gogal
01-02 10:49 AM
It is said that 140 premium takes around 15 days... Is it true that, if there is any query during the premium processing, the 15 day count is not applicable.. I mean it goes back to the normal processing time in case of any query
wallpaper are sure to submit 6.8 SPC
dvvb
03-01 02:59 PM
Hi Sathishav, Thanks for the response.
Nope, Co. A filed for my I-140 while I was working for Co. B. and is subsequently approved. Filed for I-485 with Co.A in June/2008 while working with Co. B. Used EAD to move to Co. C.
to summarize,
Co. A's GC filed as future employee.
Joined Co. C on EAD.
Now Co. A is out of buisiness.
Does AC21 portability applies ?
Thanks
-DvvB
If i understood your post correctly, you have ported of an unapproved I140. I do understand this is for a "future job", but still you have used AC21.
I agree with your attorney to file, because, if you had worked for Company A and moved AFTER I140 approved and I485 pending for 180 days, you don't have to worry about their status. Since you have not yet worked for them, it safe severe your ties by filing AC21.
http://www.myvisajobs.com/Document/YatesMay05.pdf
Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140 petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending 180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-
485 that has been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should
be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on
it�s merits. Then adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.
B. If additional evidence is necessary to resolve a material post-filing
issue such as ability to pay, an RFE can be sent to try to resolve the
issue. When a response is received, and if the petition is approvable,
follow the procedures in part A above.
Nope, Co. A filed for my I-140 while I was working for Co. B. and is subsequently approved. Filed for I-485 with Co.A in June/2008 while working with Co. B. Used EAD to move to Co. C.
to summarize,
Co. A's GC filed as future employee.
Joined Co. C on EAD.
Now Co. A is out of buisiness.
Does AC21 portability applies ?
Thanks
-DvvB
If i understood your post correctly, you have ported of an unapproved I140. I do understand this is for a "future job", but still you have used AC21.
I agree with your attorney to file, because, if you had worked for Company A and moved AFTER I140 approved and I485 pending for 180 days, you don't have to worry about their status. Since you have not yet worked for them, it safe severe your ties by filing AC21.
http://www.myvisajobs.com/Document/YatesMay05.pdf
Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140 petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending 180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-
485 that has been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should
be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on
it�s merits. Then adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.
B. If additional evidence is necessary to resolve a material post-filing
issue such as ability to pay, an RFE can be sent to try to resolve the
issue. When a response is received, and if the petition is approvable,
follow the procedures in part A above.
vedicman
05-06 11:24 AM
Bring it on PA, UT, TX (although backing away)
The more the merrier! This certainly will bring the debates nationally all the time.
More # of states want to pile on, Fed has to step in - with a ferocious appetite :D
The more the merrier! This certainly will bring the debates nationally all the time.
More # of states want to pile on, Fed has to step in - with a ferocious appetite :D
2011 Even the 6.8 SPC (6.8×43mm
ab_tak_chappan
08-12 10:18 PM
Celebration should not need a reason :)
Thought this might help when the mood is gloomy, folks are tense n stressed out, checking visa bulletin every minute :D
hurrah!....
..
...
...
wait a min..success of what??
Thought this might help when the mood is gloomy, folks are tense n stressed out, checking visa bulletin every minute :D
hurrah!....
..
...
...
wait a min..success of what??
more...
kaisersose
04-16 03:17 PM
i am in similar situation for my wife too ... she entered in h4 but is working on EAD now. So, could someone plz let me know wat is her current immigration status ? cos, i don't see a status "EAD" on the dropdown when I try to eFile.
EAD is not a status like H-1 or H-4.
The status should be AOS , pending 485, etc.
EAD is not a status like H-1 or H-4.
The status should be AOS , pending 485, etc.
acecupid
08-15 10:35 AM
The article is not very clear. It sounds like this will cause more trouble than benefit us. The 485 filing will be based on PD after pre-registration is cleared, so people who were originally eligible to apply for 485, EAD and AP when PD is current will lose the EAD/AP benefits during pre-registration process.
more...
kvranand
08-18 04:19 PM
This process will extended the life of H1's by another 3 years for those who are in their 6th year of H1 with priority dates in their 6th year. :)
2010 6 8 spc vs 6 5 grendel.
ultimate_champ
11-27 07:04 AM
Hello,
My I485 was filed at TX center. However it was transferred to VSC for data entry and they generated the receipt number.
Receipt date = 03-Aug-2007
Notice Date = 12-Oct-2007
On 20-Oct, VSC then transferred the case back to TSC and generated a transfer notice with date of 20-Oct-2007
For the AC21/180 day I always thought that the counting would start in my case from 03-Aug. However my company lawyer says that it will start from 20-Oct and I am at a complete loss on this..
Is it really true.
This is really urgent since I stand to lose out big time on an excellent job offer.
What are my options here - Is there any documentation that I can show to him that I am correct (If I am).
Thanks.
My I485 was filed at TX center. However it was transferred to VSC for data entry and they generated the receipt number.
Receipt date = 03-Aug-2007
Notice Date = 12-Oct-2007
On 20-Oct, VSC then transferred the case back to TSC and generated a transfer notice with date of 20-Oct-2007
For the AC21/180 day I always thought that the counting would start in my case from 03-Aug. However my company lawyer says that it will start from 20-Oct and I am at a complete loss on this..
Is it really true.
This is really urgent since I stand to lose out big time on an excellent job offer.
What are my options here - Is there any documentation that I can show to him that I am correct (If I am).
Thanks.
more...
sukhwinderd
09-12 03:06 PM
my case was sent to TX office on 6/29 for 7/2 delivery and i checked online the receipt date was 7/31. dont know why. should be 7/2
but i got FP notice on 9/10 for appt dt = 9/25
hope this helps.
but i got FP notice on 9/10 for appt dt = 9/25
hope this helps.
hair 6.5 Grendel top, and the 6.8
eborbust
07-01 09:19 AM
To Administrator: Why are you deleting my post. I am just copy pasting a PURE TRUTH i.e. a TEXT OF LEGISLATION. I am not making up things. There are many other threads where people are just discussing unnecessary stuff. I am just saying that legal immigrants who have not yet applied for EB should contact congress to include us in any kind of amnesty - not exclude us. How does this view go against anybody in this forum?? Infact it will benefit everybody. A "blanket" amnesty will give everybdy a GC including those who have and those who havent applied for EB yet.
I am not saying the 2009 or 2010 CIR would definitely exclude legals in US from amnesty but we should contact congress and white house that it should not happen like the it was almost going to happen in 2006.
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
S.2611
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)
SEC. 601. ACCESS TO EARNED ADJUSTMENT AND MANDATORY DEPARTURE AND REENTRY.
(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Immigrant Accountability Act of 2006'.
(b) Adjustment of Status-
(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:
`SEC. 245B. ACCESS TO EARNED ADJUSTMENT.
`(a) Adjustment of Status-
`(1) PRINCIPAL ALIENS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 244(h) of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who satisfies the following requirements:
`(A) APPLICATION- The alien shall file an application establishing eligibility for adjustment of status and pay the fine required under subsection (m) and any additional amounts owed under that subsection.
`(B) CONTINUOUS PHYSICAL PRESENCE-
`(i) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien--
`(I) was physically present in the United States on or before the date that is 5 years before April 5, 2006;
`(II) was not legally present in the United States on April 5, 2006, under any classification set forth in section 101(a)(15); and
`(III) did not depart from the United States during the 5-year period ending on April 5, 2006, except for brief, casual, and innocent departures.
................
Under any such plan, an Illegal guy living in US for 2 or 3 years will get green card before a legal guy on F1 visa or working on H1B living in US for 2 or 3 years.
We should all contact congress to not to limit any kind of so called "Legalization or Earned path to Green Card" to illegals in US only. Legals should also be included. BUG THE WHITE HOUSE AND SENATORS FOR THIS OTHERWISE YOU'LL BE LEFT OUT. ACT NOW...
I am not saying the 2009 or 2010 CIR would definitely exclude legals in US from amnesty but we should contact congress and white house that it should not happen like the it was almost going to happen in 2006.
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
S.2611
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)
SEC. 601. ACCESS TO EARNED ADJUSTMENT AND MANDATORY DEPARTURE AND REENTRY.
(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Immigrant Accountability Act of 2006'.
(b) Adjustment of Status-
(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:
`SEC. 245B. ACCESS TO EARNED ADJUSTMENT.
`(a) Adjustment of Status-
`(1) PRINCIPAL ALIENS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 244(h) of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who satisfies the following requirements:
`(A) APPLICATION- The alien shall file an application establishing eligibility for adjustment of status and pay the fine required under subsection (m) and any additional amounts owed under that subsection.
`(B) CONTINUOUS PHYSICAL PRESENCE-
`(i) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien--
`(I) was physically present in the United States on or before the date that is 5 years before April 5, 2006;
`(II) was not legally present in the United States on April 5, 2006, under any classification set forth in section 101(a)(15); and
`(III) did not depart from the United States during the 5-year period ending on April 5, 2006, except for brief, casual, and innocent departures.
................
Under any such plan, an Illegal guy living in US for 2 or 3 years will get green card before a legal guy on F1 visa or working on H1B living in US for 2 or 3 years.
We should all contact congress to not to limit any kind of so called "Legalization or Earned path to Green Card" to illegals in US only. Legals should also be included. BUG THE WHITE HOUSE AND SENATORS FOR THIS OTHERWISE YOU'LL BE LEFT OUT. ACT NOW...
more...
waitingimmigrant
10-21 04:17 PM
Reviewed by the judiciary commitee... they are reviewing it...
On asking about the timeline the lady at that no. said she
didnt know by what time will they be done ...
On asking about the timeline the lady at that no. said she
didnt know by what time will they be done ...
hot in 6.5 Grendel
Berkeleybee
04-26 07:20 PM
Glad to have been of assistance and happy that the IV core played the greatest part in getting the story out. Lets keep our eyes and ears open as we look out for more opportunities. There is a potential opportunity from this article shared by gonecrazyonh4 : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=9627&postcount=321
I looked around the site and found out that the misleading article was an op-ed and that the paper actually has someone dedicated to immigration issues. I found the following info, it might be worth following up as part of telling the other side of the story and correcting misperceptions that may have been created :
Brenda Gazzar : brenda.gazzar at dailybulletin.com, Immigration and Ethnic Issues (909) 483-9355
More contacts here : http://www.dailybulletin.com/contactus
Note that this was written by a "guest" columnist. Go ahead and write to the reporter. Happily this is a small local paper, in a pretty Republican district, any article that throws in allegations about Asians and then terrorists cant be taken seriously.
I looked around the site and found out that the misleading article was an op-ed and that the paper actually has someone dedicated to immigration issues. I found the following info, it might be worth following up as part of telling the other side of the story and correcting misperceptions that may have been created :
Brenda Gazzar : brenda.gazzar at dailybulletin.com, Immigration and Ethnic Issues (909) 483-9355
More contacts here : http://www.dailybulletin.com/contactus
Note that this was written by a "guest" columnist. Go ahead and write to the reporter. Happily this is a small local paper, in a pretty Republican district, any article that throws in allegations about Asians and then terrorists cant be taken seriously.
more...
house 6 8 spc vs 6 5 grendel. 6 5 X 55 Model 70 Winchester
eb3_nepa
07-18 09:10 AM
Guys,
IV has FINALLY gotten most of us Through the door. Now we have a 20,000 membership. If everyone of us contributes $10 per month that is $200,000 a month. If we cannot even contribute $10 PER MONTH, that is really really cheap of us.
Guys IV has done its job, now to ensure that we get to the finish line FAST, we need to dig into our pockets and not even very deep!
Common people It is $10 a MONTH
IV has FINALLY gotten most of us Through the door. Now we have a 20,000 membership. If everyone of us contributes $10 per month that is $200,000 a month. If we cannot even contribute $10 PER MONTH, that is really really cheap of us.
Guys IV has done its job, now to ensure that we get to the finish line FAST, we need to dig into our pockets and not even very deep!
Common people It is $10 a MONTH
tattoo 6 8 spc vs 6 5 grendel. 6.8
GCPagla
02-20 01:03 PM
To bring more details to my question:
a) Though my job title is like programmer analyst, my SOC job code is given as 17-2071.00 which is "Electrical Engineer"
I was never an electrical engineer (not even by my education). I do not know why the original filer used such a SOC code. Now my new role (lead technical architect) will have a SOC code as 15-1031 as that is for computer architect.
