.� Travel is not advisable. If an applicant leaves and comes back, his or her application may be denied while abroad, and he or she may not be able to get back into the country. Even though an overseas USCIS office may, in its discretion, take the biometrics of an applicant for a refugee travel document, there is no guarantee that the office will necessarily exercise its discretion to do so. Therefore, USCIS again urges all I-131 applicants for whom biometrics will be required to file their applications well in advance of their scheduled departure dates. USCIS suggests applicants apply for a travel document at least 60 days prior to the date of travel.
So if we efile EAD and then 2 months down the line efile AP, do we have to go twice for biometrics ???
2011 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
permfiling
12-22 07:34 PM
Please update your profile on IV
more...
sertasheep
07-08 07:43 PM
I have gotten in touch with Mr. Oh. and he has made corrections. Please see the following link. Request members to provide due credit and respect to other organizations and firms. We must work collaboratively.
Thank you, Mr. Oh.
See http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
ohlaw immigration-law.com" to sertasheep
show details 8:04 pm (4 minutes ago)
Corrected. Thank you.
Original Message:
-----------------
From: sertasheep immigrationvoice.org
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:47:28 -0400
To: matthewoh.attorney gmail.com, ohlaw immigration-law.com
Subject: Correction required to news item on your home page
- Show quoted text -
Dear Mr. Oh,
Thank you for your efforts to the immigration community, that makes your
website a good source of information. I was writing to highlight some
corrections required in a news item on your home page related to a Flower
Campaign by several highly-skilled, LEGAL professionals. The reference to
"East Indian" is not right, as there are several professionals from various
ethnic backgrounds that are participating in this effort. Can I request you
to change the reference from "Indian" or "East Indian" to *"Highly-skilled
Legal Immigrants"?*
Thank you,
Regards
Thank you, Mr. Oh.
See http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
ohlaw immigration-law.com" to sertasheep
show details 8:04 pm (4 minutes ago)
Corrected. Thank you.
Original Message:
-----------------
From: sertasheep immigrationvoice.org
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:47:28 -0400
To: matthewoh.attorney gmail.com, ohlaw immigration-law.com
Subject: Correction required to news item on your home page
- Show quoted text -
Dear Mr. Oh,
Thank you for your efforts to the immigration community, that makes your
website a good source of information. I was writing to highlight some
corrections required in a news item on your home page related to a Flower
Campaign by several highly-skilled, LEGAL professionals. The reference to
"East Indian" is not right, as there are several professionals from various
ethnic backgrounds that are participating in this effort. Can I request you
to change the reference from "Indian" or "East Indian" to *"Highly-skilled
Legal Immigrants"?*
Thank you,
Regards
anu_t
07-20 10:10 PM
I would definitely choose carreer over GC. Infact I myself did it.
more...
lj_rr
11-24 12:19 PM
I had the same issue with Country of Citizenship.
So when sending supporting docs, I attached a page in front (with super large font and different color paper) requesting this correction for Country of Birth. Everything went through fine and got EAD.
@sameer2730 :
So when you made the mistake "Country Of Citizenship" on your EAD eFile, how did you get that corrected? Did you send in a "Request For Correction" along with your supporting documentation to USCIS? Did they send you an RFE or did they accept your docs and approved your EAD?
Sent the request for correction with my supporting documents.
-- I have done the same mistake, so can you please tell what exactly you did. I mean did you call the helpline and is there any format in which we need to "Request for correction".
And once you sent the "Request for Correction", was it ok. Or is there any problem with the correction.
Please help me with your advice. I am completely in dilemma as to what needs to done..
Thanks in advance..
Vinay
So when sending supporting docs, I attached a page in front (with super large font and different color paper) requesting this correction for Country of Birth. Everything went through fine and got EAD.
@sameer2730 :
So when you made the mistake "Country Of Citizenship" on your EAD eFile, how did you get that corrected? Did you send in a "Request For Correction" along with your supporting documentation to USCIS? Did they send you an RFE or did they accept your docs and approved your EAD?
Sent the request for correction with my supporting documents.
