chanduv23
11-06 01:46 PM
Folks,
I sent the letters and also invoked the AC21 through a lawyer a month ago. However, inspite of all this, I see a new update for my 140 petition today -
Application Type: I140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER
Current Status: Withdrawal Acknowledgment Notice Sent
On November 5, 2008, we mailed a notice acknowledging withdrawal of this application or petition I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER. If you have not received the notice within 30 days of November 5, 2008, contact our customer service at 1-800-375-5283. If at some point in the future you wish to pursue the benefits provided by this application or petition, you must file a new application along with all applicable fees and evidence.
I am not sure if this means that my 485 will be denied shortly...
This could be a new status message by USCIS when 140 is withdrawn by employer. If I am not worng, the notice that they mailed out, will gop to employer and not you.
Call customer service to know about ur 485. I am hoping it will be fine as you filed for ac21
I sent the letters and also invoked the AC21 through a lawyer a month ago. However, inspite of all this, I see a new update for my 140 petition today -
Application Type: I140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER
Current Status: Withdrawal Acknowledgment Notice Sent
On November 5, 2008, we mailed a notice acknowledging withdrawal of this application or petition I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER. If you have not received the notice within 30 days of November 5, 2008, contact our customer service at 1-800-375-5283. If at some point in the future you wish to pursue the benefits provided by this application or petition, you must file a new application along with all applicable fees and evidence.
I am not sure if this means that my 485 will be denied shortly...
This could be a new status message by USCIS when 140 is withdrawn by employer. If I am not worng, the notice that they mailed out, will gop to employer and not you.
Call customer service to know about ur 485. I am hoping it will be fine as you filed for ac21
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
InTheMoment
08-04 09:21 PM
Very relevant info regarding FBI namecheck:
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
gc_chahiye
06-24 06:09 PM
if we pursue independent applications (so both spouses have the option to stop working if they want to); is this the way it works:
- file independent I-485s.
- whoever stops working changes status to H4 or F1 (depending on what they want to do)
- if one gets approved, the other withdraws the application made as a primary and files one as a dependent (since the other persons PD would be current at that point). Some lawyers say you can interfile the spouses I-140 at this stage, others say you cant.
- file independent I-485s.
- whoever stops working changes status to H4 or F1 (depending on what they want to do)
- if one gets approved, the other withdraws the application made as a primary and files one as a dependent (since the other persons PD would be current at that point). Some lawyers say you can interfile the spouses I-140 at this stage, others say you cant.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
nk2006
09-16 10:48 AM
Hi,
Can state chapter leaders please send an email to members to inform about latest scheduling of HR5882 and ask them to call the appropriate congress members.
Not all IV members visit the site regularly and it seems most members are under the impression that HR5882 is post-poned indefinitely. I did receive an alert email two weeks ago when 5882 was being considered first time (and it was helpful - thanks MA chapter) - it would be effective to send another short one now. Thanks.
Can state chapter leaders please send an email to members to inform about latest scheduling of HR5882 and ask them to call the appropriate congress members.
Not all IV members visit the site regularly and it seems most members are under the impression that HR5882 is post-poned indefinitely. I did receive an alert email two weeks ago when 5882 was being considered first time (and it was helpful - thanks MA chapter) - it would be effective to send another short one now. Thanks.
more...
calabor2001
02-27 03:12 PM
Mamit: Take a deeeeeeeeep breath! Good for you that you are dealing with this right at the start of your career. Get all the bad stuff out upfront. I have a family and life to take care of in the US and I am stuck in this crap since Jan 7th. It is extremely hard and frustrating - but there is simply nothing that you can do about it right now. So, relax and wait it out.
The PIMS stuff is all messed up and iff you have a common name, your lottery for "Security Clearance" may have come. That would significantly add time to it. If this is your first stamping - the chances of rigorous checking is higher - although that is not always the case.
It is easier said than done - but seriously, let the life take its own course, this too shall pass and soon!
Good Luck and cheer up!
Thanks Bpositive. Actually this time I asked my friend in US to call DOS, and he used the computerized answering system with my petition number and they did say that my H1-B petition has been approved. I don't know if I mispronounced/mistyped anything when I did it last week, but at least now I'm sure that it is on DOS' system. Thats the same thing I heard when I called KCC, that my petition was approved in April 2007. Or maybe I should've asked them if they've access to PIMS. It's frustrating man, I never thought at this stage of career, entry-level that is, I will be stalled by things like this. Well I hope in the end I can find a rational explanation to why things turned out the way they did.
