wandmaker
11-12 06:39 PM
Fill 131 form, attach a cover letter and AP - you dont need to include the fee as it is a USCIS mistake. Call USCIS 800 number or take infopass appointment before you refile.
Does any one know what is the process if we get wrong name in AP.? as I did get spelling mistake by uscis.
Does any one know what is the process if we get wrong name in AP.? as I did get spelling mistake by uscis.
wallpaper Green dreams: Catherine Zeta
gsvisu
07-11 10:10 AM
I just spoke with Xiyun Yang from Washington Post and conveyed thanks for covering a detailed article. She expressed that there is attention being drawn by many quarters including political for "Skilled LEGAL Immigrants".
Also we need to emphasize & communicate is the "increased fees" (almost doubled in many cases) for all USCIS services effective end of this month (July 30). Is this the penalty to be legal ?
The rallys and campaigns should emphasize this important detail too. This is huge money and not fair to the amount of service that is being currently provided.
1) http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FeeUpdate_07Jun29.pdf
2) http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf
What are your comments guys ?
Also we need to emphasize & communicate is the "increased fees" (almost doubled in many cases) for all USCIS services effective end of this month (July 30). Is this the penalty to be legal ?
The rallys and campaigns should emphasize this important detail too. This is huge money and not fair to the amount of service that is being currently provided.
1) http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FeeUpdate_07Jun29.pdf
2) http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf
What are your comments guys ?
okuzmin
11-15 07:06 PM
IV admins, Alaska's state code is AK, not AL. :)
I'm in Anchorage, AK. Skiing, fishing, boating, hiking, etc. -- you name it, let's do it. :)
I'm in Anchorage, AK. Skiing, fishing, boating, hiking, etc. -- you name it, let's do it. :)
2011 Catherine Zeta-Jones gave her
myk110
02-08 04:12 PM
Please help me. I am in a really odd situation.
My I797 expires on Feb 10th (in 2 days!). My company did not know of the iCert change. iCert denied the first 2 LCA attempts for FEIN and prevailing wage issues. The new LCA (3rd attempt) won't have a result until the 15th.
My i-94 and visa has expiration of in Oct 2011 (stamping officer's mistake). But I know, we can't rely on their mistakes.
What can I do? Please advice..
My I797 expires on Feb 10th (in 2 days!). My company did not know of the iCert change. iCert denied the first 2 LCA attempts for FEIN and prevailing wage issues. The new LCA (3rd attempt) won't have a result until the 15th.
My i-94 and visa has expiration of in Oct 2011 (stamping officer's mistake). But I know, we can't rely on their mistakes.
What can I do? Please advice..
more...
mambarg
07-28 02:52 PM
I hear from multiple sources that a concurrently filed 485/140 with 140 in premium is the fastest way to process.
Does this make sense ?
It could be as 485 does not have a A number till 140 is approved.
Once 140 is approved, then have to open the corresponding 485 and enter that information and proceed with its processing ????
So I believe this one is faster than even the approved 140 case submission of 485 ?
Any comments ?
Does anyone have insight or more info on this.
I just want to know if 485 filed with 140 approved is faster or slower than filing 140PP/485 concurrently ???
Does this make sense ?
It could be as 485 does not have a A number till 140 is approved.
Once 140 is approved, then have to open the corresponding 485 and enter that information and proceed with its processing ????
So I believe this one is faster than even the approved 140 case submission of 485 ?
Any comments ?
Does anyone have insight or more info on this.
I just want to know if 485 filed with 140 approved is faster or slower than filing 140PP/485 concurrently ???
easygoer
08-05 08:34 PM
My daughter is on F1 visa since she turned 22 years. She has her AOS (employment based dependent on me) pending. I-140 cleared and I -485 filed before she turned 22 years. She has also received her EAD and AP based on pending AOS.
We are planning to go to Canada and she want to use AP for reentering USA. My question is:
1) Once she enter USA using AP what happens to her F-1 status? Can she continue her F-1 status?
Appreciate guidance from Gurus/ Lawyers.
We are planning to go to Canada and she want to use AP for reentering USA. My question is:
1) Once she enter USA using AP what happens to her F-1 status? Can she continue her F-1 status?
