greencardfever5
08-24 01:18 AM
poorslumdog,
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
wallpaper i love you forever and always
eb3_nepa
10-25 04:11 PM
EAD card approvals in the case of primary + spouse are TOTALLY INDEPENDANT of each other. So just coz your ead is approved does NOT mean ur wife's will be approved as well. Your wifes may get approved at the same time or even a few weeks later.
cnag
04-17 03:54 PM
Don't worry. You are not alone. I will give you company. Mine is stuck in PERM
since OCt 2005. Not 10 months yet, but almost there...
since OCt 2005. Not 10 months yet, but almost there...
2011 i will love you forever quotes
pansworld
07-07 04:26 PM
But at least they will be alerted to a problem. Maybe someone will take notice. Maybe they wont. If not we will figure something else out...my two cents
more...
h1jail
08-08 09:29 PM
Hello,
I did not see any posts regarding "1 year H1 extension approval when filed for 3 years". If this discussion is already in place, please point me to appropriate thread so that I could close this one.
I applied for 3 years H1 extension on 6/26/2007 with approved I-140. My priority date (EB3 -Sep 2003) was not current on 6/26/2007 when I applied for 3 year extension. I got an approval notice today which is valid for only one year. I want to know if this is an error from USCIS so that I could ask to ammend 2 more years.
Thanks!
I did not see any posts regarding "1 year H1 extension approval when filed for 3 years". If this discussion is already in place, please point me to appropriate thread so that I could close this one.
I applied for 3 years H1 extension on 6/26/2007 with approved I-140. My priority date (EB3 -Sep 2003) was not current on 6/26/2007 when I applied for 3 year extension. I got an approval notice today which is valid for only one year. I want to know if this is an error from USCIS so that I could ask to ammend 2 more years.
Thanks!
thomachan72
09-07 09:46 AM
Just as under the Indian constitution under the Income tax act all citizens whether residing inside the country or not are treated equally. the Govt will be acting against the law and infringing upon basic rights if they create different tax structures based upon place of residence for citizens. For eg:- interest on bank deposits is income generated within the country and for that there is a compulsory TDS in case of NRIs. This is a provision to prevent people from repatriating income without paying due taxes as it becomes the responsibility of the bank to collect the tax. Now as any citizen an NRI has the right to any exemptions / deductions and can claim back excess tax that was deducted when he/she files the income tax.
I wouldn't be worried about this article unless your personal chartered accountant in India tells you something. You cannot be taxed differently from any other citizen. Let me ask you one thing; Dont you as a citizen have the right to vote irrespective of where you stay? similarly your rights dont change if you stay abroad or work abroad. Infact the govt of many states rely heavily on foreign repatriation particularly from the gulf countries.
There is going to be a HUGE HUGE aproar if something silly like this were to happen. Its like saying, "NRIs have to pay more at the Indian gas stations because the tax is higher for them"
Dont worry be happy it is a false article written by somebody who apparently has not understood really what he/she read.
I wouldn't be worried about this article unless your personal chartered accountant in India tells you something. You cannot be taxed differently from any other citizen. Let me ask you one thing; Dont you as a citizen have the right to vote irrespective of where you stay? similarly your rights dont change if you stay abroad or work abroad. Infact the govt of many states rely heavily on foreign repatriation particularly from the gulf countries.
There is going to be a HUGE HUGE aproar if something silly like this were to happen. Its like saying, "NRIs have to pay more at the Indian gas stations because the tax is higher for them"
Dont worry be happy it is a false article written by somebody who apparently has not understood really what he/she read.
more...
mckottayam
05-02 08:03 PM
mckottayam: did you tell the IO explicitly that you had I-797 extensions approved to get I-94 stamped thru end of I-797?
I gave the passports and the I797s together. IO gave me the 797s back and then I told him the dates are different as it was extended and he took them back. No more questions about this matter.
I gave the passports and the I797s together. IO gave me the 797s back and then I told him the dates are different as it was extended and he took them back. No more questions about this matter.