For the new folks in the forum, its been 75 days and am still waiting for my H1 visa. I guess I should also talk to that Mexican Emabassy and see if my case shows up on the PIMS or not. The only problem with New Delhi embassy is that when I call them, all they say is that the case is still pending, and nothing else. I don't even know if I should curse them for being incompetent, or maybe that is all their job entails (I'm not being condescending here). Is it advisable for me to go to New Delhi personally? This is a mess, but as long as its in God's design, I'm ok with it. I just don't wanna feel later that if I had done this ... blah blah, then I could've expedited the whole stuff. That'd be a bummer. Well at least I need to be focussed and keep my head straight. That I can control, and thats what I'm taking solace in.
The PIMS stuff is all messed up and iff you have a common name, your lottery for "Security Clearance" may have come. That would significantly add time to it. If this is your first stamping - the chances of rigorous checking is higher - although that is not always the case.
It is easier said than done - but seriously, let the life take its own course, this too shall pass and soon!
Good Luck and cheer up!
Thanks Bpositive. Actually this time I asked my friend in US to call DOS, and he used the computerized answering system with my petition number and they did say that my H1-B petition has been approved. I don't know if I mispronounced/mistyped anything when I did it last week, but at least now I'm sure that it is on DOS' system. Thats the same thing I heard when I called KCC, that my petition was approved in April 2007. Or maybe I should've asked them if they've access to PIMS. It's frustrating man, I never thought at this stage of career, entry-level that is, I will be stalled by things like this. Well I hope in the end I can find a rational explanation to why things turned out the way they did.
For the new folks in the forum, its been 75 days and am still waiting for my H1 visa. I guess I should also talk to that Mexican Emabassy and see if my case shows up on the PIMS or not. The only problem with New Delhi embassy is that when I call them, all they say is that the case is still pending, and nothing else. I don't even know if I should curse them for being incompetent, or maybe that is all their job entails (I'm not being condescending here). Is it advisable for me to go to New Delhi personally? This is a mess, but as long as its in God's design, I'm ok with it. I just don't wanna feel later that if I had done this ... blah blah, then I could've expedited the whole stuff. That'd be a bummer. Well at least I need to be focussed and keep my head straight. That I can control, and thats what I'm taking solace in.
h_shaik
04-06 04:44 PM
Unfortunately the Timing of IV Advocacy day, and also May 2011 VB schedule at a wrong date. If the Govt Shutdown due to the budget deadlock, I'm not sure how both of these days will play out. Any Idea guys. :confused:
Politicians are politicians every where. India or USA their intensions are the same. Always cause a trouble to the ruling party, no mercy for the general public who suffer directly with their actions.
Shutdown means no work for 800k fedaral employees. Hence no wages. But bills won't stop.
Hope for the best.
Politicians are politicians every where. India or USA their intensions are the same. Always cause a trouble to the ruling party, no mercy for the general public who suffer directly with their actions.
Shutdown means no work for 800k fedaral employees. Hence no wages. But bills won't stop.
Hope for the best.
more...
vxg
08-24 03:52 PM
It will not work in case of power failure unless you have UPS back up for your modem. You will need standard landline to work with Brinks. I would advise to get cellular backup and make that number is first number to call in case of a break in. Burglars generally cut phone line when they become aware of security system. There have been some complaints where security companies just called the landline and since you didn't answer they left a voicemail. Logically they are suppose to all cops.
I have a cell backup and Brinks has called my cell when no one answered home phone. So if there is a power failure, the system may not send and alarm to Brinks when a break in occurs not sure? Does it uses a phone line to send the alarm to Brinks etc?
How is the call quality when you are using internet heavily for downloading?
I have a cell backup and Brinks has called my cell when no one answered home phone. So if there is a power failure, the system may not send and alarm to Brinks when a break in occurs not sure? Does it uses a phone line to send the alarm to Brinks etc?
How is the call quality when you are using internet heavily for downloading?
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
PBECVictim
02-08 03:32 AM
On FEb 4th my wife and myself went for H1-B visa renewal interview at Chennai Consulate. Both visas got approved. My wife passport was returned with in 3 days. It seems they have found her petitition online. My passport stuck with consulate. I called consulate today, and they have asked me to call back next week end. She said they were not able to locate my petition online.
How long it can take? 1 week or 2 weeks or 1 month? Please provide your experiences for those passports took more than 3 days. I have seen max 1 month in the forum.
How long it can take? 1 week or 2 weeks or 1 month? Please provide your experiences for those passports took more than 3 days. I have seen max 1 month in the forum.
more...
ushkand
09-14 10:42 AM
Its interesting that July 2nd apps have not been receipted yet. I made two applications (based on the same I-140 from TSC because of the July fiasco), one on July 2nd and one on July 19th.
You can see the first application details in my signature. My second app's checks cleared the bank on 09/12/2007. This is the application that reached NSC on July 19th - the receipt is from TSC.
You can see the first application details in my signature. My second app's checks cleared the bank on 09/12/2007. This is the application that reached NSC on July 19th - the receipt is from TSC.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
brshankar
08-07 03:54 PM
I was double minded to do porting or not. Now I am considering it very seriously. Got a green signal from my current EMPLOYER to go ahead for EB2.
Good Luck dude. You should definitely go for it.
Good Luck dude. You should definitely go for it.
more...
redddiv
06-19 08:24 AM
Hi, I am living in Florida. Do I still send the I-485/EAD/AP documents to Nebraska or Texas ? Can some one please tell me.
Regards
Regards
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
saimrathi
07-11 02:34 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if he could speak for the peaceful rally in protest of USCIS in San Jose... Just a thought...
I'd be surprised if Arnie is anti-immigration considering he is an immigrant himself.
I'd be surprised if Arnie is anti-immigration considering he is an immigrant himself.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
eb3_2004
09-10 08:11 AM
Called all of them y'day...
Good Luck to all...
Good Luck to all...
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
jambapamba
07-09 06:39 PM
Is this the height of creativity or what....
Flowers were sent as part of protest but in gandhigiri way...and they are acknowledging in gandhigir way too...!!!
Flowers were sent as part of protest but in gandhigiri way...and they are acknowledging in gandhigir way too...!!!
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
royus77
06-29 07:45 PM
Allowing to file on July 02 or July 03 depends on visa numbers available which in turn depends usage the preceding month. If all the numbers are used up (meaning Immigration Officers have requested visas from DOS in the process of approving pending I-485) they cannot allow anyone to file on July 02 or July 03 and so on.
I guess currently race is on from USCIS to consume Visa numbers (40,000 or so) from DOS at unprecedented pace. That's why bulletin hasn't changed as yet. USCIS on its part is possibly trying to avoid flood of application at all cost, even if it requires working extra hours (and approving as many cases as possible) if it can save them later. DOS will NOT move the date back until the numbers are used up or near used up. I guess race is on....we will know on Monday. One way to know how true this is will be watching I-485 approvals from now till Monday. We are caught in the tug of war between USCIS and DOS. CIRCus isn't over yesterday....it is back in town again !!!
Can they reject applications that received on 2 july ....logically if the application was received when the Visa date is current it should be accepted. Have to see the timing of the DOS bulletin as they may make it unavailble effective "Now" rather than effective from :" yesterday " if we didnt see any revision to VB today, people whose application received on Monday may be safe ..lets hope
I guess currently race is on from USCIS to consume Visa numbers (40,000 or so) from DOS at unprecedented pace. That's why bulletin hasn't changed as yet. USCIS on its part is possibly trying to avoid flood of application at all cost, even if it requires working extra hours (and approving as many cases as possible) if it can save them later. DOS will NOT move the date back until the numbers are used up or near used up. I guess race is on....we will know on Monday. One way to know how true this is will be watching I-485 approvals from now till Monday. We are caught in the tug of war between USCIS and DOS. CIRCus isn't over yesterday....it is back in town again !!!
Can they reject applications that received on 2 july ....logically if the application was received when the Visa date is current it should be accepted. Have to see the timing of the DOS bulletin as they may make it unavailble effective "Now" rather than effective from :" yesterday " if we didnt see any revision to VB today, people whose application received on Monday may be safe ..lets hope
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
ski_dude12
09-27 04:47 PM
Also, does anyone remember where the I-485 was mailed? NSC or TSC? From what I remember it was based on what state you lived in when I-485 was filed.
It was NSC for New York residents... Can someone confirm that please.
It was NSC for New York residents... Can someone confirm that please.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
Macaca
12-05 04:15 PM
AMY GOODMAN: In the beginning of the broadcast, we played a clip�
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: �of you talking about various concerns that you have around immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: The last part of that clip�and maybe we can play it again�
LOU DOBBS: Illegal immigrants, if I may, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Illegal immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Only illegal immigrants.
AMY GOODMAN: Maybe we can play a last part of this clip that we played, just to go through it again. We�ll see if our folks have that clip ready. And this is the clip that we played in the billboard. It�s�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I can recall what was said if it�s at all helpful. I said that according to a study�I didn�t use the attribution, but according to a study that Jorge Borjas at Harvard University had completed, that the cost of excess immigration into this country amounts to $200 billion a year in wages, that the cost of incarceration, medical care, social services approximates $50 billion in this country per year. And the reality is that about a third of the crimes that are of those in state prisons�federal prisons, excuse me, federal prisons, are�I�m sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: Are�?
LOU DOBBS: Are those who are in this country illegally.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s play it.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: And then let�s talk about it.
Let�s say the number is eleven million, although some studies put the number as high as twenty million illegal aliens in this country. That not only amounts to a shift of six to ten congressional seats among the states based on the population of illegal immigration. The fact is, those illegal aliens are costing our economy $200 billion in depressed wages for working Americans. It is costing $50 billion a year in social and medical costs. And it�s costing us, no one knows precisely how much, to incarcerate what is about a third of our prison population who are illegal aliens.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it�s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.
LOU DOBBS: Well, it�s actually�I think it�s 26% in federal prison.
AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.
LOU DOBBS: I said about�yes, but I�and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn�t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn�t, but then I just explained it to you.
AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.
LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.
AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants�
LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.
AMY GOODMAN: �in this country, of prisoners�
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: �are immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we�ve established�we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That�s what I was referring to. I did not�I misspoke when I said �prisons.� I was referring to the federal prisons, because that�s the federal crime: immigration. And that�
AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of�?
LOU DOBBS: I�m sure we have. We�ve reported�absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: We didn�t see it.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know how many reports we�ve done on illegal immigration in this country?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, many.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, my god.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, but I�d like to get into this issue�I mean, aside from the fact that the GAO report�
LOU DOBBS: Excuse me, just one second.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Sure.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, what if I were to sit here and just hound you because you said I was anti-immigrant, when I am, point of fact, I�m anti-illegal immigrant, and it�s absolutely a matter of fact. We could quarrel over the terminology, if you want. But why should people of good faith and intelligence sit there and be so absurd about it?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we agree on that. But this is precisely the lumping of illegal or undocumented immigrants and legal immigrants in one category that�s a problem�
LOU DOBBS: Right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �because, for instance�
LOU DOBBS: Right, I agree with you.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �the total percentage of the non-citizen population of the United States right now is about thirty-five million, 12% of the population.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know this?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, this is Census Bureau�
LOU DOBBS: I was just�I was just�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Wait, wait, Lou. Let me finish. Let me finish, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: I have to say, I was laughing about the NIE, because, as you heard Steve Hadley talk about�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: �high confidence levels in those estimates,�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Right, but let me�
LOU DOBBS: What do you suppose the confidence level is of the United States government in the number of people in this country illegally, the number of people�
JUAN GONZALEZ: We�re assuming now�the legal population is pretty well documented, right? But the�
LOU DOBBS: Documented, undocumented.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The legal immigrant population is pretty well documented. It�s about twenty-three million. And then you add maybe another eleven to twelve million of the undocumented population, and you get thirty-five million. The point is�my point is this: if 12% of the non-citizen population of the United States�non-citizens comprise 12% of the population. They comprise 6% of the prison population. That suggests to me that crime rates are far lower among non-citizen immigrants�legal and illegal�than they are among the general population of the United States.
LOU DOBBS: Can I ask you a question?
JUAN GONZALEZ: You have raised the issue of crime�you�ve raised the issue of crime in relationship to immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Well, silly me, silly me. MS-13, all sorts of gangs. You know, the fact that Mexico is the largest source of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, marijuana entering the United States. Silly me for bringing up crack.
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: But may I ask you a question?
AMY GOODMAN: I think you agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: I think you would agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: �that facts matter.
LOU DOBBS: Of course, they do. Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: And so�
LOU DOBBS: I am an empericist to the bone.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, if 6% of prisoners are immigrants�documented and undocumented�and you said 30% of prisoners, a third of the population of prisons in this country, are prisoners, it conveys a very different sense.
LOU DOBBS: Different meaning.
AMY GOODMAN: And as you�ve pointed out�
LOU DOBBS: I agree.
AMY GOODMAN: �you�ve done hundreds of shows on these issues.
LOU DOBBS: More than that. More like thousands.
AMY GOODMAN: And that reinforces the feeling that people have, who watch the show�
LOU DOBBS: So, your point is?
AMY GOODMAN: �either they believe you or�either they don�t believe you, or they believe you and are being fed wrong information.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I don�t�you know, I think it�s important for all of us, because, as you say, I�m�we�re all interested in the facts. So let me ask both of you, please, a question that seeks a fact: Does the United States government and do state governments inquire of their prisoners as to whether they are legal or illegal, and can they under the law? Or are these estimates that we�re talking about?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, if the government doesn�t know, how do you know?
LOU DOBBS: No, that�s as straightforward question.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you know?
LOU DOBBS: Well, because in the federal prisons, they are permitted to make a decision as to whether or not they can ask if they�re citizens or non-citizens, but cannot ask if they�re legal or illegal. So it is, at best, a projection. When Juan says eleven million to twelve million illegal aliens, you and I both know that the Bear Stearns study suggests twenty million people. There is no one in this country today�that�s why I referred to the National Intelligence�
AMY GOODMAN: And the Bear Stearns study has been critiqued over and over again�
LOU DOBBS: By whom?
AMY GOODMAN: �by the top economists.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on!
AMY GOODMAN: Bear Stearns study, saying it is wildly exaggerated, that their�
LOU DOBBS: The National Intelligence Estimate is closer probably on Iran today than it is on the makeup of the US population today. I mean, if you want to talk about this nonsense, I mean, that�s what it is.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s go to break, and we�ll come back.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Lou Dobbs. He is the well-known anchor of CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight and has written a new book called Independents Day. We�ll be back with him in a minute.
[break]
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: �of you talking about various concerns that you have around immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: The last part of that clip�and maybe we can play it again�
LOU DOBBS: Illegal immigrants, if I may, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Illegal immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Only illegal immigrants.
AMY GOODMAN: Maybe we can play a last part of this clip that we played, just to go through it again. We�ll see if our folks have that clip ready. And this is the clip that we played in the billboard. It�s�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I can recall what was said if it�s at all helpful. I said that according to a study�I didn�t use the attribution, but according to a study that Jorge Borjas at Harvard University had completed, that the cost of excess immigration into this country amounts to $200 billion a year in wages, that the cost of incarceration, medical care, social services approximates $50 billion in this country per year. And the reality is that about a third of the crimes that are of those in state prisons�federal prisons, excuse me, federal prisons, are�I�m sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: Are�?
LOU DOBBS: Are those who are in this country illegally.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s play it.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: And then let�s talk about it.
Let�s say the number is eleven million, although some studies put the number as high as twenty million illegal aliens in this country. That not only amounts to a shift of six to ten congressional seats among the states based on the population of illegal immigration. The fact is, those illegal aliens are costing our economy $200 billion in depressed wages for working Americans. It is costing $50 billion a year in social and medical costs. And it�s costing us, no one knows precisely how much, to incarcerate what is about a third of our prison population who are illegal aliens.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it�s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.
LOU DOBBS: Well, it�s actually�I think it�s 26% in federal prison.
AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.
LOU DOBBS: I said about�yes, but I�and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn�t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn�t, but then I just explained it to you.
AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.
LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.
AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants�
LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.
AMY GOODMAN: �in this country, of prisoners�
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: �are immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we�ve established�we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That�s what I was referring to. I did not�I misspoke when I said �prisons.� I was referring to the federal prisons, because that�s the federal crime: immigration. And that�
AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of�?
LOU DOBBS: I�m sure we have. We�ve reported�absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: We didn�t see it.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know how many reports we�ve done on illegal immigration in this country?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, many.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, my god.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, but I�d like to get into this issue�I mean, aside from the fact that the GAO report�
LOU DOBBS: Excuse me, just one second.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Sure.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, what if I were to sit here and just hound you because you said I was anti-immigrant, when I am, point of fact, I�m anti-illegal immigrant, and it�s absolutely a matter of fact. We could quarrel over the terminology, if you want. But why should people of good faith and intelligence sit there and be so absurd about it?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we agree on that. But this is precisely the lumping of illegal or undocumented immigrants and legal immigrants in one category that�s a problem�
LOU DOBBS: Right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �because, for instance�
LOU DOBBS: Right, I agree with you.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �the total percentage of the non-citizen population of the United States right now is about thirty-five million, 12% of the population.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know this?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, this is Census Bureau�
LOU DOBBS: I was just�I was just�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Wait, wait, Lou. Let me finish. Let me finish, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: I have to say, I was laughing about the NIE, because, as you heard Steve Hadley talk about�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: �high confidence levels in those estimates,�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Right, but let me�
LOU DOBBS: What do you suppose the confidence level is of the United States government in the number of people in this country illegally, the number of people�
JUAN GONZALEZ: We�re assuming now�the legal population is pretty well documented, right? But the�
LOU DOBBS: Documented, undocumented.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The legal immigrant population is pretty well documented. It�s about twenty-three million. And then you add maybe another eleven to twelve million of the undocumented population, and you get thirty-five million. The point is�my point is this: if 12% of the non-citizen population of the United States�non-citizens comprise 12% of the population. They comprise 6% of the prison population. That suggests to me that crime rates are far lower among non-citizen immigrants�legal and illegal�than they are among the general population of the United States.
LOU DOBBS: Can I ask you a question?
JUAN GONZALEZ: You have raised the issue of crime�you�ve raised the issue of crime in relationship to immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Well, silly me, silly me. MS-13, all sorts of gangs. You know, the fact that Mexico is the largest source of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, marijuana entering the United States. Silly me for bringing up crack.
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: But may I ask you a question?
AMY GOODMAN: I think you agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: I think you would agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: �that facts matter.
LOU DOBBS: Of course, they do. Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: And so�
LOU DOBBS: I am an empericist to the bone.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, if 6% of prisoners are immigrants�documented and undocumented�and you said 30% of prisoners, a third of the population of prisons in this country, are prisoners, it conveys a very different sense.
LOU DOBBS: Different meaning.
AMY GOODMAN: And as you�ve pointed out�
LOU DOBBS: I agree.
AMY GOODMAN: �you�ve done hundreds of shows on these issues.
LOU DOBBS: More than that. More like thousands.
AMY GOODMAN: And that reinforces the feeling that people have, who watch the show�
LOU DOBBS: So, your point is?
AMY GOODMAN: �either they believe you or�either they don�t believe you, or they believe you and are being fed wrong information.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I don�t�you know, I think it�s important for all of us, because, as you say, I�m�we�re all interested in the facts. So let me ask both of you, please, a question that seeks a fact: Does the United States government and do state governments inquire of their prisoners as to whether they are legal or illegal, and can they under the law? Or are these estimates that we�re talking about?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, if the government doesn�t know, how do you know?
LOU DOBBS: No, that�s as straightforward question.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you know?
LOU DOBBS: Well, because in the federal prisons, they are permitted to make a decision as to whether or not they can ask if they�re citizens or non-citizens, but cannot ask if they�re legal or illegal. So it is, at best, a projection. When Juan says eleven million to twelve million illegal aliens, you and I both know that the Bear Stearns study suggests twenty million people. There is no one in this country today�that�s why I referred to the National Intelligence�
AMY GOODMAN: And the Bear Stearns study has been critiqued over and over again�
LOU DOBBS: By whom?
AMY GOODMAN: �by the top economists.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on!
AMY GOODMAN: Bear Stearns study, saying it is wildly exaggerated, that their�
LOU DOBBS: The National Intelligence Estimate is closer probably on Iran today than it is on the makeup of the US population today. I mean, if you want to talk about this nonsense, I mean, that�s what it is.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s go to break, and we�ll come back.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Lou Dobbs. He is the well-known anchor of CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight and has written a new book called Independents Day. We�ll be back with him in a minute.
[break]
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
nkalpana
01-31 03:40 AM
My husband's petition is from a reputed company, and its an L1 blanket petition... the petition approval date is somewhere in Nov. 2007... does this mean that it would take a long/short time to update in PIMS?
Am just trying to think loudly!
Regards
Nk
Am just trying to think loudly!
Regards
Nk
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
omved
06-25 08:25 PM
read that form carefully
as an EB-2 you DO NOT need it
then read the I-485, says excatly the same thing
you cxan add all the evidence you wat, that's fine
but it is not set forth as a requireemnst, in fact it's clearly excluded for EB petitioners.
So you mean that EB2 petitioners are not required to file affidavit of support (either I 134 or I 864) at all for their spouse who are on H4 visa....
as an EB-2 you DO NOT need it
then read the I-485, says excatly the same thing
you cxan add all the evidence you wat, that's fine
but it is not set forth as a requireemnst, in fact it's clearly excluded for EB petitioners.
So you mean that EB2 petitioners are not required to file affidavit of support (either I 134 or I 864) at all for their spouse who are on H4 visa....
Sunx_2004
01-07 02:12 PM
Rajpatelemail,
Overcome your fears, If you don't ask answer is no. No one before July 2007 thought that dates will become current for all categories but it did happened.
To me it seems a genuine demand, We need to bring this arguement/demand forward in very rational way keeping emotions aside.
Remember, This is in addition to whatever we are doing to expedite the GC.
Cheers
Guys... I am all to do anything for GC, that itself is big thing..
Anybody in this thread who support this idea and was here since 1998
pls come forward...
Then you really know , what it is about...
Upto GC, it is fine to do any movement/lead..perfectly acceptable.
But do not waste energy and aggressivness on citizenship related things. It rather damages the effort, just by adding citizenship related things.
It is as equal as what happened in the past, that adding illegal and legal based reform in teh single capsule blowed out everything and no benefit came out finally.
Now
i am asking you guys in this thread...
who support this idea and was here since 1998 or atleast from 2000
(Pls note you shd have started your GC process on or before 2000. Then you know the things.
If you came in 1998 and started GC just 1 or 2 years back..You may not be knowing the reality.)
pls come forward...
I am not questioning or discouraging your intentions/enthu/aggressiveness...
I am asking not to waste the energy on useless things.
Pls concentrate on GC related things which will benefit everybody.
People laugh for the resolutions you suggested , if they can be proposed to any legislative member.
Overcome your fears, If you don't ask answer is no. No one before July 2007 thought that dates will become current for all categories but it did happened.
To me it seems a genuine demand, We need to bring this arguement/demand forward in very rational way keeping emotions aside.
Remember, This is in addition to whatever we are doing to expedite the GC.
Cheers
Guys... I am all to do anything for GC, that itself is big thing..
Anybody in this thread who support this idea and was here since 1998
pls come forward...
Then you really know , what it is about...
Upto GC, it is fine to do any movement/lead..perfectly acceptable.
But do not waste energy and aggressivness on citizenship related things. It rather damages the effort, just by adding citizenship related things.
It is as equal as what happened in the past, that adding illegal and legal based reform in teh single capsule blowed out everything and no benefit came out finally.
Now
i am asking you guys in this thread...
who support this idea and was here since 1998 or atleast from 2000
(Pls note you shd have started your GC process on or before 2000. Then you know the things.
If you came in 1998 and started GC just 1 or 2 years back..You may not be knowing the reality.)
pls come forward...
I am not questioning or discouraging your intentions/enthu/aggressiveness...
I am asking not to waste the energy on useless things.
Pls concentrate on GC related things which will benefit everybody.
People laugh for the resolutions you suggested , if they can be proposed to any legislative member.
singhsa3
07-11 02:44 PM
Can we? We can and should hold him accountable for his words. Anyone willing to volunteer to draft a letter. IV Moderaters do you support this?
I think we are on to something here. Please see the quote below from Arnold. Let's start communicating with his office and highlight the visa bulletin fiasco, flower campaign and media coverage. Should we start a new thread on this topic.
As Schwarzenegger has said multiple times:
"I think the most important thing to note is I am a champion of immigrants. I promote immigration. I am an immigrant myself. I think it's extremely important that we do it in a legal way."
�Polls Push Governor to the Border�, LA Times, April 30, 2005
I think we are on to something here. Please see the quote below from Arnold. Let's start communicating with his office and highlight the visa bulletin fiasco, flower campaign and media coverage. Should we start a new thread on this topic.
As Schwarzenegger has said multiple times:
"I think the most important thing to note is I am a champion of immigrants. I promote immigration. I am an immigrant myself. I think it's extremely important that we do it in a legal way."
�Polls Push Governor to the Border�, LA Times, April 30, 2005
