venkygct
09-07 11:35 PM
^^^^^
wallpaper a Columbian red-tail boa
brahmam
06-26 02:57 PM
I went to Kinko's .. $45 for 12 photos. Looks good, with no marks et al. one never knows ofcourse until one gets an RFE :D
gvenkat
10-31 12:22 AM
Applied for EAD on Aug 30th, Receipt notice was on Sep 3rd and Got email yesterday saying card production ordered. Nebraska Service center.
Now waiting for AP to be approved. Applied on Aug 30th. Receipt notice on 3rd Sep, LUD on 10th Sep.. Texas service center. Thinking it should not be long.
Now waiting for AP to be approved. Applied on Aug 30th. Receipt notice on 3rd Sep, LUD on 10th Sep.. Texas service center. Thinking it should not be long.
2011 columbian red tailed boas
perm2gc
05-17 09:56 AM
They asked the biggest takers of H-1B visas. They just so happened to be Indian companies, funny enough.
I don't see why you would think of the bill as insane. It weeds out the abuse clogging up an otherwise great visa program.
Ignorance is a bless...
I don't see why you would think of the bill as insane. It weeds out the abuse clogging up an otherwise great visa program.
Ignorance is a bless...
more...
jonty_11
07-23 11:59 PM
^^^
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
more...
willwin
07-08 12:20 PM
Is there any update on three bills in house. I have checked the hearing schedule for all committees and there seems to be no hearing scheduled for any of the bills. House in session till September 7 and after that District work period and convention shows, which leaves us with just 4 weeks from now and after that It reconvens from September 9 with target adjournment date of 26th september and i m pretty sure no congressional rep will like to cast vote on any bills before going into election....
Prospects seems bleak now... Is there anything we can do...any last attempt that is required? If so...Let us all know...
I doubt if you would get any reply to this!
Prospects seems bleak now... Is there anything we can do...any last attempt that is required? If so...Let us all know...
I doubt if you would get any reply to this!
2010 Baby Columbian Red Tail Boa
illinois_alum
10-02 04:40 PM
Thx so much I got it..
For the "Class of ADmission" - if I have entered US on AP, do I enter "Parolee"
Yes - you should enter PAROLEE as status if you last entered the US on an AP document
For the "Class of ADmission" - if I have entered US on AP, do I enter "Parolee"
Yes - you should enter PAROLEE as status if you last entered the US on an AP document
more...
ramee
07-05 01:23 PM
Any one in the same boat?
hair Guyana red tail Boa
laborday
07-17 10:56 AM
OK, anyone who can help me here? I am still getting June.
For NSC
--------
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on a pending I-485 adjustment application [(c)(9)] March 26, 2007
For NSC
--------
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on a pending I-485 adjustment application [(c)(9)] March 26, 2007
more...
akgind
07-13 07:02 PM
The difference, my friend, will come about once the DREAM Act passes in its present form. The undocumented child will pay in-state tuition, whereas your child will keep on paying out-of-state tuition. And in 3 years, the former will get premanent residency or GC, whereas your child will still be in the line for H1, EB2/3, at the mercy of USCIS.
So, do support this bill - I am 'so called legal' immigrant, my son is going to university (having H4 visa) but he is treated the same way as illegal sillegaltatus student is treated -- no financial aid is available to my son or in-state tuition fees. Where is the difference?
So, do support this bill - I am 'so called legal' immigrant, my son is going to university (having H4 visa) but he is treated the same way as illegal sillegaltatus student is treated -- no financial aid is available to my son or in-state tuition fees. Where is the difference?
hot BRAZILIAN Red-tailed BOAs (Boa
Green.Tech
06-27 01:58 PM
Does anyone know if polaroids are ok?
Otherwise, I have photos that I printed at Walmart (clicked using my digital camera) but those were a little dark and I enchanced the brightness. Don't know if those are valid or not?
Otherwise, I have photos that I printed at Walmart (clicked using my digital camera) but those were a little dark and I enchanced the brightness. Don't know if those are valid or not?
more...
house Columbian red-tailed boa
MerciesOfInjustices
02-20 07:54 PM
There is a post at ImmigrationPortal by a guy claiming that IV's ability to hire lobbyists is bogus! I would like this guy's questions anwered here as well as at his post on the "EB Retrogression - HOT News" thread http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=204685 if possible!
These are the posts by the user hadron:
For anyone intending to 'vote with their wallet', please keep the following in mind:
- Only US citizens are allowed to contribute to political campaigns (it is even illegal to give money to a citizen friend and have him contribute as a straw-man)
- there are regulations regarding political action committees (PAC) controlled by 'agents of a foreign power'
While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the folks setting up IV.com (and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity and honesty of their efforts), I don't see a whole lot on the groups website dealing with the legal aspects noted above.
And then when I posted:
A lot of foreign governments and entities legally employ lobbyists in Washington. They are merely getting your voice heard by the people's representatives!
I am not a US Civics expert, but neither can be everybody else here!
hadron, just because somebody is Board-certified in one field of Medicine does not make them experts in everything else!
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way! Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
This was what he posted:
Correct, and they are very careful to be registered with the secretary of state as a PAC or public interest lobbying organization. As you point out I am certainly not an expert on the law in this area, but before you start collecting a lot of money, make sure you have competent advice from someone who is (I looked into registering an immigration related PAC a year ago, after realizing the red-tape and political minefields involved I decided not to do so).
Quote:
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way!
I actually don't know how to do that.
The reality is, in washington there are two things that open the door of a lawmakers office to a lobbyist:
- a check from the PAC aligned with his cause
- evidence that he represents measurable share of voting citizens in the home district of the representative or senator
And do you see the problem here?
You guys can't legally contribute to political campaigns and you don't represent voting citizens. So, having a lobbyist might be a first step, but it doesn't mean that your cause will be heard.
Our main ally in the immigration arena is the US chamber of commerce. They are spending considerable money on advocating for employment based immigration reform (their main thrust however is getting access to unskilled workers, either through a guest worker program or through legalization. in a secondary way they are interested in higher H1b quotas to get access to cheap professionals, fixing retrogression is not very high on their agenda). Have you talked to other organizations classically on our side yet ?
Quote:
Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
Please, save me the melodramatics.
Immigration bills get introduced by the dozen every year, most of them don't even make it into committee (but every time one gets introduced, people here on this board get all excited that finally 'relief is here'.) Even if a coalition of influential senators picks up the issue, there is no guarantee that it will go anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is last post:
I am not angry at anyone, and I don't think that any of my posts can be misconstrued to convey that impression.
I think it is a good idea to start (another) lobbying organization for immigrant rights as the existing ones have a interests very different from us. All the latino groups are only interested in family immigration and legalization of illegals, employment based immigration is only a little blip on their radar screen. Industry on the other hand has their own agenda, again not one coinciding with our issues.
I just think that some of the people involved in IV.com are taking step2 before they have taken step1. They have a nice website (no big suprise with a project run by IT professionals) and are already soliciting contributions, but some aspects of it make me wonder about the level of professionalism involved.
So as apparently some of the founders of this organization are present on this board, I would like the following questions answered:
- what is the legal form of your non-profit organization ?
- is this entity registered in any state, if yes in which ?
- who is registered as the owner of the organizations bank account ?
- what is the structure of the organization ? Do you have dues paying members, is there a board of directors, trustees ??
- who are the officers of the organization ?
Collecting contributions and spending them on political influence activities without making sure that all legal requirements are fulfilled is a dangerous endeavour. I hope you have everything set up the right way so you don't run afoul of the law (fixing retrogression is not going to do you any good if you are fighting a federal wire-fraud indictment at the time of your adjustment interview).
Also, if you want to collect significant contributions, you have to instill some trust into the donors that their money will be used for the intended cause and can't be siphoned off by a member of the organization.
So, before anyone decides to attack me personally, please come back with answers to these questions (or better, put them on the website for any potential contributor to see).
There will always be naysayers for everything! But I would like to clarify if IV can legally get representation from QGA, provided we do get the money collected? That will be the critical difference between our previous efforts and IV!!!
Admin / moderators please answer!
These are the posts by the user hadron:
For anyone intending to 'vote with their wallet', please keep the following in mind:
- Only US citizens are allowed to contribute to political campaigns (it is even illegal to give money to a citizen friend and have him contribute as a straw-man)
- there are regulations regarding political action committees (PAC) controlled by 'agents of a foreign power'
While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the folks setting up IV.com (and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity and honesty of their efforts), I don't see a whole lot on the groups website dealing with the legal aspects noted above.
And then when I posted:
A lot of foreign governments and entities legally employ lobbyists in Washington. They are merely getting your voice heard by the people's representatives!
I am not a US Civics expert, but neither can be everybody else here!
hadron, just because somebody is Board-certified in one field of Medicine does not make them experts in everything else!
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way! Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
This was what he posted:
Correct, and they are very careful to be registered with the secretary of state as a PAC or public interest lobbying organization. As you point out I am certainly not an expert on the law in this area, but before you start collecting a lot of money, make sure you have competent advice from someone who is (I looked into registering an immigration related PAC a year ago, after realizing the red-tape and political minefields involved I decided not to do so).
Quote:
Please expound your expert views on how to win this battle, and we will follow you if that is the better way!
I actually don't know how to do that.
The reality is, in washington there are two things that open the door of a lawmakers office to a lobbyist:
- a check from the PAC aligned with his cause
- evidence that he represents measurable share of voting citizens in the home district of the representative or senator
And do you see the problem here?
You guys can't legally contribute to political campaigns and you don't represent voting citizens. So, having a lobbyist might be a first step, but it doesn't mean that your cause will be heard.
Our main ally in the immigration arena is the US chamber of commerce. They are spending considerable money on advocating for employment based immigration reform (their main thrust however is getting access to unskilled workers, either through a guest worker program or through legalization. in a secondary way they are interested in higher H1b quotas to get access to cheap professionals, fixing retrogression is not very high on their agenda). Have you talked to other organizations classically on our side yet ?
Quote:
Otherwise, please remember that those who forget the lessons of history (i.e. S 1932 defeat) will have to see them repeated!
Please, save me the melodramatics.
Immigration bills get introduced by the dozen every year, most of them don't even make it into committee (but every time one gets introduced, people here on this board get all excited that finally 'relief is here'.) Even if a coalition of influential senators picks up the issue, there is no guarantee that it will go anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is last post:
I am not angry at anyone, and I don't think that any of my posts can be misconstrued to convey that impression.
I think it is a good idea to start (another) lobbying organization for immigrant rights as the existing ones have a interests very different from us. All the latino groups are only interested in family immigration and legalization of illegals, employment based immigration is only a little blip on their radar screen. Industry on the other hand has their own agenda, again not one coinciding with our issues.
I just think that some of the people involved in IV.com are taking step2 before they have taken step1. They have a nice website (no big suprise with a project run by IT professionals) and are already soliciting contributions, but some aspects of it make me wonder about the level of professionalism involved.
So as apparently some of the founders of this organization are present on this board, I would like the following questions answered:
- what is the legal form of your non-profit organization ?
- is this entity registered in any state, if yes in which ?
- who is registered as the owner of the organizations bank account ?
- what is the structure of the organization ? Do you have dues paying members, is there a board of directors, trustees ??
- who are the officers of the organization ?
Collecting contributions and spending them on political influence activities without making sure that all legal requirements are fulfilled is a dangerous endeavour. I hope you have everything set up the right way so you don't run afoul of the law (fixing retrogression is not going to do you any good if you are fighting a federal wire-fraud indictment at the time of your adjustment interview).
Also, if you want to collect significant contributions, you have to instill some trust into the donors that their money will be used for the intended cause and can't be siphoned off by a member of the organization.
