FinalGC
09-16 11:55 AM
I am not sure if there is a law that requires us to stay with the GC employer after getting GC. However, many lawyers have suggested a general rule of thumb of at least 6 months after getting GC approval.
However, the rule that can be invoked to prove you have stayed with the GC sponsoring company could be the 245(i) which requires a 180 days after filing 485 application, which I believe many of us must have already abided by.....
However, the rule that can be invoked to prove you have stayed with the GC sponsoring company could be the 245(i) which requires a 180 days after filing 485 application, which I believe many of us must have already abided by.....
archpai
12-16 09:16 PM
There is on Ajay chaudhury in houstan.
mrane1
07-18 04:23 PM
Wow!! never heard of such a thing!!
gc_on_demand
03-19 11:52 AM
I came in USA on H1 visa and continued in that status till 2008 (six years). Company A sponsored a green card for me in 2003 for a position different than the one on my H1B based on future employment opportunity/position. My I-140 was approved in early 2007 and after applying for my I-485, I got my EAD and AP in August 2007. However since I was working on H1B with another company at that time, which was valid till June 2008, I did not use my EAD and worked till my H1B lasted. As my H1B expired, my status while living in US as per my lawyer changed to AOS pending.
I took a couple of months off and visited India. Came back to US without a problem using my AP. Looked to start a business but did not succeed due to economic condition. I still maintained an honest intent to join the sponsoring employer when I get my GC and vice- versa with regard to the sponsoring employer. To earn living therefore, I joined another company for a couple months in a similar field using my EAD but did not use AC21 (as a full time primary job). That job did not last long and now I am again looking for employment opportunity.
I visited my lawyer recently with current situation and a few questions and he said I can be in deep trouble - being unemployed mostly since leaving my H1B status and having worked for another company for those few weeks in a job capacity that was a bit different than the one on my petition. He said I could be deported too if my luck is bad in this case. I request you to advise me whether what happened was really wrong and if I can correct it anyway? As corrective measure, my lawyer says that with immediate effect either I should join the green card sponsoring employer or find another employer with similar job offer (willing to port my Green card) - to avoid hard quuestions with USCIS. In this economy, nobody wants to take extra burden. But I spoke with my GC sponsor. He said the job is there for me like before and he is willing to write a letter of intent to hire me on permanent basis currently or in future if required to whosoever concerned but would prefer to wait a few months giving the crunch in business these days.
WHAT SHOULD I DO? Would the letter suffice the honest intent on both sides regarding the employment offer? Can I afford to take a little more time find a simmilar job? PLEASE SUGGEST.
if you want help update profile first
I took a couple of months off and visited India. Came back to US without a problem using my AP. Looked to start a business but did not succeed due to economic condition. I still maintained an honest intent to join the sponsoring employer when I get my GC and vice- versa with regard to the sponsoring employer. To earn living therefore, I joined another company for a couple months in a similar field using my EAD but did not use AC21 (as a full time primary job). That job did not last long and now I am again looking for employment opportunity.
I visited my lawyer recently with current situation and a few questions and he said I can be in deep trouble - being unemployed mostly since leaving my H1B status and having worked for another company for those few weeks in a job capacity that was a bit different than the one on my petition. He said I could be deported too if my luck is bad in this case. I request you to advise me whether what happened was really wrong and if I can correct it anyway? As corrective measure, my lawyer says that with immediate effect either I should join the green card sponsoring employer or find another employer with similar job offer (willing to port my Green card) - to avoid hard quuestions with USCIS. In this economy, nobody wants to take extra burden. But I spoke with my GC sponsor. He said the job is there for me like before and he is willing to write a letter of intent to hire me on permanent basis currently or in future if required to whosoever concerned but would prefer to wait a few months giving the crunch in business these days.
WHAT SHOULD I DO? Would the letter suffice the honest intent on both sides regarding the employment offer? Can I afford to take a little more time find a simmilar job? PLEASE SUGGEST.
if you want help update profile first
more...
485Question
10-11 01:08 PM
Just try if you can get any letter of explanation from the university, and prove on your job (experience) from 2003.
Hope this helps.
Thanks
Hope this helps.
Thanks
Raj_2009
08-19 10:39 AM
Hi,
I belong to Virginia. But Virginia office does not have the dates available for next 2 months. Can I visit to the neighbouring Maryland state USCIS local office for Information. Is it legal and valid to go to Other local office for information?
