sunny1000
07-23 01:38 AM
For Labor substitution cases, is there premium processing for I-140? Earlier, USCIS announced that from 05/18/2007 to 07/16/2007, it was stopping premium processing for Labor substitution cases. Any change now?
No PP for labor subs. No PP for other EB cases until 8/2/07 atleast. They may extend that because of the I-485 filings which will happen until 8/17.
No PP for labor subs. No PP for other EB cases until 8/2/07 atleast. They may extend that because of the I-485 filings which will happen until 8/17.
wallpaper Justin Bieber; ieber heart. justin ieber heart gif. justin ieber heart gif.
Rockford
08-31 10:20 AM
Hey guys I guess now interim EAD is possible if application is pending for 75 days.Got this information on murthy's site(In weekly Bulletin).Below is the link
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html
I hope I understood it correctly.
What do all of you say?
If you are referring to this paragraph , The answer is , field offices will NOT issue interim EAD. They can however request one and I think that is what they do today (Some field offices, as per Katri)when you take an appointment at local office to raise this issue:
The CIS Ombudsman has been engaging in discussions with the USCIS filed offices, in an effort to institute a uniform policy to assist EAD applicants with applications pending for 75 days or more. Since interim EAD production could take several days, the Ombudsman believes it should not be necessary for an applicant to wait for 90 days before requesting an interim EAD at the field office. Field offices no longer issue EADs; however, they can request interim EADs for pending applications. Mr. regrets that some field offices are not focused on helping their customers to continue uninterrupted employment, when the customers are doing their part to abide by the laws and maintain the validity of their EADs.
�MurthyDotCom
The CIS Ombudsman requested teleconference participants to notify his office if and when a field office refuses to request the production of an interim EAD card, when the application has been pending for approximately 75 days from the date of application.
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html
I hope I understood it correctly.
What do all of you say?
If you are referring to this paragraph , The answer is , field offices will NOT issue interim EAD. They can however request one and I think that is what they do today (Some field offices, as per Katri)when you take an appointment at local office to raise this issue:
The CIS Ombudsman has been engaging in discussions with the USCIS filed offices, in an effort to institute a uniform policy to assist EAD applicants with applications pending for 75 days or more. Since interim EAD production could take several days, the Ombudsman believes it should not be necessary for an applicant to wait for 90 days before requesting an interim EAD at the field office. Field offices no longer issue EADs; however, they can request interim EADs for pending applications. Mr. regrets that some field offices are not focused on helping their customers to continue uninterrupted employment, when the customers are doing their part to abide by the laws and maintain the validity of their EADs.
�MurthyDotCom
The CIS Ombudsman requested teleconference participants to notify his office if and when a field office refuses to request the production of an interim EAD card, when the application has been pending for approximately 75 days from the date of application.
mahathi
05-11 06:12 PM
Can I go to India and after the cleanace can I get the visa stamped in india?
2011 justin bieber new girlfriend
GC_1000Watt
12-09 05:14 PM
I have applied for my first H1B extension in the month of July. Receievd an RFE on Client and current work location and was replied in the month of november.
on Decebmer 7 USCICS website shows "Your extension has been denied, and a denial notice has been sent."
My I-94 expired on Oct-10 2009 and H1B was valid till 30 Sep. 2009. Here are my questions:
Am I an illegal resident now?
Until when can I stay in the us?
Should my employer appeal the case and by when should he do that, is there premium processing for this?
How long does the appeal process take ?
Can I work while the case is appealed?
How many days can I stay in us after the case is appealed?
How do I transfer to a new employer E2 (Premium Processing) and when can I apply for the new h1b (after the case is appealed or any time)?
What are the chances of approvals in Premium processing in Current Market?
Can I start working once the receipt for the new h1b petition comes in?
If not, can I work once the h1 is approved or should I go to India and reenter to start working?
Can i transfer my approved I140 to a new employer ?
I will really appreciate your feedback on this.
Thanks in advance.
on Decebmer 7 USCICS website shows "Your extension has been denied, and a denial notice has been sent."
My I-94 expired on Oct-10 2009 and H1B was valid till 30 Sep. 2009. Here are my questions:
Am I an illegal resident now?
Until when can I stay in the us?
Should my employer appeal the case and by when should he do that, is there premium processing for this?
How long does the appeal process take ?
Can I work while the case is appealed?
How many days can I stay in us after the case is appealed?
How do I transfer to a new employer E2 (Premium Processing) and when can I apply for the new h1b (after the case is appealed or any time)?
What are the chances of approvals in Premium processing in Current Market?
Can I start working once the receipt for the new h1b petition comes in?
If not, can I work once the h1 is approved or should I go to India and reenter to start working?
Can i transfer my approved I140 to a new employer ?
I will really appreciate your feedback on this.
