saileshdude
08-26 03:20 PM
My I-140 and I-485 was filed concurrently in July 2004. I-140 was approved in October 2004 for EB3-India. In November 2006 I changed employers after I informed USCIS. We received notice in March 2007 to show another approved I-140 as my I-140 was revoked. My attorney replied invoking AC21 and stating that my I-140 remains valid. He attached my own letter informing them of employer change notiifcation as evidence.
On this we received another RFE in Sept 2007 stating that more evidence was needed in the form of employer letter and my tax returns. We replied to this with all the evidence. Then in October 2007 we received finger printing notice which stated that in order to continue my petition finger prints would be required. The case stayed at Vermont service center.
In November 2008 the case was transferred to Texas and they transferred it to NBC in April for scheduling an interview. The interview was done this month.
The officer did not have any clue about AC21 and insisted that I must show another approved I-140 or a letter from USCIS stating that my I-140 is reinstated. My attorney told the officer that processing on my petition was continued after the RFE, the officer went to find supervisor and could not find anyone. We were told that they would get back.
Today they denied my case on the same grounds that underlying I-140 petition is withdrawn.
What can I do now? I don't have H1B. How much help the MTR would be as it would go to same office. Please help. I am shell shocked.
Ok. First you need to find a good attorney like Ron Gotcher or Murthy. Do a few consults. Maybe with murthy herself ($250 or something). Also do consult with Ron Gotcher . I think that is for free. I know of at least murthy and Ron who have been successful in these kind of cases. They should be able to answer your question also regarding whether MTR going to the same office or not. Also if you can, make sure that your I-140 was approvable from the begining. I read a case as recent as yesterday on IV somewhere that if I-140 was not approvable from begining than it cannot be considered for porting purposes for AC21. I doubt that your case is similar but make sure about this.
Also try to find a litigation attorney who deal with immigration as well as filing lawsuit because if you cannot file MTR then this may be your only other option.
Also contact the IV people here as well as local senator and Ombudsman Office. I think all this collective effort should get you back on track.
On this we received another RFE in Sept 2007 stating that more evidence was needed in the form of employer letter and my tax returns. We replied to this with all the evidence. Then in October 2007 we received finger printing notice which stated that in order to continue my petition finger prints would be required. The case stayed at Vermont service center.
In November 2008 the case was transferred to Texas and they transferred it to NBC in April for scheduling an interview. The interview was done this month.
The officer did not have any clue about AC21 and insisted that I must show another approved I-140 or a letter from USCIS stating that my I-140 is reinstated. My attorney told the officer that processing on my petition was continued after the RFE, the officer went to find supervisor and could not find anyone. We were told that they would get back.
Today they denied my case on the same grounds that underlying I-140 petition is withdrawn.
What can I do now? I don't have H1B. How much help the MTR would be as it would go to same office. Please help. I am shell shocked.
Ok. First you need to find a good attorney like Ron Gotcher or Murthy. Do a few consults. Maybe with murthy herself ($250 or something). Also do consult with Ron Gotcher . I think that is for free. I know of at least murthy and Ron who have been successful in these kind of cases. They should be able to answer your question also regarding whether MTR going to the same office or not. Also if you can, make sure that your I-140 was approvable from the begining. I read a case as recent as yesterday on IV somewhere that if I-140 was not approvable from begining than it cannot be considered for porting purposes for AC21. I doubt that your case is similar but make sure about this.
Also try to find a litigation attorney who deal with immigration as well as filing lawsuit because if you cannot file MTR then this may be your only other option.
Also contact the IV people here as well as local senator and Ombudsman Office. I think all this collective effort should get you back on track.
nogc_noproblem
07-19 12:01 AM
Bump >>>>>>
sanju_dba
07-22 05:33 PM
As per my attorney, even if you enter the country on AP, your status can still remain H1, if you are using it to work (instead of EAD).
How one can distinguish if I am paid via H1 or EAD ? both are linked to Same SSN and IRS go by SSN.
Am i missing something?
Update : Or do i need to fillin a new I9 form http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf
How one can distinguish if I am paid via H1 or EAD ? both are linked to Same SSN and IRS go by SSN.
Am i missing something?
Update : Or do i need to fillin a new I9 form http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf
arnab221
10-29 03:11 PM
Source: NumbersUSA.com
A new immigration enforcement bill that would remove the jobs magnet for illegal immigration is expected to be introduced in the House very soon. The SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement) will be sponsored by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and is expected to have bi-partisan support. NumbersUSA believes this bill originating on the Democratic side of the House is just the vehicle to give us a chance to actually pass immigration legislation through a Democratic-controlled Congress that would significantly improve the lives of most Americans. Specifically, The SAVE Act would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system, identifying all illegal aliens and removing any "glitches" that once allowed them to pass through the system and into the workforce undetected.
--------------------
I don't see anything wrong with this act, infact I was wondering if there was any possibility that we can ride this bill and add EB reforms to it.
Right.. Here they go again . I heard "ENFORCEMENT ONLY" Bills from the past 2 years now . The White House has a "NO MATCH" rule which was exactly like the SAVE :D Act ( How do they come up with these names ) ? The NO MATCH rule was blocked 2 times in a row by US Judges . I wonder why do they waste time drafting these non starters. Waste of paper and Printer ink is at the most that these Bills go to .. "SAVE" the trees at least .
A new immigration enforcement bill that would remove the jobs magnet for illegal immigration is expected to be introduced in the House very soon. The SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement) will be sponsored by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and is expected to have bi-partisan support. NumbersUSA believes this bill originating on the Democratic side of the House is just the vehicle to give us a chance to actually pass immigration legislation through a Democratic-controlled Congress that would significantly improve the lives of most Americans. Specifically, The SAVE Act would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system, identifying all illegal aliens and removing any "glitches" that once allowed them to pass through the system and into the workforce undetected.
--------------------
I don't see anything wrong with this act, infact I was wondering if there was any possibility that we can ride this bill and add EB reforms to it.
Right.. Here they go again . I heard "ENFORCEMENT ONLY" Bills from the past 2 years now . The White House has a "NO MATCH" rule which was exactly like the SAVE :D Act ( How do they come up with these names ) ? The NO MATCH rule was blocked 2 times in a row by US Judges . I wonder why do they waste time drafting these non starters. Waste of paper and Printer ink is at the most that these Bills go to .. "SAVE" the trees at least .
more...
k2006
08-25 02:48 PM
Is there any approval for NSC-->CSC-->NSC cases so far ?
Leo07
09-16 03:39 PM
Immigration Reform will follow 'Health Care' Bill. But the real hurdle for 'Health Care reform' is inclusion of Illegal Immigrants in the bill. No one can dare say that loud that they want to 'include' illegal immigrants because that will hurt any chances of passing the Health Care bill.
So, if they start the CIR discussions out in the public, the 'illegal immigrants' turning into 'legal' and hence eligible for 'health care' issue will be the highlight of ALL NEWS channels. That will do damage to health care. I'm sure unless & until health care reform is through, they can't get any details of CIR out to public.( I'm sure CIR includes Amnesty at the least )
That said, 'Donkeys' are bound to loose in next year mid-term if Obama does not live up to their pre-poll promises. Remember, Hispanics & other minorities are the edge for 'Donkeys' while some independents can weigh in either ways.
So, bottom line is CIR will pass after health care. But, I'll not bet too much on provisions for 'legal immigrants'. Since we are the only dog bone that 'Donkeys' have got to gain any required support for CIR. We need to work hard to get our provisions on the first draft and do everything possible to be included in the final version of the bill.
My ramblings anyways....
So, if they start the CIR discussions out in the public, the 'illegal immigrants' turning into 'legal' and hence eligible for 'health care' issue will be the highlight of ALL NEWS channels. That will do damage to health care. I'm sure unless & until health care reform is through, they can't get any details of CIR out to public.( I'm sure CIR includes Amnesty at the least )
That said, 'Donkeys' are bound to loose in next year mid-term if Obama does not live up to their pre-poll promises. Remember, Hispanics & other minorities are the edge for 'Donkeys' while some independents can weigh in either ways.
So, bottom line is CIR will pass after health care. But, I'll not bet too much on provisions for 'legal immigrants'. Since we are the only dog bone that 'Donkeys' have got to gain any required support for CIR. We need to work hard to get our provisions on the first draft and do everything possible to be included in the final version of the bill.
My ramblings anyways....
more...
Outkastpb231
11-02 03:49 PM
That is just very Basic stuff from my training courses and seminars. I don't have any of my own work I have done recently because most of that was done at my friends house before I got my own place, and I have no way of acquiring that work, but I will make some more stuff tonight.
h1bdude1
03-23 11:48 AM
anybody please respond !!
hibdude1
hibdude1
more...
ArkBird
08-05 02:02 PM
It auto-converts all H1Bs and EADs into Green Cards effective immediately. :)
If that happens I will start walking with my hands instead of my feet... ;)
If that happens I will start walking with my hands instead of my feet... ;)
chintu25
07-12 12:21 PM
Here is an email address for emailing letters to USCIS. Please send only approved formats from IV
usvisa@state.gov
Thanks
Chintu25
:D
usvisa@state.gov
Thanks
Chintu25
:D
more...
pooja_34
10-17 07:32 PM
The only time they keep an original is the first time. After that they never keep the original but return it to you when you return.
My wife and I only had 2 AP originals when we applied last year and made 2 trips outside the US. So relax and dont worry. You're fine.
Got my AP in the mail yesterday but have only 2 originals, last time I got 3 so any idea if I will be able to make more than 2 trips out of the country?
My wife and I only had 2 AP originals when we applied last year and made 2 trips outside the US. So relax and dont worry. You're fine.
Got my AP in the mail yesterday but have only 2 originals, last time I got 3 so any idea if I will be able to make more than 2 trips out of the country?
continuedProgress
04-28 11:23 PM
Renewed my AP in fall of last year - applied online. Didnt need to FP.
more...
jatinr
07-24 01:01 PM
As per EBFAQ release by USCIS dated July 23, the
Q7: Which fees apply to I-765 and I-131 applications associated with AOS applications filed on or
July 30th under the July Bulletin?
A7. The fee of $180 for Forms I-765 and the fee of $170 for Form I-131 will remain in effect for those aliens eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application pursuant to July Visa Bulletin
107. These fees will remain in effect for all such applications filed between July 17 � August 17, 2007.
As per Oh-Law Firm , it states the fees is 180 for EAD and 170 for AP if only filed concurrently.
Do you guys also have same understanding.
My company has filed by AOS and I am filing EAD/AP on my own, I am now confused that if I file me EAD/AP on August 15th , what fees I will have to pay - 180 or 340 for EAD , 170 or 305 for AP.
Can someone please verify.
Q7: Which fees apply to I-765 and I-131 applications associated with AOS applications filed on or
July 30th under the July Bulletin?
A7. The fee of $180 for Forms I-765 and the fee of $170 for Form I-131 will remain in effect for those aliens eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application pursuant to July Visa Bulletin
107. These fees will remain in effect for all such applications filed between July 17 � August 17, 2007.
As per Oh-Law Firm , it states the fees is 180 for EAD and 170 for AP if only filed concurrently.
Do you guys also have same understanding.
My company has filed by AOS and I am filing EAD/AP on my own, I am now confused that if I file me EAD/AP on August 15th , what fees I will have to pay - 180 or 340 for EAD , 170 or 305 for AP.
Can someone please verify.
bheemi
07-27 12:20 PM
[QUOTE=desi485]I forgot it initially and later realized that. fortunately my lawyer was still reviewing my papers (almost 4 weeks). so I sent him new copies. He included new copies and discarded old one. .Also some one told me that it should match what you specified in DS-156 at the time of visa interview. IS THIS TRUE?[/QUOTE
Donot even worry about it man..You are unnecessarily owrried about it and worry others also..
Enjoy...
Donot even worry about it man..You are unnecessarily owrried about it and worry others also..
Enjoy...
more...
veni001
06-18 10:25 AM
As far as i know only time you can recapture PD is if you filed I-485 and 180 days passed, If you haven't filed for AOS and your approved I-140 is withdrawn by the employer then you can not recapture that PD.
I would check with a good immigration attorney before making a decision.
Yes. Make sure you get copies of the approval notice of the I-140 before you part company (no pun intended). This will be the proof you require to port your priority date to another EB/I-140 some other time. This will be valid even if your employer revokes the I-140. The only instance this will be invalid is if the I-140 is revoked because of fraud or misrepresentation.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. When in doubt, consult a qualified attorney.
I would check with a good immigration attorney before making a decision.
Yes. Make sure you get copies of the approval notice of the I-140 before you part company (no pun intended). This will be the proof you require to port your priority date to another EB/I-140 some other time. This will be valid even if your employer revokes the I-140. The only instance this will be invalid is if the I-140 is revoked because of fraud or misrepresentation.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. When in doubt, consult a qualified attorney.
Murthy
05-07 08:10 PM
The Beacon (http://blog.uscis.gov/)
Over the past few weeks, readers have written in with a number of comments. We wanted to take a moment to address five of the most frequent suggestions.
1) Combine EAD and AP into one document and issue for 3 years.
USCIS is in the process of developing a combination work authorization (EAD) and Advance Parole (AP) card. An announcement regarding this combination card will be made later this year.
2) Allow people with approved immigrant petition to file an I-485.
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 245.1(a) prohibit a beneficiary of an approved I-140 or I-130 petition from filing an I-485 until a visa number is available.
3) Do not count the dependents against visa numbers.
The requirement to count dependents against available visa numbers is statutory. This is not something that USCIS is able to change on its own; it would require new legislation to be enacted by Congress in order for this to happen.
4) Publish all the backlog data including that of district offices.
USCIS is currently developing an inventory spreadsheet, similar to the one for employment-based inventory, for family-based cases awaiting visa numbers. This spreadsheet would include information about the number of cases at field offices awaiting visa numbers.
5) Publish visa numbers that have been used to date in the current year.
Unfortunately, USCIS is not able to do this, because USCIS is not the only agency that uses visa numbers (the Department of State also uses visa numbers). Accordingly, publishing USCIS�s visa number usage would not be an accurate representation of the numbers used and the numbers remaining. To determine where you stand in the visa number queue, please review the Visa Bulletin.
Three years is OK for those whose I-485 applications are not yet pre-adjudicated.
They should implement 10-year EAD plus 10 year Advance Parole to those I-485 applicants who got pre-adjudicated awaiting visa numbers.
Over the past few weeks, readers have written in with a number of comments. We wanted to take a moment to address five of the most frequent suggestions.
1) Combine EAD and AP into one document and issue for 3 years.
USCIS is in the process of developing a combination work authorization (EAD) and Advance Parole (AP) card. An announcement regarding this combination card will be made later this year.
2) Allow people with approved immigrant petition to file an I-485.
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 245.1(a) prohibit a beneficiary of an approved I-140 or I-130 petition from filing an I-485 until a visa number is available.
3) Do not count the dependents against visa numbers.
The requirement to count dependents against available visa numbers is statutory. This is not something that USCIS is able to change on its own; it would require new legislation to be enacted by Congress in order for this to happen.
4) Publish all the backlog data including that of district offices.
USCIS is currently developing an inventory spreadsheet, similar to the one for employment-based inventory, for family-based cases awaiting visa numbers. This spreadsheet would include information about the number of cases at field offices awaiting visa numbers.
5) Publish visa numbers that have been used to date in the current year.
Unfortunately, USCIS is not able to do this, because USCIS is not the only agency that uses visa numbers (the Department of State also uses visa numbers). Accordingly, publishing USCIS�s visa number usage would not be an accurate representation of the numbers used and the numbers remaining. To determine where you stand in the visa number queue, please review the Visa Bulletin.
Three years is OK for those whose I-485 applications are not yet pre-adjudicated.
They should implement 10-year EAD plus 10 year Advance Parole to those I-485 applicants who got pre-adjudicated awaiting visa numbers.
more...
shivarajan
09-20 01:46 AM
have been using mobissimo.com search engine for flights and works gr8. It's searches across all other travel sites. :p
rolrblade
02-21 09:04 AM
Here is the problem with your case, in my view.
You can use AC21 after 180 days provided that (1) The underlying I-140 has been approved or (2) The underlying I-140 is otherwise APPROVABLE at the time of adjudication.
In your case when you filed for a new I-140 from Company B, it is still pending. Your argument of using I-140 from Company A, COULD make the underlying I-140 from Company B unapprovable, which will also be the case incase Company B withdraws the I-140 petition, prior to adjudication.
If this happens then the I-485 petition will be invalid because the underlying I-140 (from Company B) is not approvable. It will be a long time before you really know this, depending on when they adjudicate your I-485.
Then the only recourse left for you would be to file a NEW I-485 using the I-140 from Company A. Looking at the current PD trend, this could be years before you are even able to file.
As for what ItIsNOTFunny says, about I-485 being your personal application, and not company's, this is true but always remember that I-485 is very closely tied to the I-140 supporting documentation (Bfeore 180 days and especially if it not yet approved)
If I was you, I agree with other people are suggesting, if you want to keep your 485 application in process, you should try to wait it out till the I-140 from Company B gets approved. But again, everyone's personal situtation is different, so this is just a suggestion.
PM me if you need more help.
You can use AC21 after 180 days provided that (1) The underlying I-140 has been approved or (2) The underlying I-140 is otherwise APPROVABLE at the time of adjudication.
In your case when you filed for a new I-140 from Company B, it is still pending. Your argument of using I-140 from Company A, COULD make the underlying I-140 from Company B unapprovable, which will also be the case incase Company B withdraws the I-140 petition, prior to adjudication.
If this happens then the I-485 petition will be invalid because the underlying I-140 (from Company B) is not approvable. It will be a long time before you really know this, depending on when they adjudicate your I-485.
Then the only recourse left for you would be to file a NEW I-485 using the I-140 from Company A. Looking at the current PD trend, this could be years before you are even able to file.
As for what ItIsNOTFunny says, about I-485 being your personal application, and not company's, this is true but always remember that I-485 is very closely tied to the I-140 supporting documentation (Bfeore 180 days and especially if it not yet approved)
If I was you, I agree with other people are suggesting, if you want to keep your 485 application in process, you should try to wait it out till the I-140 from Company B gets approved. But again, everyone's personal situtation is different, so this is just a suggestion.
PM me if you need more help.
andy_traps
03-20 03:20 PM
The Orange County Register has an article about Immigration related policy making (CIR?) that is going on behind the scenes.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1624369.php
Agreed that this is no New York Times or Washington Post report, but hey some news is better than no news at all, don't you agree?
Andy
The text of the article:
Kennedy says immigration bill will happen
California's Assembly Speaker meets with veteran lawmaker as part of Washington lobbying trip.
By DENA BUNIS
The Orange County Register
WASHINGTON Just because a comprehensive immigration bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate that doesn't mean the issue has gotten off the track, Sen. Edward Kennedy said today.
The Massachusetts Democrat said bipartisan negotiations are continuing both among the members of the Judiciary Committee and with the White House. The veteran lawmaker has made the calculation that it's better to get as much agreement on the elements of what is likely to be a complex and controversial bill before it gets introduced than after.
"It is the judgment of those who want the bill that the way we are following is the fastest way of getting the legislation,' said Kennedy. "Obviously we have to consider it on the floor in May or no later than June.''
Kennedy spoke to reporters about the status of an immigration bill this afternoon after a meeting with California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nu�ez and Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines. More than 30 state lawmakers are spending three days in the nation's Capitol, lobbying federal officials on issues ranging from education to the environment to immigration.
"We believe states like California are disproportionately affected by immigration since we have such a large population of undocumented in our state,'' said Nu�ez. "But we also believe these undocumented immigrants, whether they come here legally or not are a contributing factor to California's economy. We have hundreds of thousands of families that are looking forward to a comprehensive solution to immigration reform. "
Villines attended the meeting with Kennedy but skipped the following news conference.
"If is doesn't happen it isn't going to be for a lack of effort,'' said Nu�ez. The Assembly leader plans to meet today with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and he said he will make it clear that this is a top priority for state lawmakers.
When asked, Pelosi has said she supports a comprehensive bill but it is not an issue she often mentions when enumerating her top goals. A bipartisan group of House members are working on their own immigration bill, which could be introduced as early as this week.
That measure, as well as any bill Kennedy is a part of, will likely include increased border enforcement, a new guest worker program, and a computerized program to verify employment status and a path to legalization for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants here now.
President Bush supports such a plan despite vocal opposition from members of his own party.
Kennedy has spent months negotiating a broad overhaul bill with his partner thus far in this effort, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. But last week, after it became clear that there were still significant details the two could not agree on, Kennedy said he instead planned to bring back the bill that was voted out of the Judiciary Committee last year.
Also complicating the deal making this year are separate talks among a group of GOP senators and the White House. Several of the Republican senators involved in the talks are known not to be willing to vote for a bill that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Asked whether he is concerned about such a proposal, Kennedy indicated that such a bill wouldn't work.
"If the constituency groups and the stakeholders are not interested in this then the legislation isn't worth the paper it's printed on,'' he said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., recently said she believes the best route to take may be to pass a bill that would affect the five million agricultural workers and do that as a first step towards a broader solution.
But Nu�ez said he doesn't favor such an approach.
Nu�ez said the labor needs of the inner cities in California and around the country wouldn't be taken care of if just agriculture is addressed.
"If you take care of the ags piece I fear it will be a long time before you get comprehensive reform in the other areas,'' Nu�ez said. "Our hope obviously in California, is that we can solve this problem in its entirety and do it in one effort."
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1624369.php
Agreed that this is no New York Times or Washington Post report, but hey some news is better than no news at all, don't you agree?
Andy
The text of the article:
Kennedy says immigration bill will happen
California's Assembly Speaker meets with veteran lawmaker as part of Washington lobbying trip.
By DENA BUNIS
The Orange County Register
WASHINGTON Just because a comprehensive immigration bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate that doesn't mean the issue has gotten off the track, Sen. Edward Kennedy said today.
The Massachusetts Democrat said bipartisan negotiations are continuing both among the members of the Judiciary Committee and with the White House. The veteran lawmaker has made the calculation that it's better to get as much agreement on the elements of what is likely to be a complex and controversial bill before it gets introduced than after.
"It is the judgment of those who want the bill that the way we are following is the fastest way of getting the legislation,' said Kennedy. "Obviously we have to consider it on the floor in May or no later than June.''
Kennedy spoke to reporters about the status of an immigration bill this afternoon after a meeting with California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nu�ez and Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines. More than 30 state lawmakers are spending three days in the nation's Capitol, lobbying federal officials on issues ranging from education to the environment to immigration.
"We believe states like California are disproportionately affected by immigration since we have such a large population of undocumented in our state,'' said Nu�ez. "But we also believe these undocumented immigrants, whether they come here legally or not are a contributing factor to California's economy. We have hundreds of thousands of families that are looking forward to a comprehensive solution to immigration reform. "
Villines attended the meeting with Kennedy but skipped the following news conference.
"If is doesn't happen it isn't going to be for a lack of effort,'' said Nu�ez. The Assembly leader plans to meet today with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and he said he will make it clear that this is a top priority for state lawmakers.
When asked, Pelosi has said she supports a comprehensive bill but it is not an issue she often mentions when enumerating her top goals. A bipartisan group of House members are working on their own immigration bill, which could be introduced as early as this week.
That measure, as well as any bill Kennedy is a part of, will likely include increased border enforcement, a new guest worker program, and a computerized program to verify employment status and a path to legalization for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants here now.
President Bush supports such a plan despite vocal opposition from members of his own party.
Kennedy has spent months negotiating a broad overhaul bill with his partner thus far in this effort, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. But last week, after it became clear that there were still significant details the two could not agree on, Kennedy said he instead planned to bring back the bill that was voted out of the Judiciary Committee last year.
Also complicating the deal making this year are separate talks among a group of GOP senators and the White House. Several of the Republican senators involved in the talks are known not to be willing to vote for a bill that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Asked whether he is concerned about such a proposal, Kennedy indicated that such a bill wouldn't work.
"If the constituency groups and the stakeholders are not interested in this then the legislation isn't worth the paper it's printed on,'' he said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., recently said she believes the best route to take may be to pass a bill that would affect the five million agricultural workers and do that as a first step towards a broader solution.
But Nu�ez said he doesn't favor such an approach.
Nu�ez said the labor needs of the inner cities in California and around the country wouldn't be taken care of if just agriculture is addressed.
"If you take care of the ags piece I fear it will be a long time before you get comprehensive reform in the other areas,'' Nu�ez said. "Our hope obviously in California, is that we can solve this problem in its entirety and do it in one effort."
MightyIndian
10-04 11:02 PM
see my signature
kumarc123
02-11 08:13 PM
Well another Gandihigiri should be done after witnessing the visa bulletin, along with the the reunion of March 1st, lets send flowers along with a pamplet saying " I want to BUY A HOUSE IN AMERICA"
PAPU waht do you think? Before the meeting in DC, we should send the flowers along with brochures, can someone in IV take that responsibility, we can pitch in the money. We have to shout our are pain louder as we are dealing with politicians who are suffering from hard to listening medical problem. Please advise.
( Not the pink chadi's)
Good luck
PAPU waht do you think? Before the meeting in DC, we should send the flowers along with brochures, can someone in IV take that responsibility, we can pitch in the money. We have to shout our are pain louder as we are dealing with politicians who are suffering from hard to listening medical problem. Please advise.
( Not the pink chadi's)
Good luck
No comments:
Post a Comment