Thanks,
Raj
I belong to Virginia. But Virginia office does not have the dates available for next 2 months. Can I visit to the neighbouring Maryland state USCIS local office for Information. Is it legal and valid to go to Other local office for information?
Thanks,
Raj
more...
doggy
07-22 04:25 PM
As per my attorney, even if you enter the country on AP, your status can still remain H1, if you are using it to work (instead of EAD).
Googler
02-08 03:12 PM
Can you provide some more information on the AILA liaison meetings? Excuse my ignorance but I have never heard of it before.
Can we ask AILA to support the letter campaign? Specifically, can we ask AILA to push for recapturing 218K unused visas and clarification on how they might be allocated, if recaptured?
Thanks!
It is my understanding that these liaison meetings are to discuss specific administrative and procedural issues at the service centers (not to discuss major reform). To get an idea of the topics covered see http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=6721|6727
The docs themselves are available to AILA members only but you can see the topics discussed.
So to the extent that you have specific questions about the adjudication process itself you can send them to an AILA member and ask them to submit those questions to the AILA Liaison committee which may or may not choose to ask that question in the liaison meeting with USCIS -- each session has specific sub topics so they don't address every question out there.
Recapture and other major changes to the law are likely handled by other committees at AILA.
Can we ask AILA to support the letter campaign? Specifically, can we ask AILA to push for recapturing 218K unused visas and clarification on how they might be allocated, if recaptured?
Thanks!
It is my understanding that these liaison meetings are to discuss specific administrative and procedural issues at the service centers (not to discuss major reform). To get an idea of the topics covered see http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=6721|6727
The docs themselves are available to AILA members only but you can see the topics discussed.
So to the extent that you have specific questions about the adjudication process itself you can send them to an AILA member and ask them to submit those questions to the AILA Liaison committee which may or may not choose to ask that question in the liaison meeting with USCIS -- each session has specific sub topics so they don't address every question out there.
Recapture and other major changes to the law are likely handled by other committees at AILA.
more...
harivenkat
06-28 03:17 PM
Huge demand to live in U.S. part of illegal immigration problem (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/06/28/20100628legal-immigration-high-demand.html#comments)
WASHINGTON - While the national spotlight is focused on illegal immigration, millions of people enter the United States legally each year on both a temporary and permanent basis.
But the demand to immigrate to the United States far outweighs the number of people that immigration laws allow to move here legally. Wait times can be years, compounding the problem and reducing opportunities for many more who desperately want to come to the United States.
In 2009 alone, more than 1.1 million people, including nearly 21,000 living in Arizona, became legal permanent residents, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's 2009 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. The largest single group of new permanent residents nationwide, 15 percent, was born in Mexico. Six percent came from China and 5 percent came from the Philippines.
Also last year, nearly 744,000 immigrants, including about 12,400 Arizona residents, became naturalized U.S. citizens. The largest group, with 111,630 people, was from Mexico. The second largest group, with 52,889 people, came from India.
But those figures are eclipsed by the demand, which in part contributes to the problem of illegal immigration. Nearly 11 million immigrants are in the country illegally, according to estimates by the Department of Homeland Security. Earlier this year, there were an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona.
But since Gov. Jan Brewer signed Arizona's controversial new immigration bill in April, hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal immigrants have left the state. And many more are planning to flee before the law takes effect July 29.
Some are going back to Mexico. Many are going to other states, where anti-illegal-immigrant sentiment isn't so strong and where they think they will be less likely to be targeted by local authorities.
"Insufficient legal avenues for immigrants to enter the U.S. ... has significantly contributed to this current conundrum," says a report by Leo Anchondo of Justice for Immigrants, which is pushing for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Arizona's immigration law makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It states that an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest shall, when practicable, ask about a person's legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.
Temporary visas
Temporary visas allow people to enter the United States and stay for a limited amount of time before returning to their home countries. In 2009, about 163 million people came in this way. The biggest groups came from Mexico, Britain and Japan.
Among those who can obtain temporary visas: tourists; visitors on business trips; foreign journalists; diplomats and government representatives and their staffs; students and foreign-exchange visitors and their dependents; certain relatives of lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens; religious workers; and internationally recognized athletes and entertainers.
Temporary visas also are used to bring in foreign workers when U.S. employers say they do not have enough qualified or interested U.S. workers. Among the categories: workers in specialty occupations, registered nurses to help fill a shortage and agricultural workers. Mexican and Canadian professionals also are granted temporary visas under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Permanent residents
A lawful permanent resident has been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis. As proof of that status, a person is granted a permanent-resident card, better known as a "green card."
People petition to become permanent residents in several ways. Most are sponsored by a family member or employer in the United States.
Others may become permanent residents after being granted asylum status. In 2009, nearly 75,000 refugees were granted asylum from persecution in their home countries.
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are given the highest immigration priority and are not subject to annual caps that apply to other categories of immigrants. Immediate relatives are defined as spouses, unmarried children under age 21 and parents.
Although there is no annual cap on the number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who can obtain green cards, there is a cap on the number of green cards for other relatives such as siblings and adult married children. That cap is about half a million people a year, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Employment-based immigration also is limited to 140,000 people a year, according to the lawyers association.
There also are limits based on a person's country of origin. Under U.S. immigration law, the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign nation shall not exceed 7 percent of the total number of visas issued. That limit can make it tough for immigrants from countries such as Mexico, where the number of people who want to come here greatly exceeds the number of people that the law allows.
The estimated wait time for family members to legally bring their relatives into the United States from Mexico ranges from six to 17 years, according to a May study by the non-profit, nonpartisan National Foundation for American Policy. It is nearly impossible for a Mexican, especially someone without a college degree or special skills, to immigrate to the United States legally without a family member or employer petitioning on his behalf.
The costs also can be high. A U.S. employer who wants to bring in an immigrant worker can expect to pay nearly $6,000 in fees and legal expenses, according to the foundation.
A U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident petitioning to bring a relative to the United States from another country must pay a $355 filing fee for each relative who wants to immigrate, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Naturalized citizens
In general, immigrants are eligible to become citizens if they are at least 18 and have lived in the United States as a lawful permanent resident for five years without leaving for trips of six months or longer.
An applicant for citizenship must be deemed to be of good moral character, which means in part that they must not have been convicted of a serious crime or been caught lying to gain immigration status.
Applicants must be able to pass a test demonstrating that they can read, write and speak basic English. They also must pass a basic test of U.S. history and government.
Immigrants become citizens when they take the oath of allegiance to the United States in a formal naturalization ceremony. The oath requires applicants to renounce foreign allegiances, support and defend the U.S. Constitution, and serve in the U.S. military when required to do so by law.
The time it takes to become naturalized varies by location and can take years. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency is trying to improve the system and decrease the time to an average of six months.
WASHINGTON - While the national spotlight is focused on illegal immigration, millions of people enter the United States legally each year on both a temporary and permanent basis.
But the demand to immigrate to the United States far outweighs the number of people that immigration laws allow to move here legally. Wait times can be years, compounding the problem and reducing opportunities for many more who desperately want to come to the United States.
In 2009 alone, more than 1.1 million people, including nearly 21,000 living in Arizona, became legal permanent residents, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's 2009 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. The largest single group of new permanent residents nationwide, 15 percent, was born in Mexico. Six percent came from China and 5 percent came from the Philippines.
Also last year, nearly 744,000 immigrants, including about 12,400 Arizona residents, became naturalized U.S. citizens. The largest group, with 111,630 people, was from Mexico. The second largest group, with 52,889 people, came from India.
But those figures are eclipsed by the demand, which in part contributes to the problem of illegal immigration. Nearly 11 million immigrants are in the country illegally, according to estimates by the Department of Homeland Security. Earlier this year, there were an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona.
But since Gov. Jan Brewer signed Arizona's controversial new immigration bill in April, hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal immigrants have left the state. And many more are planning to flee before the law takes effect July 29.
Some are going back to Mexico. Many are going to other states, where anti-illegal-immigrant sentiment isn't so strong and where they think they will be less likely to be targeted by local authorities.
"Insufficient legal avenues for immigrants to enter the U.S. ... has significantly contributed to this current conundrum," says a report by Leo Anchondo of Justice for Immigrants, which is pushing for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Arizona's immigration law makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It states that an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest shall, when practicable, ask about a person's legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.
Temporary visas
Temporary visas allow people to enter the United States and stay for a limited amount of time before returning to their home countries. In 2009, about 163 million people came in this way. The biggest groups came from Mexico, Britain and Japan.