2010 love you always and forever
greyhair
06-22 10:02 PM
I also work for Big4, but I work in IT. Wait time depends on your country of birth and the category of your application. If you are from India or China in Eb3, then you would be better off not applying because you will most likely retire before you get your green card.
It may be helpful to apply in Eb2. I am not sure if CFA Lvl 2 will qualify you for Eb2. But if you have Masters degree in your area of expertise then Eb2 should not be an issue. Performance bonus is not a measure of exceptional ability for Eb2.
You will have to provide more details or you will have to understand the process to estimating the time it will take for the approval. Given the size of the backlog, Eb2 is always better than Eb3. Ultimately, it depends on your employer and your job requirement.
It may be helpful to apply in Eb2. I am not sure if CFA Lvl 2 will qualify you for Eb2. But if you have Masters degree in your area of expertise then Eb2 should not be an issue. Performance bonus is not a measure of exceptional ability for Eb2.
You will have to provide more details or you will have to understand the process to estimating the time it will take for the approval. Given the size of the backlog, Eb2 is always better than Eb3. Ultimately, it depends on your employer and your job requirement.
more...
wandmaker
09-18 07:07 AM
I paid the money to my company who has applied for my H1B.
Even I have not yet received receipt number for the H1 application filed on 7-April-2009 by my employer in NJ USA. I was also given fedex tracking number for the application that was sent on 7-April-2009.
I applied for H1B through a NJ based consultancy company for year 2010. I haven't got any receipt number though my employer claims to have fedexed my application on April 6th.
......had nicely and smartly enjoyed everyones money and are free without any problems. Now from last few weeks they are not even replying any emails or phone calls. This clearly indicates that it was very well planned fraud. They should really be sent to jail.
3 x $3,500 = $10,500 is easy money! As long as there are people like you ready to pay for their H1Bs; these companies will continue make money out of you. First, You should stop paying them! Second, file a complaint with USCIS about this company!!
Even I have not yet received receipt number for the H1 application filed on 7-April-2009 by my employer in NJ USA. I was also given fedex tracking number for the application that was sent on 7-April-2009.
I applied for H1B through a NJ based consultancy company for year 2010. I haven't got any receipt number though my employer claims to have fedexed my application on April 6th.
......had nicely and smartly enjoyed everyones money and are free without any problems. Now from last few weeks they are not even replying any emails or phone calls. This clearly indicates that it was very well planned fraud. They should really be sent to jail.
3 x $3,500 = $10,500 is easy money! As long as there are people like you ready to pay for their H1Bs; these companies will continue make money out of you. First, You should stop paying them! Second, file a complaint with USCIS about this company!!
hair love you always quotes. i love
Circus123
01-09 03:49 PM
YEs sure I think 6 may go through instead of 5 this time.
more...
franklin
06-01 07:21 PM
Just in case not all new members are Indian, I suggest this poll which covers ALL nationalities
hot love you always quotes. love
rajenk
07-19 07:27 PM
What if the company with your first 140 withdras th applciation (assuming 140 was approved for more than 180 days and I485 is also pending more than 180 days)
Also when you join the new company what kind of benefits you get in term of Salary/ Position/ Promotion?
It doesn't matter if the I-140 was revoked by the prev employer, still the PD is yours to keep provided that I-140 was approved. One should also be cautious about the revocation, if the approved I-140 was revoked by USCIS itself as a fraudulent filing then no benefits from that I-140! Otherwise you are good.
The new company's offer is like any other job for you, if you qualify for the job and the company likes you and your skills they are going to offer the market salary and the position can even be a manager, then you might qualify for EB1!
Also when you join the new company what kind of benefits you get in term of Salary/ Position/ Promotion?
It doesn't matter if the I-140 was revoked by the prev employer, still the PD is yours to keep provided that I-140 was approved. One should also be cautious about the revocation, if the approved I-140 was revoked by USCIS itself as a fraudulent filing then no benefits from that I-140! Otherwise you are good.
The new company's offer is like any other job for you, if you qualify for the job and the company likes you and your skills they are going to offer the market salary and the position can even be a manager, then you might qualify for EB1!
more...
house tattoo love you always quotes.
LOL123
02-14 08:55 AM
Thank You All for the suggestions.
tattoo Frame will love you picture,
bharol
07-05 04:41 PM
Which part of CA are you in? Is it scary to live there. Do you really need a gun?
I live in Southern california(also lived in LA/Orange/San diego area) and i guess you are not in Southern california.
J Thomas
I live in SF Bay area.
Not that I am getting paranoid, I suspect social issues if economy worsens..Rising crime and other social issues do come up in tough economic conditions.
Recently one of my friends was targeted in a racial abuse, something which was unheard in the area where I live in. I see gang signs allover the area where I live. It was not like that one year ago.
I live in Southern california(also lived in LA/Orange/San diego area) and i guess you are not in Southern california.
J Thomas
I live in SF Bay area.
Not that I am getting paranoid, I suspect social issues if economy worsens..Rising crime and other social issues do come up in tough economic conditions.
Recently one of my friends was targeted in a racial abuse, something which was unheard in the area where I live in. I see gang signs allover the area where I live. It was not like that one year ago.
more...
pictures love you always and forever
Prashanthi
10-20 05:15 PM
My advice you need to prepare a comprehensive package of documentation since your case is really messed up.
1) Get a legal translation of your original BC from Hindi to English. You can enlist help of some one you know (not a direct family member) or proffesional translation agency to do this. If done by some individual get it notarized.
2) Now prepare a letter highlighting the sections that are correct and sections that are incorrect (like name of child)
3) Get 2 affidavits from your parents/ relatives which the corrected information (also add the other BC info required refer to IV wiki for details). Make sure that these affidavits contain enough details to explain why the name and other details changed.
4) Get as much documentation as possible which can suppliment the new info. Example 10th / 12th certificates, School Leaving Certificates, PAN Card, Indian Drivers License, Nationality/ Domicile certificates, Caste Certificate, Election Card etc etc that can support the new name.
I agree with the above, please follow his advice. In general letter from the consulate is not accepted as proof of birth because they follow the passport details and dont do any further investigation.
1) Get a legal translation of your original BC from Hindi to English. You can enlist help of some one you know (not a direct family member) or proffesional translation agency to do this. If done by some individual get it notarized.
2) Now prepare a letter highlighting the sections that are correct and sections that are incorrect (like name of child)
3) Get 2 affidavits from your parents/ relatives which the corrected information (also add the other BC info required refer to IV wiki for details). Make sure that these affidavits contain enough details to explain why the name and other details changed.
4) Get as much documentation as possible which can suppliment the new info. Example 10th / 12th certificates, School Leaving Certificates, PAN Card, Indian Drivers License, Nationality/ Domicile certificates, Caste Certificate, Election Card etc etc that can support the new name.
I agree with the above, please follow his advice. In general letter from the consulate is not accepted as proof of birth because they follow the passport details and dont do any further investigation.
dresses house love you always quotes.
glus
10-19 08:18 AM
What do the people in the following circumstance do:
1) Family emergency and they have to travel to India? Is there any way to expedite the advance parole??
2) They get married say in October and return with spouse then? IF they file for I-485 now, isnt the spouse left out unless she/he can come in H1B or F-1 herself?
Hi:
According to the rules, you need to have I485 original receipt at the time of re-entry if you enter on H1, H4 or L1. Even though this rule was not very much enforced, it may be a reason for I485 abandonment if you don't have it at the time your re-enter. It is very risky to leave without I485 receipt. If you really need to leave without I485 receipt, you would need to get emergency approval of AP, which can be done under some circumstances. Not you can apply for AP based on proof of mailing and delivery I485 if you don't have one.
Reportedly, USCIS is working on a rule, that would eliminate the need of having I485 at re-entry, but as of now, an IO may request I485 receipt at re-entry.
1) Family emergency and they have to travel to India? Is there any way to expedite the advance parole??
2) They get married say in October and return with spouse then? IF they file for I-485 now, isnt the spouse left out unless she/he can come in H1B or F-1 herself?
Hi:
According to the rules, you need to have I485 original receipt at the time of re-entry if you enter on H1, H4 or L1. Even though this rule was not very much enforced, it may be a reason for I485 abandonment if you don't have it at the time your re-enter. It is very risky to leave without I485 receipt. If you really need to leave without I485 receipt, you would need to get emergency approval of AP, which can be done under some circumstances. Not you can apply for AP based on proof of mailing and delivery I485 if you don't have one.
Reportedly, USCIS is working on a rule, that would eliminate the need of having I485 at re-entry, but as of now, an IO may request I485 receipt at re-entry.
more...
makeup makeup i love you forever and
indio0617
12-13 12:53 PM
Surprising right? May be this is the first time anyone would have posted this kind of post but yes I am in that situation.
I am EB2 and retrogressed with I-140 cleared. I am working for a client and they are willing to take me in and process my fresh green card. I am not too keen about it because they said they can file only on EB3.
My PD is Sept 2005. Now can you guys give our your honest opinion in what you would have done if you were in similar situation. The client is a good top 10 client and you will have a stable job that is garunteed.
Appreciate your thoughts to help my plan.
Given the gross uncertainity about retrogression and GC, I would not give undue importance to the GC timeline factor. Eventually job / skills are more important than the distant GC.
I was in a similar situation a few months back. I abandoned my GC process with my former employer for a new and much more promising job. I am yet to start the GC process with the new employer. For me JOB was the deciding factor.
My reasoning was simple:
In the current scenario with a broken immigration system if we are to maintain our sanity and move on in our careers , we have to stop thinking that GC is above everything. Work on it as much as you can, but do not miss out on good career moves.
Do what you feel is best for you and what you can make peace with. My 2 cents..
I am EB2 and retrogressed with I-140 cleared. I am working for a client and they are willing to take me in and process my fresh green card. I am not too keen about it because they said they can file only on EB3.
My PD is Sept 2005. Now can you guys give our your honest opinion in what you would have done if you were in similar situation. The client is a good top 10 client and you will have a stable job that is garunteed.
Appreciate your thoughts to help my plan.
Given the gross uncertainity about retrogression and GC, I would not give undue importance to the GC timeline factor. Eventually job / skills are more important than the distant GC.
I was in a similar situation a few months back. I abandoned my GC process with my former employer for a new and much more promising job. I am yet to start the GC process with the new employer. For me JOB was the deciding factor.
My reasoning was simple:
In the current scenario with a broken immigration system if we are to maintain our sanity and move on in our careers , we have to stop thinking that GC is above everything. Work on it as much as you can, but do not miss out on good career moves.
Do what you feel is best for you and what you can make peace with. My 2 cents..
girlfriend I+love+you+baby+forever
loveiv
07-01 09:42 PM
We do see such threads on the forum occasionally. There are several instances where members have posted negative comments about consulting companies and how employees are unhappy working for them.
I want to understand the reasons why people are not filing lawsuits against such companies yet? Why are we not reporting them to DOL and USCIS? Especially after filing I485 and expiry of 6 months, people are in a better position to file lawsuits against such employers.
IV can help only if people are willing to be helped and ready to take action.
If this system needs to be cleansed, then why aren't we doing it?
I'm with you. Matter of fact, I'm preparing a lawsuit against my old employer.
Lets see.
I want to understand the reasons why people are not filing lawsuits against such companies yet? Why are we not reporting them to DOL and USCIS? Especially after filing I485 and expiry of 6 months, people are in a better position to file lawsuits against such employers.
IV can help only if people are willing to be helped and ready to take action.
If this system needs to be cleansed, then why aren't we doing it?
I'm with you. Matter of fact, I'm preparing a lawsuit against my old employer.
Lets see.
hairstyles love you always and forever
GCApplicant001
10-12 11:47 PM
friends,
Today i recieved transfer notice from CSC to TSC but no reciept notice yet. Am i going to recieve reciept notice also?
I485 filled on July 31, 2007
Today i recieved transfer notice from CSC to TSC but no reciept notice yet. Am i going to recieve reciept notice also?
I485 filled on July 31, 2007
Libra
09-15 10:39 PM
I dont like selfish, coward, lazy people be my friends. Who can't stand up for thier families what can they for me.........
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment