go_guy123
05-24 12:43 PM
People do not earn Ph.D. for money. A Ph.D. gives you prestige and you literally stand tall in the crowd for the rest of your life. People call you 'Dr.', which has more value than anything. Most importantly faculties NEVER lose their jobs once they are tenured......NEVER. There is NOTHING in this universe that can fire a Professor (excepting criminal offenses, academic dishonesty etc.). They never fear that their employer will ill treat them, not pay them, yale at them etc. etc. It takes years of blood and sweat (and intelligence) to earn a Ph.D. Society treats them with reputation and not no mention they live a peaceful life (professionally) throughout their lives.
Yes true ....its not easy to get into the ivory tower of tenured prof.
Most phds dont make into that. Mainly phds from top schools make into the ivory tower that you are describing.
Perhaps you are working in univ as faculty due to your phd...good for you....but all dont work as prof.
Yes true ....its not easy to get into the ivory tower of tenured prof.
Most phds dont make into that. Mainly phds from top schools make into the ivory tower that you are describing.
Perhaps you are working in univ as faculty due to your phd...good for you....but all dont work as prof.
wallpaper 2010 prom dresses
GcSTART1
09-01 02:13 PM
You may not use AC-21 AOS portability for future employment green cards. This is because the start date of employment on your AC-21 letter(from I assume your current employer) should be 180 days after filing of your future employment 485. Since you have been working for your current employer prior to that - USCIS will deny your 485
I a in similar situation My I 140 is approved from previous employer (company A) if the employer agrees to go forward with I 485 , Can I still work for Compnay B and use Ac21.
For AC21 does the jobs exactly have to match with the technoligies mentioned in labor , Or a generic job descirption of Software developer will be taken in to considerarion.
I a in similar situation My I 140 is approved from previous employer (company A) if the employer agrees to go forward with I 485 , Can I still work for Compnay B and use Ac21.
For AC21 does the jobs exactly have to match with the technoligies mentioned in labor , Or a generic job descirption of Software developer will be taken in to considerarion.
EB3June03
06-16 06:17 PM
Like the original poster, I too am in the US for more than 11 years (12th year about to complete)
I too had my PPD test (skin test for TB) come out positive but i don't know exactly how big the size was.
I just came from a civil surgeon who said that i might have to undergo the treatment for it if the size was above 10 mm. He also said that i will have to be retested for it if we don't find the reports of the size when this was done earlier. My PCP had mentioned that there is no point it getting the test done again.
I had submitted my medical exam records with my 484 application in July 2007. I wonder if USCIS is trying to boost the economy by trying to get us go for the medical again? (my lawyer says to go to the doctor and get a medical exam done again would be the most practical and quickest way to respond to the RFE.
I too had my PPD test (skin test for TB) come out positive but i don't know exactly how big the size was.
I just came from a civil surgeon who said that i might have to undergo the treatment for it if the size was above 10 mm. He also said that i will have to be retested for it if we don't find the reports of the size when this was done earlier. My PCP had mentioned that there is no point it getting the test done again.
I had submitted my medical exam records with my 484 application in July 2007. I wonder if USCIS is trying to boost the economy by trying to get us go for the medical again? (my lawyer says to go to the doctor and get a medical exam done again would be the most practical and quickest way to respond to the RFE.
2011 top prom dresses
vallabhu
01-02 01:53 PM
I am in my 8th year extension which is ending in April, My attorney think its 100% win case for one main reason
my labor is filed EB3 Skilled worker
he mentioned with in EB3 there are 2 categories Skilled and professional
for EB3 professional USCIS has complete authority to deny based educational requirements and they can define educational requirements based on job profile.
but for eb3 skilled employer has complete discretion of defining edu requirements.
mine was filed in eb3 skilled and ETA clearly says client will accept 3 year foreign degree.
h thinks any second eye would have approved this but it was unfortunate to be processed by a adjudicator who does have comeplete knwledge and does not know difference between eb3 prof and eb3 skilled
his plan of action is to send them evaluations from multiple academies as you guys have mentioned.
and it looks very fishy from the denial letter
denial states I have now taken any maths courses in graduation but course in physics and chemistry in graduation, and one math course in intermediate which is not sufficient.
and maths is mentioned between physics and chemistry we don't know how he could miss that, Intermediate transcripts does mention mathematics.
I can paste exact content of denial by tomorrow.
my labor is filed EB3 Skilled worker
he mentioned with in EB3 there are 2 categories Skilled and professional
for EB3 professional USCIS has complete authority to deny based educational requirements and they can define educational requirements based on job profile.
but for eb3 skilled employer has complete discretion of defining edu requirements.
mine was filed in eb3 skilled and ETA clearly says client will accept 3 year foreign degree.
h thinks any second eye would have approved this but it was unfortunate to be processed by a adjudicator who does have comeplete knwledge and does not know difference between eb3 prof and eb3 skilled
his plan of action is to send them evaluations from multiple academies as you guys have mentioned.
and it looks very fishy from the denial letter
denial states I have now taken any maths courses in graduation but course in physics and chemistry in graduation, and one math course in intermediate which is not sufficient.
and maths is mentioned between physics and chemistry we don't know how he could miss that, Intermediate transcripts does mention mathematics.
I can paste exact content of denial by tomorrow.
more...
santb1975
02-14 12:22 AM
We really need it
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
franklin
07-13 11:17 AM
Thanks for the suggestions
We do request that people dress smartly, however tomorrow's forecast is in the 80s with about 50% humidity, and we have a 3 hour march.
We hope that people come dressed for comfort too :)
We do request that people dress smartly, however tomorrow's forecast is in the 80s with about 50% humidity, and we have a 3 hour march.
We hope that people come dressed for comfort too :)
more...
milind70
12-03 08:32 AM
I had very very bad experience in Mumbai. I had lost my all documents except passport .Keep ur Documents all the time with you no matter what situation would be. Look for good safe hotel don’t go after chip hotel. One more thing keep all your valuables in secured place.
At consulate experience was pleasant.
This case u described is common and applicable to any city in world/India so please dont single out Mumbai. It is a fine city.
At consulate experience was pleasant.
This case u described is common and applicable to any city in world/India so please dont single out Mumbai. It is a fine city.
2010 prom makeup pink dress
JeffDG
01-26 03:28 PM
Waste of time. How many PhD's are there as compared to the others? There is already EB1/EB2-NIW for them
EB1A/EB1B/EB2NIW still consume visa numbers.
EB1A/EB1B/EB2NIW still consume visa numbers.
more...
PHANI_TAVVALA
12-02 04:17 PM
>>>You cannot transfer to H4, since the 6 year limit is for the "H" category<<<<
I thought this rule changed couple of years back. H4 time is not considered towards H1B anymore and generally the spouses who were on h4 became eligible for full 6 years of H1B. Isn't this right? Sorry for testing your patience with too many questions. Generally I am a cool head but I guess I have been way overcool on this issue.
I thought this rule changed couple of years back. H4 time is not considered towards H1B anymore and generally the spouses who were on h4 became eligible for full 6 years of H1B. Isn't this right? Sorry for testing your patience with too many questions. Generally I am a cool head but I guess I have been way overcool on this issue.
hair vintage Prom Dresses
belmontboy
04-18 11:53 PM
Hi Folks,
My fiancee is a MS student and currently has student loan in India being charged at 13.5%. I am wondering if there is any loan that i can get here with a lower interest rate to repay off the one in india.
I would appreciate any pointers or suggestions here.
My fiancee is a MS student and currently has student loan in India being charged at 13.5%. I am wondering if there is any loan that i can get here with a lower interest rate to repay off the one in india.
I would appreciate any pointers or suggestions here.
more...
DallasBlue
07-13 11:42 AM
How about " Thank you USCIS " banners ?:confused:
dont forget to get your watter bottles.
dont forget to get your watter bottles.
hot classy prom dressesquot;,
GC_2007
12-22 12:05 PM
Your new employer has to start GC from scratch, but you can retain your old PD if your I140 is approved.
more...
house ,classy prom dresses
RamBharose
03-13 06:34 PM
hey kris
i really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
try to follow law in its technicality and spirit. A lot of us may face delay in their app processing for uscis to figure out fraudsters among us. We should keep our program defensible not only in the court of law but also in the court of (american) public opinion.
i really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
try to follow law in its technicality and spirit. A lot of us may face delay in their app processing for uscis to figure out fraudsters among us. We should keep our program defensible not only in the court of law but also in the court of (american) public opinion.
tattoo black prom dresses,
txh1b
08-18 12:21 PM
To be safe, do it even if you get an attached I-94 as you began working. You never know what sort of a minor infraction can lead to a huge trouble later on. Good luck!
more...
pictures 2010 Classy prom dresses
kumjay
06-28 03:49 PM
It's 1947...Now we know not to listen to you :p
Yeh....1947. Sorry about that.....
Yeh....1947. Sorry about that.....
dresses prom dresses bc
seahawks
07-19 12:58 AM
I mean i filed without both of those. Theyare required in the 140 phase , not in 485.
But keep them handy - in case they wants mail by next day air
if you are filing for your spouse and if you are sponsoring your spouse, you have to show evidence of income.. There is a form that you fill with it,.
But keep them handy - in case they wants mail by next day air
if you are filing for your spouse and if you are sponsoring your spouse, you have to show evidence of income.. There is a form that you fill with it,.
more...
makeup Wholesale elegant prom dress:
akhilmahajan
10-27 09:28 AM
New England Chapter Meeting 10/28/07(Sunday) @3:00 PM at Food Court, Burlington Mall, Burlington, MA
San Jose was the beginning.........................
July 2nd was the next step..........................
Washington DC was a bang..........................
Now lets get together for the supernova........
Date:- October 28th, 2007 (Sunday)
Time:- 3:00 PM
Location : Food Court, Burlington Mall, Burlington, MA
Agenda
1. IV awareness campaign
2. Our experiences at the DC rally and lobby day efforts
3. Is lawmaker meetings really that important? Does it make a difference?
4. How can you help IV activities? Distributing Flyers, emails, etc..
Please spread the message about this meet among your friends.
If you or your friends haven't joined the New England Chapter, please join the state chapter at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MA_Immigration_Voice/
If you have any questions please let me know.
GO IV GO.
TOHGETHER WE CAN
San Jose was the beginning.........................
July 2nd was the next step..........................
Washington DC was a bang..........................
Now lets get together for the supernova........
Date:- October 28th, 2007 (Sunday)
Time:- 3:00 PM
Location : Food Court, Burlington Mall, Burlington, MA
Agenda
1. IV awareness campaign
2. Our experiences at the DC rally and lobby day efforts
3. Is lawmaker meetings really that important? Does it make a difference?
4. How can you help IV activities? Distributing Flyers, emails, etc..
Please spread the message about this meet among your friends.
If you or your friends haven't joined the New England Chapter, please join the state chapter at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MA_Immigration_Voice/
If you have any questions please let me know.
GO IV GO.
TOHGETHER WE CAN
girlfriend Classy Design Prom Dress
BharatPremi
03-19 07:59 AM
I need advice..My project ended yesterday and I have another opportunity to work on EAD. I know my current employer will not be able to find a job for me as has been the case earlier and he will remove me from payroll soon. Can I start working with new employer and do not resign from my current employer?
I need help on this as I do not want to terminate my job from my side.
Any advice will be appreciated.
Thanks,
You would be resigning not terminating in case of joining a new job. Conceptually termination and resignation are completely different. Termination may have positive or negative meaning whereas resignation generally have positive meaning. Written proof of resignation is always a good. You can not do that what you want to do and if you do perhaps it will lead you towards your own grave assuming your employer and you do not have very good terms and/or relations. wih each other Suppose say if you do that, employer would simply notify USCIS to terminate your H1 as you have not resume your duty since last "so&so dates" and he may proceeding for some legal action for the the loss of so and so dollars as you did not work without notification... I mean to say if you want to play the games then your employer also can play games and perhaps it may be the master since it had to deal with many people having same mentality and might have gained better experience in that so I would suggest not to take that route. If you do not have any problems with your employer , yes certainly you can do that but again it is not advisable.
I need help on this as I do not want to terminate my job from my side.
Any advice will be appreciated.
Thanks,
You would be resigning not terminating in case of joining a new job. Conceptually termination and resignation are completely different. Termination may have positive or negative meaning whereas resignation generally have positive meaning. Written proof of resignation is always a good. You can not do that what you want to do and if you do perhaps it will lead you towards your own grave assuming your employer and you do not have very good terms and/or relations. wih each other Suppose say if you do that, employer would simply notify USCIS to terminate your H1 as you have not resume your duty since last "so&so dates" and he may proceeding for some legal action for the the loss of so and so dollars as you did not work without notification... I mean to say if you want to play the games then your employer also can play games and perhaps it may be the master since it had to deal with many people having same mentality and might have gained better experience in that so I would suggest not to take that route. If you do not have any problems with your employer , yes certainly you can do that but again it is not advisable.
hairstyles white prom dresses
mmrao2007
07-30 03:14 PM
I did not understand your answer.
How come your 4 year old son apply in EB2 category and sponsor the parents. I know the application is for future employment. But this one is stretching too far? :)
With the way things are going we never know :)
How come your 4 year old son apply in EB2 category and sponsor the parents. I know the application is for future employment. But this one is stretching too far? :)
With the way things are going we never know :)
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
jonty_11
01-15 01:49 PM
ielts.org refers you to els.edu....
els.edu has a locationin my State/city. However, that location is not listed in the ielts.org website. I am trying to get in touch with my local els.edu office, but does anyone know if all els.edu offices (locations) can conduct this English Test for Canadian Immigration??
els.edu has a locationin my State/city. However, that location is not listed in the ielts.org website. I am trying to get in touch with my local els.edu office, but does anyone know if all els.edu offices (locations) can conduct this English Test for Canadian Immigration??
No comments:
Post a Comment