JazzByTheBay
08-15 03:23 PM
Guess the TSC filers are in great shape... ! Unfortunately, no light for TSC -> CSC -> NSC transfer cases yet.
Enjoy the weekend! :)
jazz
I had these in another thread but roughly
PD May 2006
RD 8/2/2007
ND 9/27/2007
TSC. Got the CPO email on 8/7/08. Then welcome email 8/8/08, approval notice 8/12/08. Received approval notice yesterday, cards this morning. Great start to a weekend.
Good luck to all!!
Enjoy the weekend! :)
jazz
I had these in another thread but roughly
PD May 2006
RD 8/2/2007
ND 9/27/2007
TSC. Got the CPO email on 8/7/08. Then welcome email 8/8/08, approval notice 8/12/08. Received approval notice yesterday, cards this morning. Great start to a weekend.
Good luck to all!!
wallpaper wallpaper, High quality
makemygc
07-12 12:04 PM
I don't believe so.
Only H1 transfers have no cap, apart from non-profits.......
Isn't?
This is really news to me. I thought once you switch to H4 from H1, your H1 is gone. To come back on H1, you have to re-apply which will be subjected to cap.
Are you sure on this? If this is true, this can be really helpful for some folks.
Only H1 transfers have no cap, apart from non-profits.......
Isn't?
This is really news to me. I thought once you switch to H4 from H1, your H1 is gone. To come back on H1, you have to re-apply which will be subjected to cap.
Are you sure on this? If this is true, this can be really helpful for some folks.
WaitingForMyGC
01-09 02:30 PM
It would definately move..but movement would be backward. :-)
2011 nature wallpaper with High
mahathi
05-11 05:41 PM
Hi,
I have attended for H1b renual in toronto on the 2nd of May. The VO decided to do some additional review on the application. He took the Cleint letter, vendor letter and I129. Still havent heard anything from the consulate.
I am not sure if I should stay in Toronto or travel to India. I have taken only single entry visa to canada.
So, do you know if there is a canadian consulate in Hyderabad. If there is one, how much time do they take to issue a visitor visa.
Also, most importantly, how much time does it take for the 221g processing.
I would really appreciate if someone could share their knowledge.
Thanks
I have attended for H1b renual in toronto on the 2nd of May. The VO decided to do some additional review on the application. He took the Cleint letter, vendor letter and I129. Still havent heard anything from the consulate.
I am not sure if I should stay in Toronto or travel to India. I have taken only single entry visa to canada.
So, do you know if there is a canadian consulate in Hyderabad. If there is one, how much time do they take to issue a visitor visa.
Also, most importantly, how much time does it take for the 221g processing.
I would really appreciate if someone could share their knowledge.
Thanks
more...
leoindiano
03-17 11:54 AM
there was randon LUD's over weekends....It could be accidental that LUD happened in same week. Your lawyer should be able to do an enquiry into it...
InTheMoment
07-23 10:16 AM
What I have heard from others having the same issue is that they would put your given name as the last name (as it is the index in their db) and put the "FNU" (First Name Unknown) under the first name. I know, this is ridiculous as you have a first name ! Hope they have something like a "LNU" as well
You meant to say NA for "not applicable" right? Others may not interpret Name followed by NA in the same way. This part of the world NA also stands for "North America" :)
This might cause issues in long run especially when you apply for GC or even extention of visa as the Name in the passport will not match the visa or even your records from school and university.
You meant to say NA for "not applicable" right? Others may not interpret Name followed by NA in the same way. This part of the world NA also stands for "North America" :)
This might cause issues in long run especially when you apply for GC or even extention of visa as the Name in the passport will not match the visa or even your records from school and university.
more...
sampath
05-26 11:29 AM
Thanks for the great work done by the IV Core Team, QGA and all Senators and their staff... For QGA, is there a specific person/address where we can send out thank you letters to ?
2010 Nature wallpapers high quality
ksairi
08-17 08:41 AM
Kindly inform your friend that uscis is just accepting application for skilled workers at the moment.
HOW your answer relates to my question?
HOW your answer relates to my question?
more...
gsvisu
07-13 06:51 AM
Moral : Play Soccer
Leave Doctor, Software, Engineering professions... & play soccer.
Leave Doctor, Software, Engineering professions... & play soccer.
hair wallpaper, High quality
vivekm1309
05-03 07:22 PM
You have written a good letter, Can i use your letter to write to senators of my state ? this will save me time :)
Regards
Vivek
Regards
Vivek
more...
amsgc
08-07 09:55 PM
why is name check still an issue? I thought the Feb memo spelt it out in no uncertain terms.
hot Nature wallpapers high quality
pratikgr
08-08 07:49 PM
My H1 has been denied on Master's quota as I filed for H1 in April and I graduated in May. The reason for denial is that "on notice day, I was not graduate'.
My EAD will be expiring in May 2008 and even If I apply for New H1 in next April, I can not start working till October 2008.
In this bad situation, what are the option I have not to leave the country. Please advise as soon as possible
My EAD will be expiring in May 2008 and even If I apply for New H1 in next April, I can not start working till October 2008.
In this bad situation, what are the option I have not to leave the country. Please advise as soon as possible
more...
house high quality nature wallpapers
black_logs
05-01 01:20 PM
You can't get an apointment for June, until you can prove you have an emergency. Also you should make your appointment at the post according to the permanent address on your passport.
Folks,
I have to visit India in June and I need to revalidate my visa that expired in April. I received my H1B extention last week, so that's no problem.
Do I have to go to one of the 4 visa application centers (mumbai, delhi, calcutta, chennai) Or can I just drop by any of the other centers (drop centers I believe, there is one in Bangalore). Website is not clear about this. There is an alluding reference in FAQ that says :
Qn: I am a returning H1-B/L-1 visa applicant, how do I apply for a revalidation?
You need to schedule an appointment for a visa interview through our website www.vfs-usa.co.in or at a visa application centre nearest to your area of residence.
Has anyone done this before? How long is it going to take? Is it similar to the drop-box that existed before?
I got an appointment in Delhi last year (7th year extention in New Delhi) But this time I can't get an appointment in any of the 4 centers.
Ganesh.
ps: I can't get appointments before June in Canada or Mexico either. :(
Folks,
I have to visit India in June and I need to revalidate my visa that expired in April. I received my H1B extention last week, so that's no problem.
Do I have to go to one of the 4 visa application centers (mumbai, delhi, calcutta, chennai) Or can I just drop by any of the other centers (drop centers I believe, there is one in Bangalore). Website is not clear about this. There is an alluding reference in FAQ that says :
Qn: I am a returning H1-B/L-1 visa applicant, how do I apply for a revalidation?
You need to schedule an appointment for a visa interview through our website www.vfs-usa.co.in or at a visa application centre nearest to your area of residence.
Has anyone done this before? How long is it going to take? Is it similar to the drop-box that existed before?
I got an appointment in Delhi last year (7th year extention in New Delhi) But this time I can't get an appointment in any of the 4 centers.
Ganesh.
ps: I can't get appointments before June in Canada or Mexico either. :(
tattoo Nature Wallpaper
k_sing
09-20 12:17 PM
Responding to latest response:
"Member" does not mean an employee.
As a member I would have access to their proprietary software to do trades ( just like having an account with any other broker)
A member however has no voting rights etc. ( it's a private LLC/trust)
At the end of the year, instead of a 1099 tax form, the trust would provide a share of profits generated by "my stock trades" and it is instead done on K1 tax form, which is treated as income.
About the internet biz:
I would be the only one "owning" / running the biz.. as I own the domain ( it's not a LLC ).
Can I receive income checks in my name ?
thanks!
"Member" does not mean an employee.
As a member I would have access to their proprietary software to do trades ( just like having an account with any other broker)
A member however has no voting rights etc. ( it's a private LLC/trust)
At the end of the year, instead of a 1099 tax form, the trust would provide a share of profits generated by "my stock trades" and it is instead done on K1 tax form, which is treated as income.
About the internet biz:
I would be the only one "owning" / running the biz.. as I own the domain ( it's not a LLC ).
Can I receive income checks in my name ?
thanks!
more...
pictures wallpapers - Beautiful
tinamatthew
07-20 11:59 PM
Let's assume Two people A and B entered into US on Jan 1st 2004 with Visa stamping Valid till June 2006.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
Ignorance is not an excuse! If you speed and you are stopped will you tell the police man that you didnt know the speed limit on that street? I believe all immigrants should educate themselves with the law of the country and how it will affect them. I think it is a fair law that gives some people a fresh start and is very welcome for us as immigrants.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
Ignorance is not an excuse! If you speed and you are stopped will you tell the police man that you didnt know the speed limit on that street? I believe all immigrants should educate themselves with the law of the country and how it will affect them. I think it is a fair law that gives some people a fresh start and is very welcome for us as immigrants.
dresses 46 High Quality Nature
vkannan
03-12 11:25 PM
Received a mail for myself and my wife. welcome to USA. But no email from CRIS.
:):):):):):)
CONGRATULATIONS on your GREEN! Tried to make you green , by adding to your reputation......;) but I guess with so many reds.....still you will not make it into GREEN....
but hey, you got the GREEN Which really matters......Enjoy
:):):):):):)
CONGRATULATIONS on your GREEN! Tried to make you green , by adding to your reputation......;) but I guess with so many reds.....still you will not make it into GREEN....
but hey, you got the GREEN Which really matters......Enjoy
more...
makeup High Quality Nature Wallpaper
Tito_ortiz
11-17 11:47 AM
Hmmm...
In my view I would say that it has more chances to go through between Jan 2007 and August 2007. After that, it is poticial campaign all over again.
That is just my humble opinion.
Regards,
Tito
Do you agree with this statement
If Employment Based Immigration Reform happens, it will happen in Calander year 2007. This reform could be in any form CIR or SKIL. IUf there is no reform by January 2008 its not gonna happen.
Thanks
In my view I would say that it has more chances to go through between Jan 2007 and August 2007. After that, it is poticial campaign all over again.
That is just my humble opinion.
Regards,
Tito
Do you agree with this statement
If Employment Based Immigration Reform happens, it will happen in Calander year 2007. This reform could be in any form CIR or SKIL. IUf there is no reform by January 2008 its not gonna happen.
Thanks
girlfriend Nature HQ Wallpapers4
satishku_2000
05-24 10:07 AM
Here is my case:
MS (computer engg) in US
US IT experience more than 6 years
No TOEFEL ( what native english speaker??)
Worked in high growth technology/employer (I assume)
come under STEM
How many points will i get??
you may get 100 points it does not matter, We are still going to have country caps ...
MS (computer engg) in US
US IT experience more than 6 years
No TOEFEL ( what native english speaker??)
Worked in high growth technology/employer (I assume)
come under STEM
How many points will i get??
you may get 100 points it does not matter, We are still going to have country caps ...
hairstyles Nature Wallpaper Line learners
meher
12-26 10:50 AM
Today based on the talks with my employer, he told that he will not be able to process my payments. I informed him that i am going to DOL. He has not committed but has said that legally he has to pay only the minimum wage requirement which is the 44000$ only. I am in the process to consult attorney at present.
Dear Internet,
I am not an anti immigrant, but i am a legal immigrant(hope you are also one like me) and trying to get your help. Please don't look at all people with suspicious eyes.
As it has gone this far let me give my Employer Details
Objects Worldwide Incorporation it is based in Virginia.
Address below.
Objects Worldwide Inc.
10316, Wood Road Suite �A�,
Fairfax, VA 22030
http://www.owiusa.com
Dear Internet,
I am not an anti immigrant, but i am a legal immigrant(hope you are also one like me) and trying to get your help. Please don't look at all people with suspicious eyes.
As it has gone this far let me give my Employer Details
Objects Worldwide Incorporation it is based in Virginia.
Address below.
Objects Worldwide Inc.
10316, Wood Road Suite �A�,
Fairfax, VA 22030
http://www.owiusa.com
zCool
03-20 04:20 PM
Yes,
Employer can revoke 140 anytime till 485 is approved.
If you are past 180 days after application of 485 then that would not make your 485 invalid. that is the crux of AC21 portability.
Employer can revoke 140 anytime till 485 is approved.
If you are past 180 days after application of 485 then that would not make your 485 invalid. that is the crux of AC21 portability.
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