So, before anyone decides to attack me personally, please come back with answers to these questions (or better, put them on the website for any potential contributor to see).
There will always be naysayers for everything! But I would like to clarify if IV can legally get representation from QGA, provided we do get the money collected? That will be the critical difference between our previous efforts and IV!!!
Admin / moderators please answer!
tattoo Colombian redtail boas,
gsc999
10-12 10:38 AM
My Priority Date Sep 2002 EB3
According to LC, my labor got approved on Aug 9th, but we received actual paper on Sep 9th .. So lost the chance to FILE 485
DOL took more than a month TO send papers ..
There is no point in blaming IV . They are the BEST ..
It is US Govt agencies who are lazy and ineptitude.
US did not get Civil Rights in one year .. it took decades of fight ...
IV is fighting for every one ..
---
Yes, this issue is on IV's agenda and we will not rest till we fix it.
On 7th July, when Fightnow, had organized a small rally in San Jose.
Another IV member had asked me a similar question, Karthik are you reading this? Yes, we care, was my answer then and now.
According to LC, my labor got approved on Aug 9th, but we received actual paper on Sep 9th .. So lost the chance to FILE 485
DOL took more than a month TO send papers ..
There is no point in blaming IV . They are the BEST ..
It is US Govt agencies who are lazy and ineptitude.
US did not get Civil Rights in one year .. it took decades of fight ...
IV is fighting for every one ..
---
Yes, this issue is on IV's agenda and we will not rest till we fix it.
On 7th July, when Fightnow, had organized a small rally in San Jose.
Another IV member had asked me a similar question, Karthik are you reading this? Yes, we care, was my answer then and now.
more...
pictures She is a Colombian Red Tail
learning01
01-31 03:05 PM
bonded labor?
I liked ur statement
I liked ur statement
dresses Columbian Boa Constrictor (Red
jjjun
12-12 01:25 PM
They just do not want to us have a good Christmas time.
more...
makeup Argentine Boa
venkygct
08-29 12:40 PM
^^^^
girlfriend Colombian Boa Constrictor
seratbabu
02-23 01:32 PM
I got the scanned copy of the RFE of my wife's case from my attorney this morning, here are the details - "Need secondary evidence to demonstrate the claimed relationship..."
I had submitted the marriage certificate, but now they want more. Gurus, has anyone received something like this before, please suggest how this can be taken care of. Can someone point me to a sample affidavit, please?
Thank you!!
I had submitted the marriage certificate, but now they want more. Gurus, has anyone received something like this before, please suggest how this can be taken care of. Can someone point me to a sample affidavit, please?
Thank you!!
hairstyles columbian red tail boa
rockstart
06-05 08:25 AM
I thought they were doing that for a while now? Am I missing something?
nkhari
07-19 10:30 AM
Worthy to spend money now to book an early flight!! Don't miss opportunity like this.
Get the immunization record for her from the doctor in India.
Finish your's (already!)
Get the immunization record for her from the doctor in India.
Finish your's (already!)
ramus
05-29 06:08 PM
After reading this I am not sure if I can ask you send web-fax..
Do you think you can do it?
Thanks.
With due respect, please refrain from posting pessimistic rants originating from unofficial sources. This may be true, but common sense should tell everyone to wait for such news to come from official sources.
These are things beyond our control. Best not to get anyone's panties into a bunch over such news. If the GC is not possible, that is still OK. Move back to the country of origin and life will go on - thoug not as planned.
The last thing we should be doing is whine about our troubles.
Do you think you can do it?
Thanks.
With due respect, please refrain from posting pessimistic rants originating from unofficial sources. This may be true, but common sense should tell everyone to wait for such news to come from official sources.
These are things beyond our control. Best not to get anyone's panties into a bunch over such news. If the GC is not possible, that is still OK. Move back to the country of origin and life will go on - thoug not as planned.
The last thing we should be doing is whine about our troubles.
Post a Comment