Appreciate guidance from Gurus/ Lawyers.
more...
bkarnik
06-25 03:13 PM
Generally, the USCIS issues three copies I797A, I797B and I797C. Of these I797A is the Original approval sent to the petitioner while B and C are ourtesy copies sent that can be distributed by the petitioner to the beneficiary for his/her records and to the attorney for their records, etc... tyically, the USCIS and the Consulates require the form I797A for further processing the next stages.
2010 Catherine Zeta-Jones led the
akash_chopda
09-28 02:41 PM
Hello,
My husband will go to India for long time. I am on H4 in USA. He wants to file H4 to F1. If he is in india, then will I be out of status here ?Do I also have to leave USA with my husband eventhough if my visa change is in progress ? please advise
My husband will go to India for long time. I am on H4 in USA. He wants to file H4 to F1. If he is in india, then will I be out of status here ?Do I also have to leave USA with my husband eventhough if my visa change is in progress ? please advise
more...
cms01040
01-05 06:15 PM
My husband got into the country through the Mariel port
immigration from Cuba in 1980 hes been in this country since then. Im a
US citizen we are legally married. The problem was that 20 years ago
when he was about to get is residency he got incarcerated and the
process was can canceled by the immigration office. About 4 or 5 years
ago he lost all of his papers he has no ID or any document that proves
his legal status. Which I think is not going to be any help anyways
because he never got a Visa number he did got a an alien number but of course he doesnt remember it so basically he is in paper limbo, because you need an ID to get an ID. He recently got his Cuban passport but now we find out that is basically useless. I been trying to get someone to please explain to me in this case what can we do? It seems that because he is Cuban and enter the country as a refugee almost 30 years ago no one can tell me for sure what will be the procedure in his case.
Please if there anybody that can help I would really appreciated
cms
immigration from Cuba in 1980 hes been in this country since then. Im a
US citizen we are legally married. The problem was that 20 years ago
when he was about to get is residency he got incarcerated and the
process was can canceled by the immigration office. About 4 or 5 years
ago he lost all of his papers he has no ID or any document that proves
his legal status. Which I think is not going to be any help anyways
because he never got a Visa number he did got a an alien number but of course he doesnt remember it so basically he is in paper limbo, because you need an ID to get an ID. He recently got his Cuban passport but now we find out that is basically useless. I been trying to get someone to please explain to me in this case what can we do? It seems that because he is Cuban and enter the country as a refugee almost 30 years ago no one can tell me for sure what will be the procedure in his case.
Please if there anybody that can help I would really appreciated
cms
hair annual Golden Globe Awards
whattodo21
09-07 02:20 PM
Seven Myths That Cloud Immigration Debate - Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0901_immigration_west.aspx)
more...
Adam
09-21 01:26 PM
:lol:
hot Golden Globe Awards - Arrivals
legalalien
05-05 04:09 PM
Hello,
I recently received my Greencard. Will be getting married in a few months and wanted to find out the options available to sponsor my fiance. Fiance is a british citizen, does that help in any way? Also she is a qualified Doctor in the UK and is planning on taking USMLE part 1 & 2 prior to the wedding. Is it prudent to have her move to the US on an H1B instead?
Thanks
I recently received my Greencard. Will be getting married in a few months and wanted to find out the options available to sponsor my fiance. Fiance is a british citizen, does that help in any way? Also she is a qualified Doctor in the UK and is planning on taking USMLE part 1 & 2 prior to the wedding. Is it prudent to have her move to the US on an H1B instead?
Thanks
more...
house Catherine Zeta Jones and
roseball
07-25 01:41 PM
There is no mandate about that....They can come back anytime before Aug 17 as long as their PD is on or before July 31st, 2007.....Since USCIS said it will not reject 485s without medicals, you can get the medicals done later and submit when they send you an RFE....However, make sure to keep all the applications filled in and ready for mailing except for the signatures and I-94 information of the returning individuals......
tattoo Golden Globes 2011: Catherine Zeta-Jones. Actor Michael Douglas and his wife
skn
11-09 05:00 PM
My I 140 was filed recently online. I noticed that we missed out Part 4.2 where it ask for Permanent address abroad. Does anyone know if this will be an issue?
more...
pictures Catherine Zeta Jones
GCJinx
03-20 03:59 PM
I have got an offer from 2 companies for H1 . One is from INFOREEM (NJ based) and other is AFFUEL SYSTEMS (TAMPA/Atlanta based). Can anybody please has any reviews?
dresses From Catherine Zeta-Jones#39;
imh1b
12-06 08:20 AM
MA members should actively meet with Sen. Brown
Brown: Immigration reform should focus on economy - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/12/brown_immigration_reform_should_focus_on_economy/)
Why just MA members?
We should all be meeting our Senators.
Brown: Immigration reform should focus on economy - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/12/brown_immigration_reform_should_focus_on_economy/)
Why just MA members?
We should all be meeting our Senators.
more...
makeup Catherine Zeta-Jones arrives for the Golden Globe Awards Sunday, Jan.
lazycis
12-03 02:29 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15840
girlfriend The Golden Globes Best and
lelica32
02-07 10:17 AM
Hi,
I have a question:
Can a Employer who have a smoll business, a Residential Care Facility with 6 Elderly, to apply for me for a H1B Visa?. He need me as a social service Manager, with a bachelor degree.
Lelica
I have a question:
Can a Employer who have a smoll business, a Residential Care Facility with 6 Elderly, to apply for me for a H1B Visa?. He need me as a social service Manager, with a bachelor degree.
Lelica
hairstyles girlfriend Zeta-Jones - Golden
Macaca
08-15 07:28 PM
Honest and Open Thievery (http://www.reason.com/news/show/121947.html) The limits of Congress's ethics reforms By Jacob Sullum, August 15, 2007
In a letter posted at Congress.org, a constituent praises Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) for his "brilliant intellect." As evidence, Mitchell's admirer cites the congressman's vote for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
The margin by which the act passed�411 to 8 in the House, 83 to 14 in the Senate�takes some of the shine off Mitchell's brilliance. Still, he's probably smart enough to realize what his colleagues evidently understand: Congress's new honesty and openness are not what they're cracked up to be.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires that special appropriations added by individual legislators be listed in an online database at least 48 hours before they come to a vote. Critics such as Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) complained bitterly about a loophole: Congressional leaders can certify that a bill contains no earmarks, and there's no way to challenge that determination.
A deeper problem is that publicity does not deter wasteful, parochial spending that legislators want to publicize. Consider what happened last month when Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) challenged a $100,000 appropriation for a prison museum near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The earmark's sponsor, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), defended the honor of Leavenworth County, bragging that "we probably have more prisons...than any other county in the United States." She indignantly added that "the local residents are proud of their heritage and rightly so," since Leavenworth has hosted the likes of George "Machine Gun" Kelly and Nazi spy Fritz Duquesne.
The House approved Boyda's earmark by a vote of 317 to 112. Later she told The New York Times, "Democracy is a contact sport, and I'm not going to be shy about asking for money for my community."
So far this year the Democratic House has approved spending bills that include some 6,500 earmarks, not quite keeping pace with the Republicans' record of nearly 16,000 in 2005 but more than twice the whole-year total of a decade ago. Far from shaming legislators into fiscal restraint, the Times reports, "the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members' clout" and "intensified competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving."
Congressional shamelessness likewise may undermine the goals of the new Senate ban on anonymous holds. A hold occurs when a senator refuses to let a bill or nomination proceed by unanimous consent, thereby requiring the measure's supporters to muster 60 votes to allow consideration of the measure.
Holds obviously can be used for purposes that offend supporters of limited government�to extort pork, for example, or obstruct fiscal reform. But any tool that blocks legislation is apt to do more good than harm. Notably, the hold's defenders include fiscal conservatives such as Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) as well as big spenders such as Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).
Still, it's hard to find fault with the new requirement that senators publicly identify themselves and state their reasons when they block legislation. We just shouldn't expect too much as a result of this openness. As with earmarks, legislators don't try to hide their actions when they're proud of them, even if they shouldn't be. Interestingly, no one put a secret hold on the secret hold ban.
Transparency may also prove overrated as a way of preventing lobbyists from influencing legislators by arranging campaign contributions. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires public disclosure of "bundles" totaling $15,000 or more in a six-month period. Like the new attention to earmarks, highlighting these donations may simply spur competition, as K Street's denizens strive to keep up with their neighbors.
Although honesty and openness are surely preferable to dishonesty and secrecy (in politics, at least), they're not an adequate solution to a government that does too much and is therefore a magnet for people seeking gifts and favors. If a pickpocket becomes a mugger, he becomes more open and honest, but that doesn't make him more admirable.
In a letter posted at Congress.org, a constituent praises Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) for his "brilliant intellect." As evidence, Mitchell's admirer cites the congressman's vote for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
The margin by which the act passed�411 to 8 in the House, 83 to 14 in the Senate�takes some of the shine off Mitchell's brilliance. Still, he's probably smart enough to realize what his colleagues evidently understand: Congress's new honesty and openness are not what they're cracked up to be.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires that special appropriations added by individual legislators be listed in an online database at least 48 hours before they come to a vote. Critics such as Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) complained bitterly about a loophole: Congressional leaders can certify that a bill contains no earmarks, and there's no way to challenge that determination.
A deeper problem is that publicity does not deter wasteful, parochial spending that legislators want to publicize. Consider what happened last month when Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) challenged a $100,000 appropriation for a prison museum near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The earmark's sponsor, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), defended the honor of Leavenworth County, bragging that "we probably have more prisons...than any other county in the United States." She indignantly added that "the local residents are proud of their heritage and rightly so," since Leavenworth has hosted the likes of George "Machine Gun" Kelly and Nazi spy Fritz Duquesne.
The House approved Boyda's earmark by a vote of 317 to 112. Later she told The New York Times, "Democracy is a contact sport, and I'm not going to be shy about asking for money for my community."
So far this year the Democratic House has approved spending bills that include some 6,500 earmarks, not quite keeping pace with the Republicans' record of nearly 16,000 in 2005 but more than twice the whole-year total of a decade ago. Far from shaming legislators into fiscal restraint, the Times reports, "the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members' clout" and "intensified competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving."
Congressional shamelessness likewise may undermine the goals of the new Senate ban on anonymous holds. A hold occurs when a senator refuses to let a bill or nomination proceed by unanimous consent, thereby requiring the measure's supporters to muster 60 votes to allow consideration of the measure.
Holds obviously can be used for purposes that offend supporters of limited government�to extort pork, for example, or obstruct fiscal reform. But any tool that blocks legislation is apt to do more good than harm. Notably, the hold's defenders include fiscal conservatives such as Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) as well as big spenders such as Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).
Still, it's hard to find fault with the new requirement that senators publicly identify themselves and state their reasons when they block legislation. We just shouldn't expect too much as a result of this openness. As with earmarks, legislators don't try to hide their actions when they're proud of them, even if they shouldn't be. Interestingly, no one put a secret hold on the secret hold ban.
Transparency may also prove overrated as a way of preventing lobbyists from influencing legislators by arranging campaign contributions. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires public disclosure of "bundles" totaling $15,000 or more in a six-month period. Like the new attention to earmarks, highlighting these donations may simply spur competition, as K Street's denizens strive to keep up with their neighbors.
Although honesty and openness are surely preferable to dishonesty and secrecy (in politics, at least), they're not an adequate solution to a government that does too much and is therefore a magnet for people seeking gifts and favors. If a pickpocket becomes a mugger, he becomes more open and honest, but that doesn't make him more admirable.
Macaca
05-19 07:54 AM
3 Months of Tense Talks Led to Immigration Deal (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) and ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
sss9i
08-19 10:58 PM
Hi
Do I need to fill G-28 Form along with I-140, I-485.
We didn't fill any form like that. Is it o.k.??
She (Attorney) is representing for Company,not representing for Client and Company, but She signed on I-140 and I-485.
I will appreciate for your input.
Do I need to fill G-28 Form along with I-140, I-485.
We didn't fill any form like that. Is it o.k.??
She (Attorney) is representing for Company,not representing for Client and Company, but She signed on I-140 and I-485.
I will appreciate for your input.
No comments:
Post a Comment