Among those who can obtain temporary visas: tourists; visitors on business trips; foreign journalists; diplomats and government representatives and their staffs; students and foreign-exchange visitors and their dependents; certain relatives of lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens; religious workers; and internationally recognized athletes and entertainers.
Temporary visas also are used to bring in foreign workers when U.S. employers say they do not have enough qualified or interested U.S. workers. Among the categories: workers in specialty occupations, registered nurses to help fill a shortage and agricultural workers. Mexican and Canadian professionals also are granted temporary visas under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Permanent residents
A lawful permanent resident has been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis. As proof of that status, a person is granted a permanent-resident card, better known as a "green card."
People petition to become permanent residents in several ways. Most are sponsored by a family member or employer in the United States.
Others may become permanent residents after being granted asylum status. In 2009, nearly 75,000 refugees were granted asylum from persecution in their home countries.
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are given the highest immigration priority and are not subject to annual caps that apply to other categories of immigrants. Immediate relatives are defined as spouses, unmarried children under age 21 and parents.
Although there is no annual cap on the number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who can obtain green cards, there is a cap on the number of green cards for other relatives such as siblings and adult married children. That cap is about half a million people a year, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Employment-based immigration also is limited to 140,000 people a year, according to the lawyers association.
There also are limits based on a person's country of origin. Under U.S. immigration law, the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign nation shall not exceed 7 percent of the total number of visas issued. That limit can make it tough for immigrants from countries such as Mexico, where the number of people who want to come here greatly exceeds the number of people that the law allows.
The estimated wait time for family members to legally bring their relatives into the United States from Mexico ranges from six to 17 years, according to a May study by the non-profit, nonpartisan National Foundation for American Policy. It is nearly impossible for a Mexican, especially someone without a college degree or special skills, to immigrate to the United States legally without a family member or employer petitioning on his behalf.
The costs also can be high. A U.S. employer who wants to bring in an immigrant worker can expect to pay nearly $6,000 in fees and legal expenses, according to the foundation.
A U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident petitioning to bring a relative to the United States from another country must pay a $355 filing fee for each relative who wants to immigrate, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Naturalized citizens
In general, immigrants are eligible to become citizens if they are at least 18 and have lived in the United States as a lawful permanent resident for five years without leaving for trips of six months or longer.
An applicant for citizenship must be deemed to be of good moral character, which means in part that they must not have been convicted of a serious crime or been caught lying to gain immigration status.
Applicants must be able to pass a test demonstrating that they can read, write and speak basic English. They also must pass a basic test of U.S. history and government.
Immigrants become citizens when they take the oath of allegiance to the United States in a formal naturalization ceremony. The oath requires applicants to renounce foreign allegiances, support and defend the U.S. Constitution, and serve in the U.S. military when required to do so by law.
The time it takes to become naturalized varies by location and can take years. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency is trying to improve the system and decrease the time to an average of six months.
kriskris
04-07 05:07 PM
Thanks for sharing. Some good news in these times.
more...
belmontboy
11-26 01:57 AM
Hi,
My employer "ABC" (Consultancy) based in Ohio made me sign a Cognovit Promissory Note for 'X' amount ( where 'X' is a pretty large amount) on my arrival to US on H1-B visa earlier this year. I've been associated with him for less than an year now.
Question:
Does this note have any significance according to US law, esp. Ohio?
If I plan to move from this consultancy, can this note be held as a Legal Document and any legal action taken against me based on this note?
What is my way out of this?
I would be highly obliged if anyone can provide any help on this matter.
Regards
Chint001
the law depends on state. Its worth paying the lawyer few hundred bucks to findout what laws pertain to Ohio specifically.
Generally bonds are not legally enforceable, but lawyers may know better and explain you the fine print.
My employer "ABC" (Consultancy) based in Ohio made me sign a Cognovit Promissory Note for 'X' amount ( where 'X' is a pretty large amount) on my arrival to US on H1-B visa earlier this year. I've been associated with him for less than an year now.
Question:
Does this note have any significance according to US law, esp. Ohio?
If I plan to move from this consultancy, can this note be held as a Legal Document and any legal action taken against me based on this note?
What is my way out of this?
I would be highly obliged if anyone can provide any help on this matter.
Regards
Chint001
the law depends on state. Its worth paying the lawyer few hundred bucks to findout what laws pertain to Ohio specifically.