Morever my new employer will not provide me a Ac21 portability matching my labor cert.
My role responsibility is following as per labor cert.
Job Title: Programmer/ Analyst/Systems, Software/Engineer/Developer, or Related to IT
Reponsibility:
develop, create and modify general computer application software. Analysis user needs and design, develop software solutions. Design, develop, analyse and implement software and end user product. Coordinate various account projects with IT consultants; nurture close relationship with the major account customers by providing quality technical support and apply principles of computer science, engineering and mathematical analysis.
Do you feel that changing the job as lead architect willl be a paradigm shift for me causing my GC gone denied?
Thankis in advance.
a) Though my job title is like programmer analyst, my SOC job code is given as 17-2071.00 which is "Electrical Engineer"
I was never an electrical engineer (not even by my education). I do not know why the original filer used such a SOC code. Now my new role (lead technical architect) will have a SOC code as 15-1031 as that is for computer architect.
Morever my new employer will not provide me a Ac21 portability matching my labor cert.
My role responsibility is following as per labor cert.
Job Title: Programmer/ Analyst/Systems, Software/Engineer/Developer, or Related to IT
Reponsibility:
develop, create and modify general computer application software. Analysis user needs and design, develop software solutions. Design, develop, analyse and implement software and end user product. Coordinate various account projects with IT consultants; nurture close relationship with the major account customers by providing quality technical support and apply principles of computer science, engineering and mathematical analysis.
Do you feel that changing the job as lead architect willl be a paradigm shift for me causing my GC gone denied?
Thankis in advance.
more...
pictures 6.8 SPC
willigetgc?
08-04 08:31 AM
I would think writing back to the Senator's office regarding your email and the unrelated response you got from the office has frustrated you, as the Senators does not seem to understand the problems, and therefore you are asking for an appointment to meet with the senator and explaining it personally.
You may not get the appointment to meet with the Senator, but you will let them know how badly they are screwing up constituents complaints. By following up and actually meeting with an immigration staff members in the Senator's office will be good.
You may not get the appointment to meet with the Senator, but you will let them know how badly they are screwing up constituents complaints. By following up and actually meeting with an immigration staff members in the Senator's office will be good.
dresses Upper Assembly 6.5 Grendel
cygent
04-03 04:03 AM
It is not that I want to ask many questions.
It is just that I want to prepare for the consequences. Also, this information could be important to somebody else in the future, I am not thinking just about myself, so please understand & respect that.
Thanks for your help!
It is just that I want to prepare for the consequences. Also, this information could be important to somebody else in the future, I am not thinking just about myself, so please understand & respect that.
Thanks for your help!
more...
makeup Hornady 6.5 Grendel Amax 123
simple1
10-07 03:36 PM
Enlighten us about your mutiple company stint in L1B visa.
My L1 visa is expiring on Nov5 2009 and If I have file my COS status in mid of oct and it's in pending status at the time of my L1 visa expiry date then will i be able to stay in US or do i have to go back india
Hi,
I am currently working in Skilled visa through one of MNC company.I am working for this company for last 4 years and prior to this company i worked in another small company for two years.When I join my current company i provided all the legal document like exp,last two month pay stub and releiving letter and they did BG . They did not find anything wrong with prior employer in last 4 year. recently they found something wrong about my prior employer and asking me providing additional document and unfortunately company is closed or rename. I have told my current employer that i don't have any more evidance of my prior employer.Because of this reason they are asking me to come back india.
Is there any way that i can take legal action against this company in US because from last one week
they are harrassing my like anything.
Please let me know if anyone come across in this situation.
My L1 visa is expiring on Nov5 2009 and If I have file my COS status in mid of oct and it's in pending status at the time of my L1 visa expiry date then will i be able to stay in US or do i have to go back india
Hi,
I am currently working in Skilled visa through one of MNC company.I am working for this company for last 4 years and prior to this company i worked in another small company for two years.When I join my current company i provided all the legal document like exp,last two month pay stub and releiving letter and they did BG . They did not find anything wrong with prior employer in last 4 year. recently they found something wrong about my prior employer and asking me providing additional document and unfortunately company is closed or rename. I have told my current employer that i don't have any more evidance of my prior employer.Because of this reason they are asking me to come back india.
Is there any way that i can take legal action against this company in US because from last one week
they are harrassing my like anything.
Please let me know if anyone come across in this situation.
girlfriend Go over to the 6.5 Grendel
cooler
08-27 01:32 PM
I went for Driver licence renewal.I have I797 H1B notice of approval for 2 more years.But I don't have it stamped in passport.So when they see it,they said they won't consider it as visa on passport is not valid and expired.Though I am not using ,I have valid EAD card also.So When I shown it ,they renewd my licence.Now I am thinking,is it ok If I use my EAD card for licence renewal as I am not using EAD status now.I want to be on H1B only.I don't want to use EAD now. can anybody tell me will it be alright to use EAD?Does it effect anywhere in my status?
Please respond.
As mentioned in your other post. This should have no bearing on your status.
Question: Dear Ms. Murthy, can one apply for a driver�s license with I-485 receipt notice or is the EAD needed?
Answer: Generally, most DMVs will only issue the DL when one has some clear legal status like H-4 or H1B status. The I-485 should be sufficient, in most cases, and the problem is often that the DMV staff is not as well trained with immigration documents. By requesting to speak with the supervisor, one may be able to obtain the DL based on the I-485 receipt notice, since all that the law requires as evidence that one is legal in the U.S.Apr-7-2008.
Please respond.
As mentioned in your other post. This should have no bearing on your status.
Question: Dear Ms. Murthy, can one apply for a driver�s license with I-485 receipt notice or is the EAD needed?
Answer: Generally, most DMVs will only issue the DL when one has some clear legal status like H-4 or H1B status. The I-485 should be sufficient, in most cases, and the problem is often that the DMV staff is not as well trained with immigration documents. By requesting to speak with the supervisor, one may be able to obtain the DL based on the I-485 receipt notice, since all that the law requires as evidence that one is legal in the U.S.Apr-7-2008.
hairstyles necked down to 6.5 Grendel
god_bless_you
06-14 09:14 PM
From Today's Lou Dobb's....
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
malibuguy007
10-01 06:33 PM
1) Check
The address to mail the checks to is:
Immigration Voice
P O Box 1372
Arcadia, CA 91077-1372
2) Online Payment through your bank
Login to your bank account (This is for BoA)
Go to Bill Pay>>Payees>>Add a Payee
You will see two options
1)Pay a company
2) Pay an Individual
Click the GO button next to Pay an Individual (without entering any information)
In the next page
You will see a small form
Payee- is the name- in whose favor the check will be made
Nickname is for your reference
In Identifying information- you can put your handle
Rest is obvious
Payee creation is one time setup
Once you have created a payee
Go to Bill Pay>>Overview
and here you will see an option to make a payment
3) PayPal
4) Google Checkout
The address to mail the checks to is:
Immigration Voice
P O Box 1372
Arcadia, CA 91077-1372
2) Online Payment through your bank
Login to your bank account (This is for BoA)
Go to Bill Pay>>Payees>>Add a Payee
You will see two options
1)Pay a company
2) Pay an Individual
Click the GO button next to Pay an Individual (without entering any information)
In the next page
You will see a small form
Payee- is the name- in whose favor the check will be made
Nickname is for your reference
In Identifying information- you can put your handle
Rest is obvious
Payee creation is one time setup
Once you have created a payee
Go to Bill Pay>>Overview
and here you will see an option to make a payment
3) PayPal
4) Google Checkout
hazishak
07-05 09:49 PM
At this point no one knows answers to you questions. We have to wait and we will see. Ultimately, USCIS could avoid lots of headaches by accepting all July applications and issuing a new bulletin for August...but we don't know, and nobody knows what will eventually happen.
There is no way USCIS can accept July applications. They said there is no visa available for FY-2007. Now how they will accept more applications? Basis on what? If they accept applications that means they had enough visa available but they did not want to process in which case the a law suit is imminent.
There is no way USCIS can accept July applications. They said there is no visa available for FY-2007. Now how they will accept more applications? Basis on what? If they accept applications that means they had enough visa available but they did not want to process in which case the a law suit is imminent.