-- I have done the same mistake, so can you please tell what exactly you did. I mean did you call the helpline and is there any format in which we need to "Request for correction".
And once you sent the "Request for Correction", was it ok. Or is there any problem with the correction.
Please help me with your advice. I am completely in dilemma as to what needs to done..
Thanks in advance..
Vinay
2010 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
CCC
07-05 02:19 PM
Hello,
I am in desparate need of some advice. I have an approved I-140 (11/28/2006) and my 485 was filed under my wife's GC application in June 07. I would like to leave my current company A and join another company B asap. I have 3 days to accept the offer.
a. Is it possible for me to port my I-140 to company B?
b. If its possible will i be able to keep the PD?
I did some research on the AC21 act and it seems that its ok to move companies after 180 days of getting the EAD card. But I could not figure out if the I-140 could also be ported over to company B.
Thanks in advance.
I am in desparate need of some advice. I have an approved I-140 (11/28/2006) and my 485 was filed under my wife's GC application in June 07. I would like to leave my current company A and join another company B asap. I have 3 days to accept the offer.
a. Is it possible for me to port my I-140 to company B?
b. If its possible will i be able to keep the PD?
I did some research on the AC21 act and it seems that its ok to move companies after 180 days of getting the EAD card. But I could not figure out if the I-140 could also be ported over to company B.
Thanks in advance.
more...
ryan
02-03 05:33 PM
Hi Ryan,
Do you know anyone have done that? Like you personally or anyone you know? Have they got I-140? I read that its possible to get PERM Labor done under EB-2, but USCIS gives real hard time at I-140 stage.
Appreciate your help!
Thank you
The lawyers had the Ozzie degree, as well as the US CPA evaluated via an accredited foreign degree evaluator. This was back in the summer of �06. Again, invest a few extra $$ and hire a good lawyer. They can best explain the process / prerequisites to you.
Do you know anyone have done that? Like you personally or anyone you know? Have they got I-140? I read that its possible to get PERM Labor done under EB-2, but USCIS gives real hard time at I-140 stage.
Appreciate your help!
Thank you
The lawyers had the Ozzie degree, as well as the US CPA evaluated via an accredited foreign degree evaluator. This was back in the summer of �06. Again, invest a few extra $$ and hire a good lawyer. They can best explain the process / prerequisites to you.
hair Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 LS9
India_USA
01-21 01:40 PM
My mom, after watching "Shankara Baranam" extended a technique to my memorizing the multiplication tables. She would wake me up early in the morning, and I had to memorize my tables sitting under the back light of my house. I did not like doing it, but it sure helped me memorize my tables faster! My mom believes that I remember my tables to this day because of her.
My younger brother (who was around 4) would wake up a little while later, and check on me to see whether I was studying or sleeping. He definitely would run to tell my mom if i was dozing off!! I probably was more angry with him (then) than with my mom. My brother does not remember much of this, but we do talk about the whole incidence as a joke!
My younger brother (who was around 4) would wake up a little while later, and check on me to see whether I was studying or sleeping. He definitely would run to tell my mom if i was dozing off!! I probably was more angry with him (then) than with my mom. My brother does not remember much of this, but we do talk about the whole incidence as a joke!
more...
maverick_joe
05-05 10:07 AM
I totally agree, but as if there isnt a backlog at I-140 right now!! its been more than an year since I filed my I-140 ..I see a couple of LUDs but no approval in sight!
Does anyone else have the same story? I-140 pending for 12+ months now(transfered from NSC to TSC last month).
Years before, the back log was at Labor Stage, then when PERM Labor came into existance, the back log was at 485 stage, now with non-concurrent filing I think the I 140 will get backlogged.
Does anyone else have the same story? I-140 pending for 12+ months now(transfered from NSC to TSC last month).
Years before, the back log was at Labor Stage, then when PERM Labor came into existance, the back log was at 485 stage, now with non-concurrent filing I think the I 140 will get backlogged.
hot 1990 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
saravanaraj.sathya
08-22 03:34 PM
Yes. I will share the bus ride from Buffalo, NY.
saravanaraj -
Would you consider riding a bus?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12567
Please vote!
saravanaraj -
Would you consider riding a bus?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12567
Please vote!
more...
house 2010 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
priderock
05-15 10:35 AM
Wonder how many core group members benefited with this forward movement !!
tattoo 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
chanduv23
09-10 10:50 AM
Please post your suggest to change H-1B program so that it becomes fair to all. I have started new thread for this purpose.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=162510#post162510
Right now - lets encourage people to join rally
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=162510#post162510
Right now - lets encourage people to join rally
more...
pictures 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
syzygy
07-21 10:41 AM
This is smart idea. Will convey the message to right people.
This idea was floated a few years back, but then we did not have the win of a flower campaign behind us.
We now have a senator to focus our energies on - Dick Durbin.
How about everybody with a US degree send a copy of the diploma in a packet to Sen Durbin with a message - Dont hold us hostage because of a few bad apples..something to that nature?
Alternatively we can send it to Sen Obama asking him to please let the senior senator from illinois, sen Durbin, know we are high skilled immigrants - dont hold us hostage because of a few bad apples.
maybe we can send an apple too :D
sending to sen obama will make sure the issue is played in media because of the presidential coverage.
This idea was floated a few years back, but then we did not have the win of a flower campaign behind us.
We now have a senator to focus our energies on - Dick Durbin.
How about everybody with a US degree send a copy of the diploma in a packet to Sen Durbin with a message - Dont hold us hostage because of a few bad apples..something to that nature?
Alternatively we can send it to Sen Obama asking him to please let the senior senator from illinois, sen Durbin, know we are high skilled immigrants - dont hold us hostage because of a few bad apples.
maybe we can send an apple too :D
sending to sen obama will make sure the issue is played in media because of the presidential coverage.
dresses 2010 Corvette Zr1 Engine.
manderson
11-09 08:57 AM
unless you are a European on EB3.
My lawyer told me the backlog is 400K. As an European, I am expecting to wait between 2 to 3 years for my GC. Anything sooner would be a nice surprise!
My lawyer told me the backlog is 400K. As an European, I am expecting to wait between 2 to 3 years for my GC. Anything sooner would be a nice surprise!
more...
makeup Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 2011 is
lotres
11-09 07:08 AM
My lawyer told me the backlog is 400K. As an European, I am expecting to wait between 2 to 3 years for my GC. Anything sooner would be a nice surprise!
girlfriend 2009 Chevrolet Corvette
Aah_GC
09-21 11:14 PM
Thanks...your replies were compassionate and philosophical in a way.
Let me rephrase it. With current Globalization and other means to come to US such as B1,L1 etc....why are we stuck to this phase for years.
See tonnes of people going back----are we chasing something we are not supposed to do?
IMO I think that is a question only you can answer. Since we are all chasing some thing or the other -- it makes sense to enjoy the journey, see how we can be happy today and let nature take its course. For some going back to India makes most sense, for some probably not. Either way, the decisions that we take should be based out of our own individual purpose and desires than be guided by externals.
Let me rephrase it. With current Globalization and other means to come to US such as B1,L1 etc....why are we stuck to this phase for years.
See tonnes of people going back----are we chasing something we are not supposed to do?
IMO I think that is a question only you can answer. Since we are all chasing some thing or the other -- it makes sense to enjoy the journey, see how we can be happy today and let nature take its course. For some going back to India makes most sense, for some probably not. Either way, the decisions that we take should be based out of our own individual purpose and desires than be guided by externals.
hairstyles Chevrolet released today the details of the 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 that
immigrationvoice1
12-08 01:25 PM
BTW, what are some of the online MS / MBA schools that the H1B community is attending ? Please share this information as I plan to take up one, and wanted to learn from your experirnce.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
mchundi
07-09 01:31 PM
upgraded on June25 to PP got status changed on 30th. Received approval notice by attorney on July 6th
Was this at TSC, mine is at NSC. My First I140 was approved, My company refiled after acquisition (successor in interest) and later upgraded to Premium
Was this at TSC, mine is at NSC. My First I140 was approved, My company refiled after acquisition (successor in interest) and later upgraded to Premium
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
No comments:
Post a Comment