Generally bonds are not legally enforceable, but lawyers may know better and explain you the fine print.
laksmi
12-06 11:09 AM
I went to red cross once to donate blood once but they refused to take since i am an immigrant who have not completed 5 years in USA so they may not take us.
more...
chapsi29
04-02 12:30 PM
Well its a small company and there are only a handful of us who are involved in immigration. Paychecks have been pending for the last few months only and in the past we have not had this kinda problem. It should hopefully get resolved in the next few months.. My I-140 was applied in Aug 07 @ its at NSC right now.. Currently for EB2, NSC processing date shows May 9th. I am hoping before they get to my application, this issue gets resolved.
Lot of money at stake to consider change of employers at this point.. Would like to see how 140 turns out before thinking of change ... Pretty tough decision!
So is it important to be currently making more than what is mentioned in the GC labor application ? As I have been informed, the prevailing wage as mentioned in the GC is for future employment and it is OK for the employee to be making less than that and it only means that the employer should have the ability to pay you that wage after you get your GC ? Is this true ?
Thanks
Lot of money at stake to consider change of employers at this point.. Would like to see how 140 turns out before thinking of change ... Pretty tough decision!
So is it important to be currently making more than what is mentioned in the GC labor application ? As I have been informed, the prevailing wage as mentioned in the GC is for future employment and it is OK for the employee to be making less than that and it only means that the employer should have the ability to pay you that wage after you get your GC ? Is this true ?
Thanks
quizzer
09-28 12:33 AM
EB2 or EB3?
more...
vxg
06-21 03:32 PM
If black and whites are acceptable then i think you can make copies of an existing one, just make sure you copy it at your employers copier that too in the working hours, that's the Cheapest way of doing it.:D
B&W are not acceptable unless your PD is 1935.
B&W are not acceptable unless your PD is 1935.
rgpr
03-28 09:54 PM
Saikat,
Thank you for your replies. One more question....if the change of status from F1 to H1B within the US is denied then does my F1 visa get automatically revoked?
-rgpr
Thank you for your replies. One more question....if the change of status from F1 to H1B within the US is denied then does my F1 visa get automatically revoked?
-rgpr
more...
gccovet
06-17 02:34 PM
Employer A:
-Currently on their H1 (6th year fag end) and with an ongoing 485 proces 180 days passed.
-Employer A is threatening to withdraw the I 140 if I move out from their company.
Employer B:
-Fortune Client where am currently working as a contractor
-B is filing my H1 and would be offering me to use H1 or AC 21 to port to their company.
I am transferring to company B upon H1 extension approval and then later use AC 21 when ever required.
However, before I use AC 21, if the I 140 is revoked, am I still eligible to use AC 21?
Does revoking I 140 by the employer after I 140 approval has any effect if I dont use AC 21 prior to revoking?
Past 180 days, I-140 revocation does not create any problems. Even if you get H1 transferred, you can still get EAD renewed. Make sure new job has job duties 'same/similar' (soc codes matches)
-Currently on their H1 (6th year fag end) and with an ongoing 485 proces 180 days passed.
-Employer A is threatening to withdraw the I 140 if I move out from their company.
Employer B:
-Fortune Client where am currently working as a contractor
-B is filing my H1 and would be offering me to use H1 or AC 21 to port to their company.
I am transferring to company B upon H1 extension approval and then later use AC 21 when ever required.
However, before I use AC 21, if the I 140 is revoked, am I still eligible to use AC 21?
Does revoking I 140 by the employer after I 140 approval has any effect if I dont use AC 21 prior to revoking?
Past 180 days, I-140 revocation does not create any problems. Even if you get H1 transferred, you can still get EAD renewed. Make sure new job has job duties 'same/similar' (soc codes matches)
beppenyc
03-20 08:15 PM
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-20-2006/0004323801&EDATE=
Q Okay. My question is, since 9/11, one of the key things that we need
is immigration reform, including comprehensive immigration reform that is
right now in front of Senator Specter's committee in the Judiciary. There are
two principles I'm hoping that you would support: One, the good people, the
engineers, the PhDs, the doctors, the nurses, the people in the system who
have followed the rules, will go to the head of the line in any form of
immigration reform. That's Title IVz of the bill.
Secondly, the illegals who have not followed the rules -- I understand the
debate, I appreciate your statements about immigration reform, but isn't it
better that we know who they are, have them finger-printed and photographed,
and allow some form of 245I to come back so --
THE PRESIDENT: Tell people what that is. Tell people what 245I is.
Q Okay -- 245I is a partial amnesty program that expired back in 2001,
in fact, was going to be voted on on 9/11, unfortunately. But those -- it was
a small segment of the illegal population where they would pay the $1,000 fine
and, for example, coming in illegally, then marrying an American citizen,
could somehow legalize their status.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Let me give you some broad principles on
immigration reform as I see them. First of all, we do need to know who's
coming into our country and whether they're coming in illegally, or not
legally -- legally or not legally -- and whether they're coming in or going
out. And part of reforms after September the 11th was a better system of
finding out who's coming here.
Secondly, we have a big border between Texas and Mexico that's really hard
to enforce. We got to do everything we can to enforce the border,
particularly in the south. I mean, it's the place where people are pouring
across in order to find work. We have a situation in our own neighborhood
where there are way -- disparities are huge, and there are jobs in America
that people won't do. That's just a fact. I met an onion grower today at the
airport when I arrived, and he said, you got to help me find people that will
grow onions -- pluck them, or whatever you do with them, you know.
(Laughter.) There are jobs that just simply aren't getting done because
Americans won't do them. And yet, if you're making 50 cents an hour in
Mexico, and you can make a lot more in America, and you got mouths to feed,
you're going to come and try to find the work. It's a big border, of which --
across which people are coming to provide a living for their families.
Step one of any immigration policy is to enforce our border in practical
ways. We are spending additional resources to be able to use different
detection devices, unmanned UAVs, to help -- and expand Border Patrol, by the
way, expand the number of agents on the border, to make sure we're getting
them the tools necessary to stop people from coming across in the first place.
Secondly, part of the issue we've had in the past is we've had -- for lack
of a better word -- catch and release; the Border Patrol would find people
sneaking in; they would then hold them for a period of time; they'd say, come
back and check in with us 45 days later, and then they wouldn't check in 45
days later. And they would disappear in society to do the work that some
Americans will not do.
And so we're changing catch and release. We're particularly focusing on
those from Central America who are coming across Mexico's southern border,
ending up in our own -- it's a long answer, but it's an important question:
How do we protect our borders, and at the same time, be a humane society?
Anyway, step one, focus on enforcing border; when we find people, send
them home, so that the work of our Border Patrol is productive work.
Secondly, it seems like to me that part of having a border security
program is to say to people who are hiring people here illegally, we're going
to hold you to account. The problem is our employers don't know whether
they're hiring people illegally because there's a whole forgery industry
around people being smuggled into the United States. There's a smuggling
industry and a forgery industry. And it's hard to ask our employers, the
onion guy out there, whether or not he's got -- whether or not the documents
that he's being shown that look real are real.
And so here's a better proposal than what we're doing today, which is to
say, if you're going to come to do a job an American won't do, you ought to be
given a foolproof card that says you can come for a limited period of time and
do work in a job an American won't do. That's border security because it
means that people will be willing to come in legally with a card to do work on
a limited basis, and then go home. And so the agents won't be chasing people
being smuggled in 18-wheelers or across the Arizona desert. They'll be able
to focus on drugs and terrorists and guns.
The fundamental question that he is referring to is, what do we do about -
- there's two questions -- one, should we have amnesty? And the answer, in my
judgment, is, no, we shouldn't have amnesty. In my judgment, granting
amnesty, automatic citizenship -- that's what amnesty means -- would cause
another 11 million people, or however many are here, to come in the hopes of
becoming a United States citizen. We shouldn't have amnesty. We ought to
have a program that says, you get in line like everybody else gets in line;
and that if the Congress feels like there needs to be higher quotas on certain
nationalities, raise the quotas. But don't let people get in front of the
line for somebody who has been playing by the rules. (Applause.)
And so, anyway, that's my ideas on good immigration policy. Obviously,
there's going to be some questions we have to answer: What about the person
who's been here since 1987 -- '86 was the last attempt at coming up with
immigration reform -- been here for a long period of time. They've raised a
family here. And my only advice for the Congress and for people in the debate
is understand what made America. We're a land of immigrants. This guy is
from Hungary, you know. (Applause.) And we got to treat people fairly.
