ibbu_arif
11-16 10:27 AM
Hello Gurus,
I have been searching various posts and found quite answers to quite a few questions I had in mind, but as usual I am left out with few more queries :)
Following is my current Status
Pending I-485 Application, AP valid till Dec 6th 2008 and EAD Valid till Oct 2010.
Already applied for AP extension for me and my wife on Oct 10 2008 and awaiting for Approval.
I had travelled once on my AP in April 2008 for a week to Visit my sick mother... I understand that this Puts me on parolee status. But Please NOTE that I am still with my H1B Status with my employer. Didn't use my EAD for I-9 forms.
After returning, my employer applied for my H1B extension for 3 years ( I already completed my 6 yrs of H1B). It is already approved and I have a Approved/Valid H1B document till May 30 2011.
From the info in some posts, I understood that this extension puts me back into H1B Status.
Now the actual question :
-------------------------
I had to Visit India in Jan 2009. I already booked my tickets for Jan4th (you know how it is , you always have to book earlier ), with an anticipation that I will get my AP extension Approved before that time. (I gave 3 months time for myself)
If I get my AP approved before I leave then NO Issues, I will again use my AP to re-enter USA in Feb 2009.
But let's assume I don't get it Approved before I leave.
a) Am I allowed to travel outside USA while my AP is Pending ?
b) If allowed, Can my AP get approved while I am outside US (i.e in India) ? Or will they Cancel my AP application?
c) I know I should get my H1B Visa stamping done while in India to re-enter on H1B Status. Do you see any problems that the consular officer/POE officer can create like
why did I leave the country while my AP application is Pending ?
Why are applying for H1B Visa while you could have used your AP?
I appreciate your detailed answers.
Thanks
I have been searching various posts and found quite answers to quite a few questions I had in mind, but as usual I am left out with few more queries :)
Following is my current Status
Pending I-485 Application, AP valid till Dec 6th 2008 and EAD Valid till Oct 2010.
Already applied for AP extension for me and my wife on Oct 10 2008 and awaiting for Approval.
I had travelled once on my AP in April 2008 for a week to Visit my sick mother... I understand that this Puts me on parolee status. But Please NOTE that I am still with my H1B Status with my employer. Didn't use my EAD for I-9 forms.
After returning, my employer applied for my H1B extension for 3 years ( I already completed my 6 yrs of H1B). It is already approved and I have a Approved/Valid H1B document till May 30 2011.
From the info in some posts, I understood that this extension puts me back into H1B Status.
Now the actual question :
-------------------------
I had to Visit India in Jan 2009. I already booked my tickets for Jan4th (you know how it is , you always have to book earlier ), with an anticipation that I will get my AP extension Approved before that time. (I gave 3 months time for myself)
If I get my AP approved before I leave then NO Issues, I will again use my AP to re-enter USA in Feb 2009.
But let's assume I don't get it Approved before I leave.
a) Am I allowed to travel outside USA while my AP is Pending ?
b) If allowed, Can my AP get approved while I am outside US (i.e in India) ? Or will they Cancel my AP application?
c) I know I should get my H1B Visa stamping done while in India to re-enter on H1B Status. Do you see any problems that the consular officer/POE officer can create like
why did I leave the country while my AP application is Pending ?
Why are applying for H1B Visa while you could have used your AP?
I appreciate your detailed answers.
Thanks
wallpaper Hearts+and+stars Profiles andlooking for your very Jun buy the shapes
braindrain
04-19 07:25 PM
Hi Folks,
My fiancee is a MS student and currently has student loan in India being charged at 13.5%. I am wondering if there is any loan that i can get here with a lower interest rate to repay off the one in india.
I would appreciate any pointers or suggestions here.
If your fiancee is still in the school, you can probably apply for Alternate/Private Student Loan. These loans are offered by most of the banks based on the credit score and don't have crazy transaction fees and APRs as credit card and other balance transfer offers. The interest rate is variable and typically tied with the prime and repayment period is around 15-20 years. AGain it depends on what you choose. The good part is that the repayment does not start until your fiancee graduates and the interest you pay on the loan is tax deductible. No need to itemize while you file taxes.
Search for "Alternate/Private Student Loan" and that should give you enough information.
My fiancee is a MS student and currently has student loan in India being charged at 13.5%. I am wondering if there is any loan that i can get here with a lower interest rate to repay off the one in india.
I would appreciate any pointers or suggestions here.
If your fiancee is still in the school, you can probably apply for Alternate/Private Student Loan. These loans are offered by most of the banks based on the credit score and don't have crazy transaction fees and APRs as credit card and other balance transfer offers. The interest rate is variable and typically tied with the prime and repayment period is around 15-20 years. AGain it depends on what you choose. The good part is that the repayment does not start until your fiancee graduates and the interest you pay on the loan is tax deductible. No need to itemize while you file taxes.
Search for "Alternate/Private Student Loan" and that should give you enough information.
guyfromsg
07-17 11:09 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/UpdateDirectFiling062107.pdf
Thanks for the link. My lawyer didn't explain clearly why he filed in Texas. This document says even though direct filing is effective July 30th you can still file to the appropriate service center. I reside in GA and so TSC is the right one. Thanks again.
