Karthikthiru
08-26 12:36 PM
Congrats. Did you change from AOS to CP? or You choose CP when you applied for I-140
wallpaper victoria beckham bob haircut
TeddyKoochu
06-25 02:21 PM
Hi Gurus / Attorneys,
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
I think your best bet is to expedite all documents suggested by Pbuckeye, If its a direct client then your employer must have all of MSA/SOW/PO, they should have been sent at the first place or atleast at RFE time. Also if possible try to capture some of your timesheets and work emails; I know some people have used this as evidence. You may also provide the contact details of your manager like phone / email, I have seen instances that when the letter has not been provided USCIS has contacted the manager and all they have to confirm is that you work with them and how long tentatively in the future (This can be counterproductive as well if the response is cold). Iam not sure but if your H1B extension is denied and you have filed a MTR whether you can work legally assuming I94 expired, please check this with your attorney.
With your PD you are atleast 3-4 years from filing 485, worst case if you have to go back you can convert to CP assuming the future job offer from the petitioning company is valid. It’s a very sad situation I hope that your MTR gets approved, all the best.
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
I think your best bet is to expedite all documents suggested by Pbuckeye, If its a direct client then your employer must have all of MSA/SOW/PO, they should have been sent at the first place or atleast at RFE time. Also if possible try to capture some of your timesheets and work emails; I know some people have used this as evidence. You may also provide the contact details of your manager like phone / email, I have seen instances that when the letter has not been provided USCIS has contacted the manager and all they have to confirm is that you work with them and how long tentatively in the future (This can be counterproductive as well if the response is cold). Iam not sure but if your H1B extension is denied and you have filed a MTR whether you can work legally assuming I94 expired, please check this with your attorney.
With your PD you are atleast 3-4 years from filing 485, worst case if you have to go back you can convert to CP assuming the future job offer from the petitioning company is valid. It’s a very sad situation I hope that your MTR gets approved, all the best.
bskrishna
04-12 07:50 PM
In other words we can go through CompeteAmerica, as this is the umbrella organization working in this area?
2011 eckham-victoria-ob-hair
satish_hello
08-21 06:08 PM
I don't understand , people are started getting receipt filed in july'14th, july'16th. They are not processing July3rd through july'14th filing?.
I have sent my application on July5th to NSC. It is received by NSC at July6th.Did any one got receipts in 5th or 6th filer..
I didn't see much of filed between july'3nd through july '14th filings in this forum.
-satish
----------------------------------------------
EB2/PD-Sept'2004/I-140 Approved.
I-485 - Sent July5th.
RD - ?
AD -?
I have sent my application on July5th to NSC. It is received by NSC at July6th.Did any one got receipts in 5th or 6th filer..
I didn't see much of filed between july'3nd through july '14th filings in this forum.
-satish
----------------------------------------------
EB2/PD-Sept'2004/I-140 Approved.
I-485 - Sent July5th.
RD - ?
AD -?
more...
hypersphere
05-21 09:07 AM
Exactly the same thing happed to me a few years ago while hiking in the adirondacks, upstate NY. If you are within 100 miles of the border the "border patrol police" has the authority to perform immigration checke on you. This is in contrast to local/state police who under-law, cannot ask you for your immigration documents. There is always patrolling on I87 near the border.
While my status was legal, my records were not up to date in one of their data bases. I was questioned on my status. The officers were stern but cooperative and eventually let me go.
I was asked to keep originals of my travel documents all the time. At the least, keep phtocopies in the car if you are nearing the international broder and keep the phone number of your attorney handy.
While my status was legal, my records were not up to date in one of their data bases. I was questioned on my status. The officers were stern but cooperative and eventually let me go.
I was asked to keep originals of my travel documents all the time. At the least, keep phtocopies in the car if you are nearing the international broder and keep the phone number of your attorney handy.
gc_peshwa
04-15 01:51 AM
Spread the word about this campaign with ure friends,colleagues, lets 'DOS proof' our future :-)
more...
GC_Applicant
07-23 11:27 PM
I ported from EB3 to EB2 recently and if its all goes well, my PD of May 06 might be current. Is there any way one can determine if their finger prints, photographs, security checks, etc., are valid and the application is pre-adjudicated and ready for approval.
Since, I ported recently I didn't notice any LUD's in my I-485 application. Any thoughts. Please share your experiences.
Since, I ported recently I didn't notice any LUD's in my I-485 application. Any thoughts. Please share your experiences.