We've got to have a system of law that is respectful for people.
I mean, the idea of having a program that causes people to get stuck in
the back of 18-wheelers, to risk their lives to sneak into America to do work
that some people won't do is just not American, in my judgment. And so I
would hope the debate would be civil and uphold the honor of this country.
And remember, we've been through these periods before, where the immigration
debate can get harsh. And it should not be harsh. And I hope -- my call for
people is to be rational about the debate and thoughtful about what words can
mean during this debate.
Final question, sir. You're paying me a lot of money and I got to go back
to work. (Laughter.)
PS I did not know about the story of I-245 on 9/11....
Q Okay. My question is, since 9/11, one of the key things that we need
is immigration reform, including comprehensive immigration reform that is
right now in front of Senator Specter's committee in the Judiciary. There are
two principles I'm hoping that you would support: One, the good people, the
engineers, the PhDs, the doctors, the nurses, the people in the system who
have followed the rules, will go to the head of the line in any form of
immigration reform. That's Title IVz of the bill.
Secondly, the illegals who have not followed the rules -- I understand the
debate, I appreciate your statements about immigration reform, but isn't it
better that we know who they are, have them finger-printed and photographed,
and allow some form of 245I to come back so --
THE PRESIDENT: Tell people what that is. Tell people what 245I is.
Q Okay -- 245I is a partial amnesty program that expired back in 2001,
in fact, was going to be voted on on 9/11, unfortunately. But those -- it was
a small segment of the illegal population where they would pay the $1,000 fine
and, for example, coming in illegally, then marrying an American citizen,
could somehow legalize their status.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Let me give you some broad principles on
immigration reform as I see them. First of all, we do need to know who's
coming into our country and whether they're coming in illegally, or not
legally -- legally or not legally -- and whether they're coming in or going
out. And part of reforms after September the 11th was a better system of
finding out who's coming here.
Secondly, we have a big border between Texas and Mexico that's really hard
to enforce. We got to do everything we can to enforce the border,
particularly in the south. I mean, it's the place where people are pouring
across in order to find work. We have a situation in our own neighborhood
where there are way -- disparities are huge, and there are jobs in America
that people won't do. That's just a fact. I met an onion grower today at the
airport when I arrived, and he said, you got to help me find people that will
grow onions -- pluck them, or whatever you do with them, you know.
(Laughter.) There are jobs that just simply aren't getting done because
Americans won't do them. And yet, if you're making 50 cents an hour in
Mexico, and you can make a lot more in America, and you got mouths to feed,
you're going to come and try to find the work. It's a big border, of which --
across which people are coming to provide a living for their families.
Step one of any immigration policy is to enforce our border in practical
ways. We are spending additional resources to be able to use different
detection devices, unmanned UAVs, to help -- and expand Border Patrol, by the
way, expand the number of agents on the border, to make sure we're getting
them the tools necessary to stop people from coming across in the first place.
Secondly, part of the issue we've had in the past is we've had -- for lack
of a better word -- catch and release; the Border Patrol would find people
sneaking in; they would then hold them for a period of time; they'd say, come
back and check in with us 45 days later, and then they wouldn't check in 45
days later. And they would disappear in society to do the work that some
Americans will not do.
And so we're changing catch and release. We're particularly focusing on
those from Central America who are coming across Mexico's southern border,
ending up in our own -- it's a long answer, but it's an important question:
How do we protect our borders, and at the same time, be a humane society?
Anyway, step one, focus on enforcing border; when we find people, send
them home, so that the work of our Border Patrol is productive work.
Secondly, it seems like to me that part of having a border security
program is to say to people who are hiring people here illegally, we're going
to hold you to account. The problem is our employers don't know whether
they're hiring people illegally because there's a whole forgery industry
around people being smuggled into the United States. There's a smuggling
industry and a forgery industry. And it's hard to ask our employers, the
onion guy out there, whether or not he's got -- whether or not the documents
that he's being shown that look real are real.
And so here's a better proposal than what we're doing today, which is to
say, if you're going to come to do a job an American won't do, you ought to be
given a foolproof card that says you can come for a limited period of time and
do work in a job an American won't do. That's border security because it
means that people will be willing to come in legally with a card to do work on
a limited basis, and then go home. And so the agents won't be chasing people
being smuggled in 18-wheelers or across the Arizona desert. They'll be able
to focus on drugs and terrorists and guns.
The fundamental question that he is referring to is, what do we do about -
- there's two questions -- one, should we have amnesty? And the answer, in my
judgment, is, no, we shouldn't have amnesty. In my judgment, granting
amnesty, automatic citizenship -- that's what amnesty means -- would cause
another 11 million people, or however many are here, to come in the hopes of
becoming a United States citizen. We shouldn't have amnesty. We ought to
have a program that says, you get in line like everybody else gets in line;
and that if the Congress feels like there needs to be higher quotas on certain
nationalities, raise the quotas. But don't let people get in front of the
line for somebody who has been playing by the rules. (Applause.)
And so, anyway, that's my ideas on good immigration policy. Obviously,
there's going to be some questions we have to answer: What about the person
who's been here since 1987 -- '86 was the last attempt at coming up with
immigration reform -- been here for a long period of time. They've raised a
family here. And my only advice for the Congress and for people in the debate
is understand what made America. We're a land of immigrants. This guy is
from Hungary, you know. (Applause.) And we got to treat people fairly.
We've got to have a system of law that is respectful for people.
I mean, the idea of having a program that causes people to get stuck in
the back of 18-wheelers, to risk their lives to sneak into America to do work
that some people won't do is just not American, in my judgment. And so I
would hope the debate would be civil and uphold the honor of this country.
And remember, we've been through these periods before, where the immigration
debate can get harsh. And it should not be harsh. And I hope -- my call for
people is to be rational about the debate and thoughtful about what words can
mean during this debate.
Final question, sir. You're paying me a lot of money and I got to go back
to work. (Laughter.)
PS I did not know about the story of I-245 on 9/11....
pt326bc
07-12 07:14 PM
:confused::confused:
First (Original one):
labor date: EB2-Aug-2002
Labor approved: September - 2007
I-140 approved: Yesterday (July-11-2008)
485 not yet filed
Second (approved labor from different company):
labor date: EB3-Apr-2004 and labor approved
140 filed: July 13 2007 - case is pending as of now
485 filed: July 13 2007 - case is pending as of now
I dont know what to do with my original green card one (whether to file one more 485 or not)
Gurus help me with your knowlege which option i have to choose
1. withdraw the 485 (filed with substituion labor) and file new 485 with the original one
2. file one more 485
3. wait for the substituion labor 140 to be approved and transfer priority date and category?
:confused:
You could file CP for one and continue with AOS for another and see which one comes out successful sooner. Theoretically you could have any number of applications for a green card; but for simlicity's sake (USCIS not yours) it is always wise to stick to one.
But confirm with you lawyer; this is not legal advice.
Regards.
First (Original one):
labor date: EB2-Aug-2002
Labor approved: September - 2007
I-140 approved: Yesterday (July-11-2008)
485 not yet filed
Second (approved labor from different company):
labor date: EB3-Apr-2004 and labor approved
140 filed: July 13 2007 - case is pending as of now
485 filed: July 13 2007 - case is pending as of now
I dont know what to do with my original green card one (whether to file one more 485 or not)
Gurus help me with your knowlege which option i have to choose
1. withdraw the 485 (filed with substituion labor) and file new 485 with the original one
2. file one more 485
3. wait for the substituion labor 140 to be approved and transfer priority date and category?
:confused:
You could file CP for one and continue with AOS for another and see which one comes out successful sooner. Theoretically you could have any number of applications for a green card; but for simlicity's sake (USCIS not yours) it is always wise to stick to one.
But confirm with you lawyer; this is not legal advice.
Regards.
Jerrome
10-18 01:29 PM
Is it possible to track 140 without the receipt notices.
pdakwala
04-29 12:00 AM
Thanks for your continuous support.
Who says that we will not succeed in removing the current retrogression.
Who says that IV can not achieve anything.
When you do some thing from the heart you can't go wrong. IV members are contributing second, third, fourth and some even fifth time. This shows the confidence level. Keep it up. You all have made us proud immigrants.
Thanks to all those who have contributed.
Who says that we will not succeed in removing the current retrogression.
Who says that IV can not achieve anything.
When you do some thing from the heart you can't go wrong. IV members are contributing second, third, fourth and some even fifth time. This shows the confidence level. Keep it up. You all have made us proud immigrants.
Thanks to all those who have contributed.
No comments:
Post a Comment