Thanks for the link. My lawyer didn't explain clearly why he filed in Texas. This document says even though direct filing is effective July 30th you can still file to the appropriate service center. I reside in GA and so TSC is the right one. Thanks again.
2011 Pictures of Hearts and Stars Clarklady. Browse other purple flowers and
permfiling
01-22 01:30 PM
^^^^^
more...
gsc999
04-30 01:20 PM
"Entrepreneurs" doesn't mean to start a new company. they can just start a new business unit inside a big corporate. For example the google-maps is a new venture inside google. The guy who initiated the google-map idea is an entrepreneur.
Sometime 2 or 3 people join together and venture into one thing.
And there is a saying "95% of the businesses fail". So one cannot see all the companies started.
---
Thriving economy lures NRIs back to India - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/nri/returning-to-india/thriving-economy-lures-nris-back-to-india/articleshow/8112599.cms)
Sometime 2 or 3 people join together and venture into one thing.
And there is a saying "95% of the businesses fail". So one cannot see all the companies started.
---
Thriving economy lures NRIs back to India - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/nri/returning-to-india/thriving-economy-lures-nris-back-to-india/articleshow/8112599.cms)
pappu
03-06 05:47 PM
Pankaj, can you organize the conf call and start activities. Others will join and help you.
more...
Sakthisagar
10-04 08:49 AM
Hello,
Folks, who is in PA, Please take a print out of this document.
http://www.dot3.state.pa.us/pdotforms/fact_sheets/pub195nc.pdf
and show them the column, "Lawful Temporary Residents" they cannot refuse to give licence, the employees in DMV should get a training, Otherwise contact Harrisburg, PA DMV and talk to an officer, get his name and let the people who refuse, to call him and talk to him about the revised law 8 months back.
Folks, who is in PA, Please take a print out of this document.
http://www.dot3.state.pa.us/pdotforms/fact_sheets/pub195nc.pdf
and show them the column, "Lawful Temporary Residents" they cannot refuse to give licence, the employees in DMV should get a training, Otherwise contact Harrisburg, PA DMV and talk to an officer, get his name and let the people who refuse, to call him and talk to him about the revised law 8 months back.
2010 View stars creation starsthe
JDM
08-05 10:01 PM
/\/\/\/\/\/\
more...
rimzhim
06-05 10:22 PM
At this time ONLY 30% of EB2 Indians have current PDs. I've asked this question before - don't you all think that maybe dates will not have to retrogress again? I mean, 30% is too low a percentage for triggering a backward movement of PD.
Any thoughts?
Seems like a good guess to me. In fact, EB-2-India might move forward.
Any thoughts?
Seems like a good guess to me. In fact, EB-2-India might move forward.
hair wonder woman coloring pages
ImmiLosers
09-26 12:22 AM
1)Incase my 485 application gets denied, can I start the process again and use the PD of my current application?
2) Can I move to and start the GC process with another company and use the current PD (I140 approved, 180 days passed), even if my current company revokes I140 and my Job description is very different --- I'm assuming yes.
3) What if I leave the country and come back after 2-3 years and reapply. Can I reuse the PD of my current application?
I was told by a friend that the priority date is mine forever since my I140 is approved. Is that correct?
Thanks
YES YES YES - go ahead screw your smalltime employer
2) Can I move to and start the GC process with another company and use the current PD (I140 approved, 180 days passed), even if my current company revokes I140 and my Job description is very different --- I'm assuming yes.
3) What if I leave the country and come back after 2-3 years and reapply. Can I reuse the PD of my current application?
I was told by a friend that the priority date is mine forever since my I140 is approved. Is that correct?
Thanks
YES YES YES - go ahead screw your smalltime employer
more...
Edison99
02-11 11:54 AM
Pappu, could you share IVs recommendations in this thread too�
Looks like the news is out on this in media.
Immigration Voice has been aware of this and actively working on it for last 3 weeks. This had been also posted on the donor forums. Core members and several key IV volunteers/ donors already have been working on it and analyzing it. We also had been asked for our recommendations and had send our recommendations. We should see this bill introduced soon in a few days.
Looks like the news is out on this in media.
Immigration Voice has been aware of this and actively working on it for last 3 weeks. This had been also posted on the donor forums. Core members and several key IV volunteers/ donors already have been working on it and analyzing it. We also had been asked for our recommendations and had send our recommendations. We should see this bill introduced soon in a few days.
hot hearts, reach the stars by
Soul
05-30 04:43 PM
:(
lol
lol
more...
house Coloring Page Outline Of A
vinayskadam
11-24 01:22 PM
@lj_rr:
Thanks a lot for the quick reply, its really helpful.
Thanks a lot for the quick reply, its really helpful.
tattoo Thesefruit salads, cupcakes and view Diamond roses, camomiles and stars Hans
purgan
09-18 11:54 PM
The Other Immigration
More information. May 7, 2006, Sunday
By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL (NYT); Magazine
Late Edition - Final, Section 6, Page 15, Column 3, 876 words
If you were to set out to design a story that would inflame populist rage, it might involve immigrants from poor countries, living in the United States without permission to work, hiring powerful Washington lobbyists to press their case. In late April, The Washington Post reported just such a ...
==
This is part of an abstract from the NY Times TimesSelect Article. I could not read the whole article because I don't have access to the "TimesSelect", a paid subscription. If anyone has it, could you post the artcile here...I believe it mentions the efforts of ImmigrationVoice.
More information. May 7, 2006, Sunday
By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL (NYT); Magazine
Late Edition - Final, Section 6, Page 15, Column 3, 876 words
If you were to set out to design a story that would inflame populist rage, it might involve immigrants from poor countries, living in the United States without permission to work, hiring powerful Washington lobbyists to press their case. In late April, The Washington Post reported just such a ...
==
This is part of an abstract from the NY Times TimesSelect Article. I could not read the whole article because I don't have access to the "TimesSelect", a paid subscription. If anyone has it, could you post the artcile here...I believe it mentions the efforts of ImmigrationVoice.
more...
pictures Frame Of Hearts, Stars An
andy garcia
11-10 09:30 PM
Remember, USCIS only tells us "total" I-485 receipts. They don't break it down to what many of us are interested to know, which is, how many are family based and how many are employment based. There is no way to know how many of the 150K receipts issued in Sept for I-485 were EB.
FB and EB combined annual limit is 366,000 immigrant visas (226K FB + 140K EB)
That total also includes Asylum/refugee, DV lottery and Immediate Relatives.
FB and EB combined annual limit is 366,000 immigrant visas (226K FB + 140K EB)
That total also includes Asylum/refugee, DV lottery and Immediate Relatives.
dresses coloring pages of hearts on
chanduv23
09-10 07:54 AM
Though there are companies that do have ethics - most of these people have exploited their employees and continue to behave unethically - they drive expensive cars and behave with arrogance on face of their employees who are working hard and earning for these cayotes.
These cayotes have this love affair with Attorneys - and they have this common protocol on how to handle their employee.
As long as the community is scared - wants to lie low and not want to rise - we will still be in this situation.
IV HAS PROVIDED AN EXCELLENT PLATFORM FOR ALL THE PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD.
I would recommend that IV members who are affected by such cayotes must utilize the resources IV has provided and try to get more media attention.
I encourage people to do youtube videos using hidden cameras when their employers are trying to talk or do dirty deals.
Write blogs, make all this visible.
These cayotes have this love affair with Attorneys - and they have this common protocol on how to handle their employee.
As long as the community is scared - wants to lie low and not want to rise - we will still be in this situation.
IV HAS PROVIDED AN EXCELLENT PLATFORM FOR ALL THE PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD.
I would recommend that IV members who are affected by such cayotes must utilize the resources IV has provided and try to get more media attention.
I encourage people to do youtube videos using hidden cameras when their employers are trying to talk or do dirty deals.
Write blogs, make all this visible.
more...
makeup Hearts amp; Stars by
dehradoon
07-17 05:59 PM
Am I in the same situation? My spouse left US today to INDIA. However we filled the 485 on July 2nd. Will they consider that as abandonment of the application?
You will need to have your spouse back for biometrics, if not then reschedule it early as no show = abondonment of application
You will need to have your spouse back for biometrics, if not then reschedule it early as no show = abondonment of application
girlfriend featured Hearts+and+stars+
deletedUser459
06-11 08:52 PM
it would be more fun if we vote for the ones we don't like
hairstyles Rosetilliams flashing hearts
SlowRoasted
06-13 01:18 PM
i dunno, its probably some crazy formula it goes by. Any math wizes here?
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
mmk123
01-19 08:17 PM
Democrats seem to be loosing senate seat in MA. Message is clear - in this great recession, people don't want more taxes especially when they are happy with their current healthcare policies and their healthcare coverage don't change a dime for those extra taxes. Especially, when MA people are already paying for state universal healthcare. Why should WE pay for THEM?
Probably, this means healthcare reform is dead or congress embraces more conservative bill passed by senate. End of road for more tax burdensome things like cap-n-trade, climate change bill or controversial bills like immigration reform unless some less-conservative republicans are on board. If it is ever considered, be ready for more durbin-grassley measures in the final bill. Fate of the bill depends on what matters for elections in 2010, probably more populist measures like tax cuts, another stimulus, job growth measures will be focussed for rest of the year..
Probably, this means healthcare reform is dead or congress embraces more conservative bill passed by senate. End of road for more tax burdensome things like cap-n-trade, climate change bill or controversial bills like immigration reform unless some less-conservative republicans are on board. If it is ever considered, be ready for more durbin-grassley measures in the final bill. Fate of the bill depends on what matters for elections in 2010, probably more populist measures like tax cuts, another stimulus, job growth measures will be focussed for rest of the year..
No comments:
Post a Comment