Thanks in advance.
more...
harivenkat
05-11 01:11 PM
talking about backlogs
TheOmbudsman
09-05 04:04 PM
If you see the link I submitted earlier today, it is a reality that most voters are fed up with their representatives. From what I hear all the time, it seems the tendency is that people will vote against incumbents, regardless of which part they represent. Typically whoever is coming fresh - Dems or GOP - would be more sensitive to citizens problem and would think twice before voting for something in spite of thousands of pledges and calls against it. In my view, not necessarily Democrats would control the House, but even if turns out that is the case, it may not help us a lot. The truth is that if many incumbents get kicked out, that would be a powerful message that voters out there are not happy with directions they are taking, mainly on immigration, and therefore a bill on our behalf may continue to be dragged down further, because I strongly believe that many fresh reps would think twice to vote when phones are ringing non stop.
I am sorry if that is sad, but that is the truth.
I would like to discuss two issues
1) Is there a reasonable chance for Democrats to take control of the House after Nov elections.
2) What would that mean for skilled legal Immigrant community (aka will my GC come faster :))
It looks like Americans are fed up with the war in Iraq and other issues. Especially here in TX there is one seat definitely going to Democrats ( Tom Delay's seat). Would a Democrat majority make passing SKIL a slam dunk ?
I am sorry if that is sad, but that is the truth.
I would like to discuss two issues
1) Is there a reasonable chance for Democrats to take control of the House after Nov elections.
2) What would that mean for skilled legal Immigrant community (aka will my GC come faster :))
It looks like Americans are fed up with the war in Iraq and other issues. Especially here in TX there is one seat definitely going to Democrats ( Tom Delay's seat). Would a Democrat majority make passing SKIL a slam dunk ?
more...
anandrajesh
09-21 04:52 PM
Point 2 in ur post is in the agenda. Ability to File 140/485 even if the dates are not current. Looks like this will be the least controversial of all things we can ask for, but will solve majority of our issues. This one thing doesnt ask for any EB numbers increase, doesnt look for H1 B increase and doesnt ask for anything that will have our opposition groups jumping up and down
2010 justin bieber heart.
gsrknth
07-23 01:42 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/AP
You cannot renew AP while in India. The above link has good information.
You cannot renew AP while in India. The above link has good information.
more...
ayazali17
12-18 07:08 PM
One more question. Does a person with EAD (I-766) considered a permanent legal resident? The reason why i asked is because i was filling out a form to open a Scottrade account, i was stumped on this question, so i thought i asked someone here to verify.
Thanks for answering.
Thanks for answering.
hair love heart justin bieber. justin bieber love heart; justin bieber love heart
Bobby80
06-03 04:22 AM
Ann
Thank you for your post. I have recently received a green card through my spouse. I used to work in New York and lost my job in 2009 but never claimed benefits as I was not a permanent resident at that time. I got my green card in Jan2011. Can I apply now for unemployment benefits in NY state? I live in NYC and we pay taxes jointly since 2007. I have been unemployed for over 2 years now and am looking for jobs at the moment since I now have an EAD. Please advise. Thanks
Thank you for your post. I have recently received a green card through my spouse. I used to work in New York and lost my job in 2009 but never claimed benefits as I was not a permanent resident at that time. I got my green card in Jan2011. Can I apply now for unemployment benefits in NY state? I live in NYC and we pay taxes jointly since 2007. I have been unemployed for over 2 years now and am looking for jobs at the moment since I now have an EAD. Please advise. Thanks
more...
pxkuma
06-17 07:20 AM
I am in the same boat too. Only difference is that I have formally accepted the offer and it's in the same corporation (but different legal entity).
My lawyer recommended that I have three options
1) Start over and recapture your PD. She mentioned that this is the cleanest option.
2) Apply for 485 from your old job and then move to the other job after six months
3) Move to the new job but apply for your 485 from your old job.However, you will need to move back to your old job once you get your Green Card.
I believe Option 3 is the best for all of you. Try contacting your old employers to see if they can file for your 485. That said, once your complete your six months after applying for 485, you can technically move. Now I am not sure if this will work, but can we not move into another company at more apparent time before the actual receipt of the Green Card. Also, given the severe retrogression expected, it may be a long wait and this move may potentially not have to happen for a while.
Please note the above is my opinion and you will need to consult your own lawyers.
My lawyer recommended that I have three options
1) Start over and recapture your PD. She mentioned that this is the cleanest option.
2) Apply for 485 from your old job and then move to the other job after six months
3) Move to the new job but apply for your 485 from your old job.However, you will need to move back to your old job once you get your Green Card.
I believe Option 3 is the best for all of you. Try contacting your old employers to see if they can file for your 485. That said, once your complete your six months after applying for 485, you can technically move. Now I am not sure if this will work, but can we not move into another company at more apparent time before the actual receipt of the Green Card. Also, given the severe retrogression expected, it may be a long wait and this move may potentially not have to happen for a while.
Please note the above is my opinion and you will need to consult your own lawyers.
hot justin bieber heart 2011. Justin Bieber#39;s new perfume:
kalwinhobbess
08-28 06:16 PM
Its writern in the RFE. I got an RFE and in that letter its clearly mentioned by when you need to submit the required docs.
more...
house v-neck teesitem mrsdoyle views I+heart+justin+ieber+signs
wei
04-18 01:18 PM
Your lawyer should check with DOL after 90 days(from submission). I requested my lawyer did such thing and got response from DOL for RFE. One month later, I got approval notice.
tattoo justin bieber heart gif. i
mwin
07-23 11:12 PM
Just to clarify...., the advance parole should be valid when you are entering the country, not while leaving right?
Well, I have a current advance parole that expires on October 12, 2008 and I applied for a renewal. Once my AP gets approved (assuming the new AP starts from October 12, 2008) I am planning to leave the country in September (before start of second AP) and re-enter after October 12 using my second AP. Do you guys see any problem in this? Of-course, I will leave only if my second AP is approved in before I leave.
As as dated Oct 12, 2008, on or after this date.
Well, I have a current advance parole that expires on October 12, 2008 and I applied for a renewal. Once my AP gets approved (assuming the new AP starts from October 12, 2008) I am planning to leave the country in September (before start of second AP) and re-enter after October 12 using my second AP. Do you guys see any problem in this? Of-course, I will leave only if my second AP is approved in before I leave.
As as dated Oct 12, 2008, on or after this date.
more...
pictures justin bieber heart 2011. heart for justin bieber); heart for justin bieber)
tabletpc
01-07 11:29 AM
its a gray area....
If your I-140 is not aproved after 180 days and if your emplyer does not respond to RFE..then your GC is gone for a toss...!!!!
its always recomended to wait untill i-140 is aproved and 180 days are over...!!!!
Not to scare you..i have also heard of emplyers revoking i-140 after it is approved which has caused tremendious pain to emplyees later in getting GC.
My advice....give your career high priority and just go with your gut feeling that things will be fine...!!!!
Good luck
If your I-140 is not aproved after 180 days and if your emplyer does not respond to RFE..then your GC is gone for a toss...!!!!
its always recomended to wait untill i-140 is aproved and 180 days are over...!!!!
Not to scare you..i have also heard of emplyers revoking i-140 after it is approved which has caused tremendious pain to emplyees later in getting GC.
My advice....give your career high priority and just go with your gut feeling that things will be fine...!!!!
Good luck
dresses justin bieber is gay sign.
HereIComeGC
03-26 02:54 PM
That I agree, I should say it was some what an exaggeration when I said I could predict NASDAQ ...
But son't you guys think that this uncertainty also adds to the excitement of life here for us? Don't get me wrong ... just sharing a perspective here! Even I want my GC as desperately as any of us :)
I agree. Sometimes I think I will be a little bit sad when I receive the green card because I would miss this daily excitments! As the saying goes "Its the Journey that matters, not the destination"
But son't you guys think that this uncertainty also adds to the excitement of life here for us? Don't get me wrong ... just sharing a perspective here! Even I want my GC as desperately as any of us :)
I agree. Sometimes I think I will be a little bit sad when I receive the green card because I would miss this daily excitments! As the saying goes "Its the Journey that matters, not the destination"
more...
makeup justin bieber outfits for
LayoffBlog
01-27 01:32 PM
Pfizer announced Monday that it has signed a deal to acquire the smaller drugmaker Wyeth for $68 billion, and tens of thousands of job cuts will follow.Pfizer spokesman Ray Kerins said that two waves of job cuts would occur in 2009. In the first, Pfizer said it would cut 10% of its 81,900 staff - [...]http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=layoffblog.com&blog=5255291&post=1233&subd=layoffblog&ref=&feed=1
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/26/pfizer-to-lay-off-tens-of-thousands/)
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/26/pfizer-to-lay-off-tens-of-thousands/)
girlfriend The Justin Bieber Silly Bandz
pappu
02-04 10:23 PM
Great Idea. Good luck to AZ members. This will help form the AZ IV Chapter for future activities.
hairstyles Heart
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
nfinity
09-14 03:11 PM
Most of us have been severely impacted in life long decisions like
- getting married
- bringing spouse over
- future of children
- immigration to another country
- opening a business
- getting a raise
- promotions
being seen on tv should be the last thing that should come to mind.
- getting married
- bringing spouse over
- future of children
- immigration to another country
- opening a business
- getting a raise
- promotions
being seen on tv should be the last thing that should come to mind.
ameerka_dream
04-15 10:26 AM
^^^^^^^^^^bump^^^^^^^^^^
No comments:
Post a Comment