2010 Victoria Beckham Short Bob
rsdang
07-23 10:41 AM
What I have heard from others having the same issue is that they would put your given name as the last name (as it is the index in their db) and put the "FNU" (First Name Unknown) under the first name. I know, this is ridiculous as you have a first name ! Hope they have something like a "LNU" as well
FNU - also stands for Family Name Unknown...
Hope this helps...
FNU - also stands for Family Name Unknown...
Hope this helps...
more...
roseball
02-07 12:57 AM
Hello there
I am student from Tri-valley university. On Jan 20th the college got shut down. I am working on CPT. I came to know about the shut down through my friends, with whom immigration officers met. Although no immigration officers contacted me by any means, my friends suggested me to look for another college and get enrolled as soon as within 30 days. While I tried to enroll in another college, I came to know that still the sevis is not yet released. Until the college releases our sevis, we are unable to enroll in any other college. We are elible to work only if we enroll into the college, get an I-20 and CPT. Now I am worried because until they release our sevis, the admissions in other colleges will meet deadline and what happens if they no more take admissions. Do you have any idea how long can it take for them to release our sevis ? Will it be safe for students like me hereafter to work fulltime on CPT ?
Thank you
Chaitanya
Looks like your only worry is to get admitted to another college so you can continue to work on CPT.....You show no concern what so ever regarding the credits you earned so far (if at all any), courses you are currently enrolled in and the fee you paid......It seems you are one of the students who knowingly enrolled at TVU so you can work from Day1......
I am student from Tri-valley university. On Jan 20th the college got shut down. I am working on CPT. I came to know about the shut down through my friends, with whom immigration officers met. Although no immigration officers contacted me by any means, my friends suggested me to look for another college and get enrolled as soon as within 30 days. While I tried to enroll in another college, I came to know that still the sevis is not yet released. Until the college releases our sevis, we are unable to enroll in any other college. We are elible to work only if we enroll into the college, get an I-20 and CPT. Now I am worried because until they release our sevis, the admissions in other colleges will meet deadline and what happens if they no more take admissions. Do you have any idea how long can it take for them to release our sevis ? Will it be safe for students like me hereafter to work fulltime on CPT ?
Thank you
Chaitanya
Looks like your only worry is to get admitted to another college so you can continue to work on CPT.....You show no concern what so ever regarding the credits you earned so far (if at all any), courses you are currently enrolled in and the fee you paid......It seems you are one of the students who knowingly enrolled at TVU so you can work from Day1......
hair Victoria Beckham Hair
shreekhand
07-29 11:23 AM
Nowhere did I say I am not sure. In fact I am as sure as it can get :)
The original poster is talking about adjusting status to F-1 but not already being on F-1. Understand that difference here.
For FYI: If one is already on F-1 and applies for I-485 he/she is no longer on F-1 for all practical purposes but in a "period of stay as authorized by the attorney general". In such a case he/she can anyways use a EAD but have to have an AP while re-entering and continue studying as usual.
Note that F-1 and applied for I-485 is a highly debatable topic amongst the legal fraternity.
If you are not sure, don't give untrue info!! His F1 will be unaffected until and when he starts using EAD. He will not be able to re-enter on F1, but as long as he does not use EAD he can maintain this status. To re-enter he will need to use AP and at that point he is no longer in F1.
Also, once you file I485, there is no problem going to school as long as he maintains the job he was originally sponsored for.
The original poster is talking about adjusting status to F-1 but not already being on F-1. Understand that difference here.
For FYI: If one is already on F-1 and applies for I-485 he/she is no longer on F-1 for all practical purposes but in a "period of stay as authorized by the attorney general". In such a case he/she can anyways use a EAD but have to have an AP while re-entering and continue studying as usual.
Note that F-1 and applied for I-485 is a highly debatable topic amongst the legal fraternity.
If you are not sure, don't give untrue info!! His F1 will be unaffected until and when he starts using EAD. He will not be able to re-enter on F1, but as long as he does not use EAD he can maintain this status. To re-enter he will need to use AP and at that point he is no longer in F1.
Also, once you file I485, there is no problem going to school as long as he maintains the job he was originally sponsored for.
more...
gc28262
03-26 09:28 PM
I never heard this? Any references to confirm this?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/245(k)_14Jul08.pdf
The adjudicator must only examine the period from the date of the alien�s last lawful admission to the United States and must not count violations that occurred before the alien�s last lawful admission.
http://smithgarg.com/article-overcoming-violations.aspx
Fortunately, the ameliorative provisions of INA � 245(k), discussed above, also apply to cases of unauthorized employment and violations of nonimmigrant visa terms. Thus, for many foreign workers seeking a green card, unauthorized employment or visa violations occurring for less than 180 days since the last lawful entry will not act as a disqualification for adjustment of status.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/245(k)_14Jul08.pdf
The adjudicator must only examine the period from the date of the alien�s last lawful admission to the United States and must not count violations that occurred before the alien�s last lawful admission.
http://smithgarg.com/article-overcoming-violations.aspx
Fortunately, the ameliorative provisions of INA � 245(k), discussed above, also apply to cases of unauthorized employment and violations of nonimmigrant visa terms. Thus, for many foreign workers seeking a green card, unauthorized employment or visa violations occurring for less than 180 days since the last lawful entry will not act as a disqualification for adjustment of status.
hot victoria beckham bob hair.
nkavjs
11-15 10:04 AM
Lynne,
I live in Fishers (126st), but work on West side of Indy (US 36 road towards Avon).
I will make it next time for sure. I am not familiar with Carmel roads, but after yesterday's confusion, i have got some idea.
DPP
Hello : Pls. include me too. I am from Indypls.. (from Fishers)
Thanks
RPH
I live in Fishers (126st), but work on West side of Indy (US 36 road towards Avon).
I will make it next time for sure. I am not familiar with Carmel roads, but after yesterday's confusion, i have got some idea.
DPP
Hello : Pls. include me too. I am from Indypls.. (from Fishers)
Thanks
RPH
more...
house victoria beckham short hair
sen
02-21 08:02 AM
Guys,
I have a similar question. I have both H1 visa (valid till Feb 09) and approved AP document. I am planning to use my H1 during my re-entry into US. Do i still need to present/inform about my AP to POE officer?
Please advise.
I have a similar question. I have both H1 visa (valid till Feb 09) and approved AP document. I am planning to use my H1 during my re-entry into US. Do i still need to present/inform about my AP to POE officer?
Please advise.
tattoo 2010 Victoria Beckham Short
b072707
10-24 11:47 AM
I am in the same boat. no receipts so far.
more...
pictures hair: Victoria Beckham bob
mhtanim
09-20 11:26 PM
Thanks for the info. how about areas like simivalley, santa clarita, do you get houses for 300 to 350 and
And also around bay area- san roman, liver moore are they good neighbourhood. Also which has more jobs in datawarehousing is it LA or bayarea.
House prices in California have fallen significantly this year. However, they are still out of reach for most of the first time buyers. Simi Valley and Santa Clarita are nice places to live but still quite expensive. You may be able to find a townhouse for the range that you have mentioned. Please browse www.realtor.com and run some searches by cities to get an idea.
Remember, it's very difficult to get a loan nowadays. The lender will now check how much you really make. The general rule for qualifying a loan is that you need to make at least 1/3rd per year of the house that you are buying. For example: if you make $50K a year, you can qualify for a mortgage up to $50K*3=$150K and not more than that.
Good luck on your search.
And also around bay area- san roman, liver moore are they good neighbourhood. Also which has more jobs in datawarehousing is it LA or bayarea.
House prices in California have fallen significantly this year. However, they are still out of reach for most of the first time buyers. Simi Valley and Santa Clarita are nice places to live but still quite expensive. You may be able to find a townhouse for the range that you have mentioned. Please browse www.realtor.com and run some searches by cities to get an idea.
Remember, it's very difficult to get a loan nowadays. The lender will now check how much you really make. The general rule for qualifying a loan is that you need to make at least 1/3rd per year of the house that you are buying. For example: if you make $50K a year, you can qualify for a mortgage up to $50K*3=$150K and not more than that.
Good luck on your search.
dresses Victoria Beckham short ob
Alabaman
09-01 02:10 PM
It is time USA opens its borders to allow more people from good cultures like India to come and settle here. Americans can learn family values from Indians. If America restricts immigrants it will turn into a country of bigoted, nepotistic creeps who will export their ugly culture of disowning their own parents to our shores and around the world. Programmers have long enjoyed high inflated salaries that are unreasonable. These salaries now need to come down and be competitive globally. Time for a 'change' in immigration and congress to open its arms to immigrants who made this country so great. It is time to make Kennedy's dream a reality. Indians who settle here need to have loyalty to their culture and should not become Americanized. Take the good things from this culture and not lose your own good cultural values that made India the best country in the world until the gora British came and ruined it.
