FinalGC
02-13 01:11 PM
No more slavery to Desi Consulting companies, so help IV to help U get the GC.
wallpaper Justin Bieber fans sent death
nashim
12-12 11:36 AM
What was the REF about?
As a backup you can file new EB3 PERM
As a backup you can file new EB3 PERM
lazycis
12-10 11:22 AM
One can apply for EAD renewal before or after the current EAD expires. If you do not need a new EAD to continue working, there is no need to apply for a renewal well in advance. It won't raise any flags if you apply after current EAD expires. I did it without any issues. But because the new EAD will be valid for one year from the date a current EAD expires, there are no benefits in waiting either.
2011 REBECCA BLACK FRIDAY
raysaikat
01-23 12:13 AM
Has anyone of you heard about Nunc Pro Tunc H1B? Will that help in my current situation with a valid and approved LCA?
Nunc pro tunc means a retroactive action normally used to correct past clerical errors. For instance, suppose your birth year is 1978 and in a form you put 1987. You may be able to retroactively correct that, which would be a nunc pro tunc.
Your problem is not a clerical error; you did not file H1-B in the first place and started working. I will be extremely surprised if you can make USCIS accept (what is in essence) a back-dated H1-B petition!
Nunc pro tunc means a retroactive action normally used to correct past clerical errors. For instance, suppose your birth year is 1978 and in a form you put 1987. You may be able to retroactively correct that, which would be a nunc pro tunc.
Your problem is not a clerical error; you did not file H1-B in the first place and started working. I will be extremely surprised if you can make USCIS accept (what is in essence) a back-dated H1-B petition!
more...
bsbawa10
04-11 06:09 AM
I always did paper filing. I have done it third time this time. Incidently, the first two times the EAD approval came in about 17 days but this time, it has already been 15 days and I have not received the receipt even. The check was withdrawn on the 13th day.
IV_Friend
03-29 04:39 PM
Dear Attorney,
My Brother is working Employer "X" on H1B.
His employer started his Green Card Processing in 2007.
His Labor (PD 2007) and 140 are approved by 2008.
Because of some reasons he had leave the employer "X" and Join Employer "Y".
Employer Y, willing to start green card process.
Can my brother use prior Priority Date?
Please advice. I Appreciate your help.
My Brother is working Employer "X" on H1B.
His employer started his Green Card Processing in 2007.
His Labor (PD 2007) and 140 are approved by 2008.
Because of some reasons he had leave the employer "X" and Join Employer "Y".
Employer Y, willing to start green card process.
Can my brother use prior Priority Date?
Please advice. I Appreciate your help.
more...
sanjose
07-18 01:12 AM
Hmm.. let us think through this(may seem crazy). Is there anything called "dual permanent residency" ? I don't think so. Yes, there is dual citizenship - but that has to follow permanent residency in those countries.The permanent residency of one of the countries has to be lost if you spend 183 days in the other country. Well, assuming that one would retain his GC after all this trial and tribulation, just surrender the Canadian PR and be a normal guy with a GC; no problem at all !! (Hope the canadian pr surrender doesn't take a decade, just like getting a GC).
2010 twitter rebecca black
raysaikat
07-30 07:18 PM
I am stuck out side of US for my name check for last 9 months when I applied for my H-1. I have approved I 140. is there any way I can file my I 1485 and Advance parole or any thing to get back into US.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
You cannot file I-485 unless you are physically present in the US. You can request a consular processing; i.e., for getting the green card when your PD is current, you will have to be in your home country where the IO in the US consulate will interview you (just like H1-B interview) and make a decision regarding whether to give you green card or not. Applying for CP or anything else connected to GC will not make you eligible to enter US. You must have a visa (or green card) for that.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
You cannot file I-485 unless you are physically present in the US. You can request a consular processing; i.e., for getting the green card when your PD is current, you will have to be in your home country where the IO in the US consulate will interview you (just like H1-B interview) and make a decision regarding whether to give you green card or not. Applying for CP or anything else connected to GC will not make you eligible to enter US. You must have a visa (or green card) for that.
more...
amitga
03-17 11:29 AM
Its SUTAIN Act not STRIVE Act.
hair Rebecca Black : la chanteuse
bitu72
09-18 04:10 PM
email me at billrider321@yahoo.com as i do lot of it.
more...
hebron
06-21 10:58 AM
Hi Guys,
Have a question about porting from EB3 to EB2 suing the experience I gained from my current employer. Can I fall back to my existing EB3 application if I file EB2 labor and I-140 and these get denied? Please suggest and I am also not sure if the requirement that job descriptions have to be 50% different cam be met. Software Engineer and Principal software engineer jobs have same SOC and DOT codes.
Job description when I was hired: (software engineer): Understand client requirements, design, document and develop object-oriented software solutions; debugging and code review, unit tetsing code for all logic and flow, participates in the test review thorugh test review and analysis. Experience require 2-4 years.
My current job description: (Principal Software engineer): Designs, modifies, develops, writes and implements software programming applications. Coordinates work teams - Provides technical support to project team members and co-ordinate with technical team and Quality assurance team. Provide consultation and expertise in a variety of the field's concepts, practices, and procedures on complex projects. Extensive experience and judgment required to plan and accomplish goals. Experience required is 8-10 years.
Have a question about porting from EB3 to EB2 suing the experience I gained from my current employer. Can I fall back to my existing EB3 application if I file EB2 labor and I-140 and these get denied? Please suggest and I am also not sure if the requirement that job descriptions have to be 50% different cam be met. Software Engineer and Principal software engineer jobs have same SOC and DOT codes.
Job description when I was hired: (software engineer): Understand client requirements, design, document and develop object-oriented software solutions; debugging and code review, unit tetsing code for all logic and flow, participates in the test review thorugh test review and analysis. Experience require 2-4 years.
My current job description: (Principal Software engineer): Designs, modifies, develops, writes and implements software programming applications. Coordinates work teams - Provides technical support to project team members and co-ordinate with technical team and Quality assurance team. Provide consultation and expertise in a variety of the field's concepts, practices, and procedures on complex projects. Extensive experience and judgment required to plan and accomplish goals. Experience required is 8-10 years.
hot The Rebecca Black of the
Winner
12-25 10:55 AM
I have printed the banners (they will go up on all the Indian stores that I can find).
I have sent out an email to all my friends who are on work permits.
Great Idea!
I'm thinking of printing some and leaving it in local worship places mostly visited by immigrants(in my case its a hindu temple)
I have sent out an email to all my friends who are on work permits.
Great Idea!
I'm thinking of printing some and leaving it in local worship places mostly visited by immigrants(in my case its a hindu temple)
more...
house Rebecca Black goes Acoustic
walking_dude
11-25 12:16 PM
It may be the reason March was selected for the DC Rally, despite the cold weather so members have complained about. ( Note : I did not select the date).
If CIR is coming up in Spring, we need to make our case - by showing good numbers -by the end of winter ; freezing or not. If we don't do that our issue is very highly to get lost in the Border security, employer verification and Legalization/Amnesty. If we finish the public show of strength - DC Rally and the Lobby Day in March, we can be ready to send Web-faxes, make phone calls etc. in Spring to push for our bills.
During our lobby day and DC Rally efforts, we should get lawmakers to understand our issues and number of people impacted (0.5 million at the least). Once majority of the lawmakers understand that we exist in large numbers, and are facing these problems, they will be more sympathetic when we make those last minute phone calls and faxes.
If we don't do the DC Rally and Lobby day successfully, chances are lower that they may not be be sympathetic to us without understanding the issue and the large number of people impacted.
The clock has already started ticking. We have to act fast. If we do nothing, we will miss the boat once again. Will you help IV put Recapture and Visa increase on the upcoming CIR? If we don't, we all have wait several more years for the relief.
If CIR is coming up in Spring, we need to make our case - by showing good numbers -by the end of winter ; freezing or not. If we don't do that our issue is very highly to get lost in the Border security, employer verification and Legalization/Amnesty. If we finish the public show of strength - DC Rally and the Lobby Day in March, we can be ready to send Web-faxes, make phone calls etc. in Spring to push for our bills.
During our lobby day and DC Rally efforts, we should get lawmakers to understand our issues and number of people impacted (0.5 million at the least). Once majority of the lawmakers understand that we exist in large numbers, and are facing these problems, they will be more sympathetic when we make those last minute phone calls and faxes.
If we don't do the DC Rally and Lobby day successfully, chances are lower that they may not be be sympathetic to us without understanding the issue and the large number of people impacted.
The clock has already started ticking. We have to act fast. If we do nothing, we will miss the boat once again. Will you help IV put Recapture and Visa increase on the upcoming CIR? If we don't, we all have wait several more years for the relief.
tattoo Twitter
h1techSlave
04-10 02:34 PM
I went thru the tracker to see how many are there before Jan 2004 EB3-I. And the news is not good.
Out of the total cases of 27, 389 (All-no filtering), 757 is before Jan 2004 for EB3-I. That's a % of 2.764%.
Now, let us extrapolate this figure to find out the total remaining EB3-I cases. If we take that there are 400,000 pending EB cases, the count of Eb3-I prior to Jan 2004 would be: 400,000 * 2.764 = 11, 056 cases.
With a country quota of 3000 visas, it would take 11056/3000 = 3.69 years to clear this backlog.
Now a word on the potential visa date movement. I have noticed that there are many PDs in the latter months of 2003 - there are very few people with PDs before June 2003. This points to a very strong possibility of the DOS setting the EB3-I visa date as June/July/August 2003 in the coming months.
Out of the total cases of 27, 389 (All-no filtering), 757 is before Jan 2004 for EB3-I. That's a % of 2.764%.
Now, let us extrapolate this figure to find out the total remaining EB3-I cases. If we take that there are 400,000 pending EB cases, the count of Eb3-I prior to Jan 2004 would be: 400,000 * 2.764 = 11, 056 cases.
With a country quota of 3000 visas, it would take 11056/3000 = 3.69 years to clear this backlog.
Now a word on the potential visa date movement. I have noticed that there are many PDs in the latter months of 2003 - there are very few people with PDs before June 2003. This points to a very strong possibility of the DOS setting the EB3-I visa date as June/July/August 2003 in the coming months.
more...
pictures Rebecca Black thanked Justin
EB3_SEP04
08-27 11:23 PM
If employer or attorney are not helpful then there are high chances that they are hiding something, may have communicated to you I-140 approved in EB-2 whereas in real EB-3. One of my friend already have experinced same problem, EB-3 instead of EB-2. His company is in Jersey and the name starts with N.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
It'd be helpful for readers if you please update your profile with your case details.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
It'd be helpful for readers if you please update your profile with your case details.
dresses Rebecca Black.
Libra
12-21 10:03 AM
:D:D:D:D
First we need to contact the madam @ 10 Janpath. Without her choreography Papa singh won't dance and neither will the daughter.
( Papa Singh isn't helping us much! It would be naive to assume his daughter will help us because of who her Papa is)
First we need to contact the madam @ 10 Janpath. Without her choreography Papa singh won't dance and neither will the daughter.
( Papa Singh isn't helping us much! It would be naive to assume his daughter will help us because of who her Papa is)
more...
makeup Miley Cyrus Loves Rebecca
ca_immigrant
06-23 08:08 PM
Guys,
Lets focus energies on "Reuniting Families Act". Use this word. Its important. Visa recapture is part of it, but emphasize "FAMILY".
We need this bill and 350,000 VISAS that come with it. We have to make sure that those VISAs don't need to used 'per country' basis. Those VISAs must be distributed to whoever is in line, no matter which country they belong to.
IV core, please focus on this. We need this bill and all those recaptured VISAs can be used for anyone in the line, pre-adjudication complete and held-up because there is no VISA, irrespective of the changeability.
Core, please help -:)
One other quick question, I had done a one time donation in the past, but my status does not say donor, does one time donation do that or you have to be recurring donor ?
Lets focus energies on "Reuniting Families Act". Use this word. Its important. Visa recapture is part of it, but emphasize "FAMILY".
We need this bill and 350,000 VISAS that come with it. We have to make sure that those VISAs don't need to used 'per country' basis. Those VISAs must be distributed to whoever is in line, no matter which country they belong to.
IV core, please focus on this. We need this bill and all those recaptured VISAs can be used for anyone in the line, pre-adjudication complete and held-up because there is no VISA, irrespective of the changeability.
Core, please help -:)
One other quick question, I had done a one time donation in the past, but my status does not say donor, does one time donation do that or you have to be recurring donor ?
girlfriend Should Justin Bieber Record a
GCNaseeb
08-08 04:47 PM
Employer not revoking your I-140 itself proves "employer intention" to hire him back on adjudication. You may have intention to work for sponsoring employer but if you are laid off its not in your control, right? Adjudicator always looks by law and there is no law which says if you are laid off within 180 days your I-485 can not be approved.
It sounds a cake walk from your response, What if there is an RFE after 180 days on your sponsor/employer? You missed the point that GC is for future employment with the sponsor. There are certain situations where employee can invoke AC21 and get the protection against employer initiated termination etc. If you do not work for extended period.. no matter whether it is with in 180 or not.. USCIS may anytime during adjudication, question your intention for GC.
It sounds a cake walk from your response, What if there is an RFE after 180 days on your sponsor/employer? You missed the point that GC is for future employment with the sponsor. There are certain situations where employee can invoke AC21 and get the protection against employer initiated termination etc. If you do not work for extended period.. no matter whether it is with in 180 or not.. USCIS may anytime during adjudication, question your intention for GC.
hairstyles Re: Justin Bieber (any comment
ss_col
07-17 04:27 PM
I am pretty sure these are people have come here to disrupt the forum or else who does not know about Sheila Murthy. It is just my observation that earlier all the questions were related to genuine issues and were answered as best as members knew. Recently a lot of people have joined in who have brought in negative energy, are abusive, are doubting IV, trying to create doubts in others minds, come to have fun or joke around, trying to prove that IV is a free for all forum and they can say what they want to say. All this was never there earlier. I think administrators should look into the same. IV is there to answer immigration problems and issues. People blame lawyers for not updating their websites or not informing clients unless an official news has come out but when IV came out with announcements before the news is official - all the new comers have done is mud slinging IV.
Be thankful there is a IV.
Be thankful there is a IV.
rahul2699
05-16 09:12 AM
Thanks you are right on consular processing and you are also right that on transfer receipt one can start working
But I am still confused on entering USA. I read on all the forums, you can enter usa with a Transfer Receipt if your h1 stamp is still valid.
So thats something i am trying to sort out.
you can certainly enter if you have a valid visa stamp and a valid 797 (i am assuming you can use 797 approval copy from company A) please keep in mind that if you travel while your transfer is pending you may get a 797B for the new company Vs a 797A (happened to a friend of mine) in which case you can not use the transfer approval (797B) to start working for the new company. You'll have to get an I-94 by vising a US consulate.
But I am still confused on entering USA. I read on all the forums, you can enter usa with a Transfer Receipt if your h1 stamp is still valid.
So thats something i am trying to sort out.
you can certainly enter if you have a valid visa stamp and a valid 797 (i am assuming you can use 797 approval copy from company A) please keep in mind that if you travel while your transfer is pending you may get a 797B for the new company Vs a 797A (happened to a friend of mine) in which case you can not use the transfer approval (797B) to start working for the new company. You'll have to get an I-94 by vising a US consulate.
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