No offence intended, If India is the best country in the world with its "wonderful" cultures why are there so many Indians hell bent on getting the Green Card? Waiting so many years painfully? Why not just return home and live in "best place on earth"? Why would you want to turn America into India? It is good to respect your host country's culture. They are not perfect and so also are many other countries. Please let's call a spade a spade and nothing else.
Having said that, this article reminds us that the debate should be: What group of people does America need to allow into this country on a permanent basis? (Emphasis on permanent basis). Aged parents of US citizens or long time resident and highly skilled immigrants?
If I had a chance to write this part of the immigration law, I would stop a system where US citizens can file green cards for sibblings and parents. I would however, make it almost automatic for parents of citizens/green card holders to be granted 5 to 10 year visitor visas. I dont expect my parents who are in their 60s to move to the US. To do what at that age?? I cant sit at home with them... they will just be lonely!!
I would also stop the green card lottery program. The freed up green quota from these two groups I will move to long time LEGAL residents (say 5 years or 10 years) who have been paying taxes, working and contributing to the economy.
No offence intended, If India is the best country in the world with its "wonderful" cultures why are there so many Indians hell bent on getting the Green Card? Waiting so many years painfully? Why not just return home and live in "best place on earth"? Why would you want to turn America into India? It is good to respect your host country's culture. They are not perfect and so also are many other countries. Please let's call a spade a spade and nothing else.
Having said that, this article reminds us that the debate should be: What group of people does America need to allow into this country on a permanent basis? (Emphasis on permanent basis). Aged parents of US citizens or long time resident and highly skilled immigrants?
If I had a chance to write this part of the immigration law, I would stop a system where US citizens can file green cards for sibblings and parents. I would however, make it almost automatic for parents of citizens/green card holders to be granted 5 to 10 year visitor visas. I dont expect my parents who are in their 60s to move to the US. To do what at that age?? I cant sit at home with them... they will just be lonely!!
I would also stop the green card lottery program. The freed up green quota from these two groups I will move to long time LEGAL residents (say 5 years or 10 years) who have been paying taxes, working and contributing to the economy.
more...
makeup victoria beckham bob hairstyle
perm2gc
08-30 03:17 PM
perm2gc,
Southwest, JetBlue, Airtran who are low fare carriers might have stopped doing that. A friend of mine flew on his in-laws frequent flier miles on Southwest a couple of years back. I am not sure what their policy is currently. I know Big airlines like American, United allow to transfer miles for charges varying between 5 to 25 dollars depending on the number of days left for travel. Also, not all seats are available for award travel on a given flight. It varies from the frequent flyer's status ( General, Premier, 1K ) what ever. I am sure the core people are looking into these considertations.
thks for the info
Southwest, JetBlue, Airtran who are low fare carriers might have stopped doing that. A friend of mine flew on his in-laws frequent flier miles on Southwest a couple of years back. I am not sure what their policy is currently. I know Big airlines like American, United allow to transfer miles for charges varying between 5 to 25 dollars depending on the number of days left for travel. Also, not all seats are available for award travel on a given flight. It varies from the frequent flyer's status ( General, Premier, 1K ) what ever. I am sure the core people are looking into these considertations.
thks for the info
girlfriend Victoria Beckham
sam_hoosier
05-22 11:23 AM
plss do not rush with ur filing in june....pls file after june 10th so that cut off dates move foward in july VB.
;)
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
;)
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
hairstyles Victoria Beckham Hairstyle
boston_gc
01-26 04:07 PM
I think it will be follish for any political party to not pay attention to Latino power. Mr. Obama won election with their support. For some reason, Latino group has not come forward so far to say that no CIR would mean no support to the party. I think if Latinos and all other interest groups come together, we may have a chance. Otherwise, I agree it is going tobe a while....:mad:
The only way to get this CIR is to get full support of Get support of Senator McCain. If we get his support, atleast some republicans will support the bill and it can pass.
The only way to get this CIR is to get full support of Get support of Senator McCain. If we get his support, atleast some republicans will support the bill and it can pass.
rajuram
12-06 10:09 AM
File online. Next steps
- Print two copies of the online receipt
- with one copy of the receipt attach -
485 copy, 2 photographs, a sheet with reason for applying AP (i.e. answer to question nbr 10 or 7, don't remember)
- mail the above to the address on the receipt
- relax for 3 or 4 weeks
- get the approval
- Print two copies of the online receipt
- with one copy of the receipt attach -
485 copy, 2 photographs, a sheet with reason for applying AP (i.e. answer to question nbr 10 or 7, don't remember)
- mail the above to the address on the receipt
- relax for 3 or 4 weeks
- get the approval
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment