bigboy007
06-03 01:40 AM
I have opened sep thread for the same , i am sorry if this is not acceptable policy of forum and i am reposting as this topic originated here:
================================================== =
I have been following with different threads over articles of Susherman / AILA on abolishing Dual intent for H1B visa and very much , deeply curious about finding the same :
Since i myself new of all these different texts of various immigration laws it took me some time but i think i found out the nerve of it atlast.
Here it goes :
There are two important sections of Student visas.
this bill is carefully drafted against us [h1B and green card] such that this provision is included in student visas section.
================================================== ====
(c) CLARIFYING THE IMMIGRANT INTENT PROVISION.— Subsection (b) of
14 section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b))
15 is amended—
16
17 (1) by striking the parenthetical phrase “(other than a
18 nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section
19 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any
20 provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of
21 such section) " in the first sentence; and
22
23 (2) by striking “under section 101(a)(15)" and inserting in its
24 place “under the immigration laws.".
25
26 (d) GRANTING DUAL INTENT TO CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANT STUDENTS.—
27 Subsection (h) of section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
28 (8 U.S.C. 1184(h)) is amended—
29
30 (1) by inserting “(F)(iv)," following “(H)(i)(b) or (c),"; and
31
32 (2) by striking “if the alien had obtained a change of status" and
33 inserting in its place “if the alien had been admitted as, provided
34 status as, or obtained a change of status";
================================================== =====
what does (c) in Student visas do :
214(b) of Immigration and Nationality Act : defines whether the applicant has an immigration intent or not and in general avoids , H , L , etc visas out of this category.
As stated in US code of Law this is what it is :
================================================== ======
"Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 1101 (a)(15) of this title, and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i) of this title except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 1101 (a)(15) of this title. An alien who is an officer or employee of any foreign government or of any international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act [22 U.S.C. 288 et seq.], or an alien who is the attendant, servant, employee, or member of the immediate family of any such alien shall not be entitled to apply for or receive an immigrant visa, or to enter the United States as an immigrant unless he executes a written waiver in the same form and substance as is prescribed by section 1257 (b) of this title."
================================================== ======
By doing this (i.e. remove my Underlined and Bold letters) they making H1B prone to 214B clause and any CONSULAR officer can reject visa based on this statute as a H1B categorized as IMMIGRANT intent rather than earlier being non-immigrant.
Now i think this should not effect 485 or 140 or any immigration applications as still H1B holder is still categorized in DUAL Intent.
This is how : when (d) of the above Student visa section is applied this is how it turns :
This is from US code of rules pertaining to 8 U.S.C. 1184(h)
(h) Intention to abandon foreign residence
The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 1154 of this title or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (c),(F)(iv), (L), or (V) of section 1101 (a)(15) of this title or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph, if the alien had been admitted as, provided status as, or obtained a change of status under section 1258 of this title to a classification as such a nonimmigrant before the alien’s most recent departure from the United States.
================================================== ======
Section 1258 is nothing but Change of nonimmigrant classification which allows for change of status with in Non-immigrant visas.
based on all these , conclusion i see is : h1B visa can now be rejected ( if law passes and i wish , i pray and i am doing all my best it doesnt) under 214B for consular posts.
Still h1B is considered DUAL Intent as per above amendment as it doesnt remove 101 (a)(b) (H) as they are speciality workers that is we.
Please comment , i know i am not an immigration attorney with my knowledge i tried to relate things i am curious about this subject and i request all to comment on this and i feel i made a good judgment based on these resources i have please comment.
----------------------
But logically i also feel this H1B under 214B as doesnt logical for a person whose 140 is approved as in principle his intent of being Immigrant is approved.
================================================== =
I have been following with different threads over articles of Susherman / AILA on abolishing Dual intent for H1B visa and very much , deeply curious about finding the same :
Since i myself new of all these different texts of various immigration laws it took me some time but i think i found out the nerve of it atlast.
Here it goes :
There are two important sections of Student visas.
this bill is carefully drafted against us [h1B and green card] such that this provision is included in student visas section.
================================================== ====
(c) CLARIFYING THE IMMIGRANT INTENT PROVISION.— Subsection (b) of
14 section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b))
15 is amended—
16
17 (1) by striking the parenthetical phrase “(other than a
18 nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section
19 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any
20 provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of
21 such section) " in the first sentence; and
22
23 (2) by striking “under section 101(a)(15)" and inserting in its
24 place “under the immigration laws.".
25
26 (d) GRANTING DUAL INTENT TO CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANT STUDENTS.—
27 Subsection (h) of section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
28 (8 U.S.C. 1184(h)) is amended—
29
30 (1) by inserting “(F)(iv)," following “(H)(i)(b) or (c),"; and
31
32 (2) by striking “if the alien had obtained a change of status" and
33 inserting in its place “if the alien had been admitted as, provided
34 status as, or obtained a change of status";
================================================== =====
what does (c) in Student visas do :
214(b) of Immigration and Nationality Act : defines whether the applicant has an immigration intent or not and in general avoids , H , L , etc visas out of this category.
As stated in US code of Law this is what it is :
================================================== ======
"Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 1101 (a)(15) of this title, and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i) of this title except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 1101 (a)(15) of this title. An alien who is an officer or employee of any foreign government or of any international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act [22 U.S.C. 288 et seq.], or an alien who is the attendant, servant, employee, or member of the immediate family of any such alien shall not be entitled to apply for or receive an immigrant visa, or to enter the United States as an immigrant unless he executes a written waiver in the same form and substance as is prescribed by section 1257 (b) of this title."
================================================== ======
By doing this (i.e. remove my Underlined and Bold letters) they making H1B prone to 214B clause and any CONSULAR officer can reject visa based on this statute as a H1B categorized as IMMIGRANT intent rather than earlier being non-immigrant.
Now i think this should not effect 485 or 140 or any immigration applications as still H1B holder is still categorized in DUAL Intent.
This is how : when (d) of the above Student visa section is applied this is how it turns :
This is from US code of rules pertaining to 8 U.S.C. 1184(h)
(h) Intention to abandon foreign residence
The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 1154 of this title or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (c),(F)(iv), (L), or (V) of section 1101 (a)(15) of this title or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph, if the alien had been admitted as, provided status as, or obtained a change of status under section 1258 of this title to a classification as such a nonimmigrant before the alien’s most recent departure from the United States.
================================================== ======
Section 1258 is nothing but Change of nonimmigrant classification which allows for change of status with in Non-immigrant visas.
based on all these , conclusion i see is : h1B visa can now be rejected ( if law passes and i wish , i pray and i am doing all my best it doesnt) under 214B for consular posts.
Still h1B is considered DUAL Intent as per above amendment as it doesnt remove 101 (a)(b) (H) as they are speciality workers that is we.
Please comment , i know i am not an immigration attorney with my knowledge i tried to relate things i am curious about this subject and i request all to comment on this and i feel i made a good judgment based on these resources i have please comment.
----------------------
But logically i also feel this H1B under 214B as doesnt logical for a person whose 140 is approved as in principle his intent of being Immigrant is approved.
wallpaper Image Emo Girls Hairstyle
ashutrip
06-20 08:30 AM
Any trend of backlogs getting cleared?
rbhatia88
07-28 10:44 PM
Urgent- Please help I-485 issue
I filed for I-485 for my son on 2nd July but did not receive the receipt so far. My son is turning 21 next month, my lawyer is guiding me to file for F-1 for my son to be on the safe side. Is filing for F-1 going to effect the I-485. What will happen if approved F-1 comes before receipt?
Anyone can help me with this issue?
I filed for I-485 for my son on 2nd July but did not receive the receipt so far. My son is turning 21 next month, my lawyer is guiding me to file for F-1 for my son to be on the safe side. Is filing for F-1 going to effect the I-485. What will happen if approved F-1 comes before receipt?
Anyone can help me with this issue?
2011 Emo Haircuts For Girls
atlgc
03-17 09:22 PM
All tax payers are eligible(atleast mostly)
folks like Bayarea07 are plain and stupid
folks like Bayarea07 are plain and stupid
more...
trueguy
02-19 09:43 AM
Any predictions, expert thoughts on EB3-I movement in next 6 months?
shankar_thanu
07-18 12:49 PM
after going through some of the posts, i understand that there were earlier attempts to add SKIL amendments to other bills but it didnt fly..
Was there similar attempts to add provisions to 'capture unused numbers' and 'not include dependents for visa number count' to other bills before? Are these much more difficult to get done? Just want to know the history of these issues in the legislature...
Was there similar attempts to add provisions to 'capture unused numbers' and 'not include dependents for visa number count' to other bills before? Are these much more difficult to get done? Just want to know the history of these issues in the legislature...
more...
dipmay2002
11-05 02:14 PM
If my Wife's employer starts GC for her on EB2, can my case be ported / interfile to her's? She is dependent on my GC application. :eek:
2010 anime girl hairstyle. emo girl
little_willy
09-12 11:41 PM
Here are some fax numbers, again collected from various IV forums.
From http://www.edgar.k12.wi.us/cloverbelt/medialist.htm
Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1-715-858-7308
Wausau Daily Herald 1-715-848-9361
Chippewa Herald Telegram 1-715-723-9644
Marshfield News Herald 1-715-387-4175
Wisconsin Rapids Tribune 1-715-848-9361
St. Point Journal 1-715-344-7229
Medford Star News 1-715-748-2699
TV 7 � Wausau 1-715-842-0879
TV 9 � Wausau 1-715-848-0195
TV 13 � Eau Claire 1-715-832-0246
TV 18 � Eau Claire 1-715-831-1859
From http://www.nynjtc.org/issues/natmedia.html
New York Times: FAX: 212.556.7614
Washington Post: FAX: 310.277.3704
Time Magazine: FAX: 212.522.1530
Newsweek: FAX: 212.445.4120
USA Today: FAX: 703.247.3108
Wall Street Journal: FAX: 202.862.9266
NPR: FAX: 202.414.3329
AP: FAX: 202.776.9570
CNN: FAX: 404.681.3578
Chicago Tribune: FAX: 202.824.8302
Los Angeles Times: FAX: 213.237.7968
San Francisco Chronicle: email: letters@sfchronicle.com
San Diego Union: FAX: 619.293.1440
Sacramento Bee: FAX: 916.321.1196
Oakland Tribune: FAX: 510.208.6477
Long Beach Press Telegram: FAX: 562.499.1277
Monterey County Herald: FAX: 831.372.8401
___________________________________
Here is the list copied from http://www.patrickcrusade.org/Fax.html:
ABC WASHINGTON DC 202-887-7684
ABC 20/20 NEW YORK NY 212-456-2969
ABC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
ABC TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-557-5210
ABC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-954-7633
ABC WORLD NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
AP LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-1200
AP SAN DIEGO CA 619-291-2098
AP WASHINGTON DC 202-828-6422
AP (BROADCAST) WASHINGTON DC 202-955-7367
ASSOCIATED PRESS BOSTON MA 617-338-8125
ASSOCIATED PRESS LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-9836
ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOENIX AZ 602-254-9573
ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-552-9430
ASSOCIATED PRESS MN MINNEAPOLIS MN 612-332-4245
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3183
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3192
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3490
BOSTON GLOBE NEWSRM BOSTON MA 617-929-3186
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-426-1865
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-542-1315
C-SPAN WASHINGTON DC 202-737-6226
CBS NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS WASHINGTON DC 202-659-2586
CBS (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-659-5578
CBS EVE NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-975-2115
CBS MORNING WASHINGTON DC 202-331-1765
CBS NEWS LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0285
CBS NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CBS NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0321
CBS TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES CHICAGO IL 312-321-3084
CHICAGO TRIBUNE CHICAGO IL 312-222-3143
CHRISTIAN SCI. MON. BOSTON MA 617-450-2317
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MO BOSTON MA 617-289-5352
CNBC HOLLYWOOD CA 213-465-1034
CNN LOS ANGELES CA 213-460-5081
CNN SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-398-4049
CNN PRESIDENT ATLANTA GA 404-827-1575
FORBES LOS ANGELES CA 213-478-8437
GANNETT WASHINGTON DC 202-243-0190
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA 916-446-7326
LOS ANGELES TIMES CHATSWORTH CA 818-772-3338
LOS ANGELES TIMES COSTA MESA CA 714-966-7711
LOS ANGELES TIMES LOS ANGELES CA 213-237-4712
LOS ANGELES TIMES SACRAMENTO CA 916-322-2422
LOS ANGELES TIMES VENTURA CA 805-658-5547
NBC WASHINGTON DC 202-362-2009
NBC (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 703-685-2197
NBC NEWS BURBANK CA 818-840-4275
NBC NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-956-2140
NBC NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NBC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-315-4037
NBC TV LOS ANGELES CA 818-840-4275
NBC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NEW YORK POST NEW YORK NY 212-732-4241
NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NEWSWEEK LOS ANGELES CA 213-444-5287
NEWSWEEK NEW YORK NY 212-421-4993
NEWSWEEK SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-788-4437
NEWSWEEK WASHINGTON DC 202-783-6512
NPRRADIO SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-553-2241
NY TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NY TIMES SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-421-2684
NY TIMES WASHINGTON DC 202-862-0340
REUTERS LOS ANGELES CA 213-622-0056
REUTERS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-986-5147
REUTERS WASHINGTON DC 202-898-8383
TIME LOS ANGELES CA 213-824-7205
TIME SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-434-5209
TIME WASHINGTON DC 202-463-5005
TIME MAGAZINE NEW YORK NY 212-522-0451
UPI BOSTON MA 617-338-9774
UPI LOS ANGELES CA 213-620-1237
UPI SEATTLE WA 206-283-0408
UPI WASHINGTON DC 202-789-2362
UPI (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-842-3625
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT WASHINGTON DC 202-955-2713
USA RADIO NETWORK DALLAS TX 214-243-3489
USA TODAY WASHINGTON DC 202-276-5527
WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON DC 202-862-9266
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WALL STREET JOURNAL LOS ANGELES CA 213-658-3828
WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK NY 212-416-2658
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON DC 202-334-4480
Here is the list copied from http://www.mothersalert.org/mediafax.html
CNN: 404-681-3578
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 773-702-0725
New York Times: 212-556-7306
Washington Post: 202-496-3936
LA Times: 213-237-4712
CBS-TV Nightly News: 212-975-1893
60 Minutes: 212-975-2019
ABC Nightly News: 212-456-3720
UPI: 202-898-8057
AP: 212-621-7529
AFP [Agences France Presse]: 202-414-0524
Time Magazine: 212-522-0323
Newsweek Magazine: 212-212-445-5844
US News & World Report: 212-916-7400 or 212-716-6800 -- May or May Not Still Be Working
USA Today: 212-371-0241
CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]: 416-205-7459
Australian Broadcasting Corp.: 202-626-5188
Greenpeace USA: 202-462-4507
All International Greenpeace Fax#s Should be Accessable through: http://www.greenpeace.org
Center For Defense Information: 202-462-4559
Jim Hightower Show: 512-478-8536
Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now": 212-747-1698 and 202-588-0896
Boston Globe: 617-929-2019
Der Speigel: 212-302-6258
Reuters: 202-898-8401
PBS' "Frontline: 617-254-0243
Penthouse Magazine:212-702-6279
Ralph Nader: 202-234-5176
Las Vegas Sun: 702-383-7264
NPR's "Talk of the Nation": 202-414-3329
Pacifica Radio, KPFK: 818-763-7526
Pacifica Radio, WPFW: 202-588-0561
Pacifica Radio, KPFT: 713-526-5750
Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2653
Christian Science Monitor: 212-764-9648
From http://www.edgar.k12.wi.us/cloverbelt/medialist.htm
Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1-715-858-7308
Wausau Daily Herald 1-715-848-9361
Chippewa Herald Telegram 1-715-723-9644
Marshfield News Herald 1-715-387-4175
Wisconsin Rapids Tribune 1-715-848-9361
St. Point Journal 1-715-344-7229
Medford Star News 1-715-748-2699
TV 7 � Wausau 1-715-842-0879
TV 9 � Wausau 1-715-848-0195
TV 13 � Eau Claire 1-715-832-0246
TV 18 � Eau Claire 1-715-831-1859
From http://www.nynjtc.org/issues/natmedia.html
New York Times: FAX: 212.556.7614
Washington Post: FAX: 310.277.3704
Time Magazine: FAX: 212.522.1530
Newsweek: FAX: 212.445.4120
USA Today: FAX: 703.247.3108
Wall Street Journal: FAX: 202.862.9266
NPR: FAX: 202.414.3329
AP: FAX: 202.776.9570
CNN: FAX: 404.681.3578
Chicago Tribune: FAX: 202.824.8302
Los Angeles Times: FAX: 213.237.7968
San Francisco Chronicle: email: letters@sfchronicle.com
San Diego Union: FAX: 619.293.1440
Sacramento Bee: FAX: 916.321.1196
Oakland Tribune: FAX: 510.208.6477
Long Beach Press Telegram: FAX: 562.499.1277
Monterey County Herald: FAX: 831.372.8401
___________________________________
Here is the list copied from http://www.patrickcrusade.org/Fax.html:
ABC WASHINGTON DC 202-887-7684
ABC 20/20 NEW YORK NY 212-456-2969
ABC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
ABC TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-557-5210
ABC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-954-7633
ABC WORLD NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
AP LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-1200
AP SAN DIEGO CA 619-291-2098
AP WASHINGTON DC 202-828-6422
AP (BROADCAST) WASHINGTON DC 202-955-7367
ASSOCIATED PRESS BOSTON MA 617-338-8125
ASSOCIATED PRESS LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-9836
ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOENIX AZ 602-254-9573
ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-552-9430
ASSOCIATED PRESS MN MINNEAPOLIS MN 612-332-4245
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3183
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3192
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3490
BOSTON GLOBE NEWSRM BOSTON MA 617-929-3186
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-426-1865
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-542-1315
C-SPAN WASHINGTON DC 202-737-6226
CBS NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS WASHINGTON DC 202-659-2586
CBS (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-659-5578
CBS EVE NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-975-2115
CBS MORNING WASHINGTON DC 202-331-1765
CBS NEWS LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0285
CBS NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CBS NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0321
CBS TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES CHICAGO IL 312-321-3084
CHICAGO TRIBUNE CHICAGO IL 312-222-3143
CHRISTIAN SCI. MON. BOSTON MA 617-450-2317
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MO BOSTON MA 617-289-5352
CNBC HOLLYWOOD CA 213-465-1034
CNN LOS ANGELES CA 213-460-5081
CNN SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-398-4049
CNN PRESIDENT ATLANTA GA 404-827-1575
FORBES LOS ANGELES CA 213-478-8437
GANNETT WASHINGTON DC 202-243-0190
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA 916-446-7326
LOS ANGELES TIMES CHATSWORTH CA 818-772-3338
LOS ANGELES TIMES COSTA MESA CA 714-966-7711
LOS ANGELES TIMES LOS ANGELES CA 213-237-4712
LOS ANGELES TIMES SACRAMENTO CA 916-322-2422
LOS ANGELES TIMES VENTURA CA 805-658-5547
NBC WASHINGTON DC 202-362-2009
NBC (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 703-685-2197
NBC NEWS BURBANK CA 818-840-4275
NBC NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-956-2140
NBC NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NBC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-315-4037
NBC TV LOS ANGELES CA 818-840-4275
NBC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NEW YORK POST NEW YORK NY 212-732-4241
NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NEWSWEEK LOS ANGELES CA 213-444-5287
NEWSWEEK NEW YORK NY 212-421-4993
NEWSWEEK SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-788-4437
NEWSWEEK WASHINGTON DC 202-783-6512
NPRRADIO SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-553-2241
NY TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NY TIMES SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-421-2684
NY TIMES WASHINGTON DC 202-862-0340
REUTERS LOS ANGELES CA 213-622-0056
REUTERS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-986-5147
REUTERS WASHINGTON DC 202-898-8383
TIME LOS ANGELES CA 213-824-7205
TIME SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-434-5209
TIME WASHINGTON DC 202-463-5005
TIME MAGAZINE NEW YORK NY 212-522-0451
UPI BOSTON MA 617-338-9774
UPI LOS ANGELES CA 213-620-1237
UPI SEATTLE WA 206-283-0408
UPI WASHINGTON DC 202-789-2362
UPI (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-842-3625
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT WASHINGTON DC 202-955-2713
USA RADIO NETWORK DALLAS TX 214-243-3489
USA TODAY WASHINGTON DC 202-276-5527
WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON DC 202-862-9266
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WALL STREET JOURNAL LOS ANGELES CA 213-658-3828
WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK NY 212-416-2658
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON DC 202-334-4480
Here is the list copied from http://www.mothersalert.org/mediafax.html
CNN: 404-681-3578
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 773-702-0725
New York Times: 212-556-7306
Washington Post: 202-496-3936
LA Times: 213-237-4712
CBS-TV Nightly News: 212-975-1893
60 Minutes: 212-975-2019
ABC Nightly News: 212-456-3720
UPI: 202-898-8057
AP: 212-621-7529
AFP [Agences France Presse]: 202-414-0524
Time Magazine: 212-522-0323
Newsweek Magazine: 212-212-445-5844
US News & World Report: 212-916-7400 or 212-716-6800 -- May or May Not Still Be Working
USA Today: 212-371-0241
CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]: 416-205-7459
Australian Broadcasting Corp.: 202-626-5188
Greenpeace USA: 202-462-4507
All International Greenpeace Fax#s Should be Accessable through: http://www.greenpeace.org
Center For Defense Information: 202-462-4559
Jim Hightower Show: 512-478-8536
Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now": 212-747-1698 and 202-588-0896
Boston Globe: 617-929-2019
Der Speigel: 212-302-6258
Reuters: 202-898-8401
PBS' "Frontline: 617-254-0243
Penthouse Magazine:212-702-6279
Ralph Nader: 202-234-5176
Las Vegas Sun: 702-383-7264
NPR's "Talk of the Nation": 202-414-3329
Pacifica Radio, KPFK: 818-763-7526
Pacifica Radio, WPFW: 202-588-0561
Pacifica Radio, KPFT: 713-526-5750
Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2653
Christian Science Monitor: 212-764-9648
more...
mita
09-10 12:35 PM
USCIS takes two steps(2 years) forward than takes three steps(3 years) backwards. When it takes forward steps, it confuses everybody by it's stupidness of approving later PD cases and than moves backwards after realizing it's blunder. In this whole process, we spend time analyzing, debating, chatting on what USCIS will do next but they throw all our logic out the window and go their own way. This whole process sucks!!!!
You see in the real world everything moved 1 year ahead from October 2007 to October 2008. So in USCIS world also it moved by 1year.
You see in the real world everything moved 1 year ahead from October 2007 to October 2008. So in USCIS world also it moved by 1year.
hair girl hairstyles emo. girl
badluck
07-24 03:56 PM
Since it is absolutely impossible with EB3 Sep 2006 PD I thought he might have applied in a different category..Do not know the specifics of EB5...Incase what you said is true whatever that guy said is just a JOKE!
After all sardarji can make a joke:D
After all sardarji can make a joke:D
more...
somegchuh
01-03 01:40 PM
More than 4 years ago when I started the process I really was looking forward to getting a GC and eventually citizenship. But a lot has changed in the last 4 years. GC process has become much harder (after 4 years I am yet to file for 140 and 485). At the same time the economy back home is booming. So the financial incentive to go thru the long process is really going down by the day.
More than the financial factor, I have gradually started realizing that no matter how many friends I make here its never the same as having a large family network that provides for social stability for each family. Also, I have started observing aging indian couples in US who came in 60's and 70's. They look pretty lonely and sad. I guess the question I am asking myself today is, is finanical success today worth the social loss I will face once I retire?
PS: Does anyone know how to turn a thread into a poll?
More than the financial factor, I have gradually started realizing that no matter how many friends I make here its never the same as having a large family network that provides for social stability for each family. Also, I have started observing aging indian couples in US who came in 60's and 70's. They look pretty lonely and sad. I guess the question I am asking myself today is, is finanical success today worth the social loss I will face once I retire?
PS: Does anyone know how to turn a thread into a poll?
hot Emo hairstyles for girls are
pappu
06-10 02:11 PM
I don't follow. Are you saying that DOS is disclosing VISA bulletin to IV (core members) even before the actual date of bulletin???
NO.
NO.
more...
house Emo Girl Hairstyles Gallery
needhelp!
03-12 03:19 PM
no, i am not going to switch to defensive mode. this is not about me.
OK, then who are you trying to include?
OK, then who are you trying to include?
tattoo Emo Girls Hairstyles
vjkypally
09-10 03:50 PM
Completely Agree with you. Rather have some process than none.People in the forum are talking a lot about visa recapture..
But how will this help if USCIS continues to disregard PDs utterly and just approve cases that they can lay their hands on....
Due to July 2 fiasco, pretty much everyone have filed I-485...Even those with 2007 PDs.
Say USCIS recaptures Visas, makes every category current and starts approving 2007 PD cases! Even worst, due to the every category 'C', may be 2008, 2009 (when it arrives) people start applying I-485 as well, and USCIS continues to consume all the visa numbers to to approve the cases of these lucky bas*$%^&ds (no offence!) with most recent PDs. How does this help you or me with older PDs waitin for years and years ! :(
even with recapture
- the visa numbers are not unlimited
- the processing power of USCIS is not unlimited
But
- The capability of USCIS to screw up at every opportunity seems to be unlimited
- And the number of lucky bas*$%^&ds who get approved despite newest PDs seem to be unlimited too :)
So , think visa recapture alone wont solve anything. We have to make USCIS accountable. Make them process cases fairly. Make them respect PDs.
But how will this help if USCIS continues to disregard PDs utterly and just approve cases that they can lay their hands on....
Due to July 2 fiasco, pretty much everyone have filed I-485...Even those with 2007 PDs.
Say USCIS recaptures Visas, makes every category current and starts approving 2007 PD cases! Even worst, due to the every category 'C', may be 2008, 2009 (when it arrives) people start applying I-485 as well, and USCIS continues to consume all the visa numbers to to approve the cases of these lucky bas*$%^&ds (no offence!) with most recent PDs. How does this help you or me with older PDs waitin for years and years ! :(
even with recapture
- the visa numbers are not unlimited
- the processing power of USCIS is not unlimited
But
- The capability of USCIS to screw up at every opportunity seems to be unlimited
- And the number of lucky bas*$%^&ds who get approved despite newest PDs seem to be unlimited too :)
So , think visa recapture alone wont solve anything. We have to make USCIS accountable. Make them process cases fairly. Make them respect PDs.
more...
pictures Trendy Sexy Emo Girls
ItIsNotFunny
03-12 03:24 PM
We cannot expect core members to be online all the time, and we cannot expect to see lobbying related information unless a bill actually comes out. I think what we CAN do is keep the average members like me who want to do something, engaged with things that are within reach.
FOIA campaign was a great example of this.
However, I am very sad to report that only 3 other members from Texas Chapter participated.
I consider FOIA is a multifold success. Not only we achieved milestone 1 of $5K, we were successful enough to wake up members to do something after long time. Why do you think the very same members were sleeping? I don't believe IV Core was not doing anything in last few months but members always felt that there is no plan of action from IV. There is nothing worst could happen to us just by disclosing our plan of actions in controlled way like:
1. <<ABC>> is preparing document for final data information.
2. <<XYZ>> is evaluating other options how we could retrieve this information.
3. <<DEF>> is understanding how FOIA works and how long it will take us to get data and what will be the best option to get it earlier.
4. <<MMM>> is working on funding drive for this.
There is no reason to hide even this kind of information. But if we do this, members understand what we are doing at high level.
My 2 cents.
FOIA campaign was a great example of this.
However, I am very sad to report that only 3 other members from Texas Chapter participated.
I consider FOIA is a multifold success. Not only we achieved milestone 1 of $5K, we were successful enough to wake up members to do something after long time. Why do you think the very same members were sleeping? I don't believe IV Core was not doing anything in last few months but members always felt that there is no plan of action from IV. There is nothing worst could happen to us just by disclosing our plan of actions in controlled way like:
1. <<ABC>> is preparing document for final data information.
2. <<XYZ>> is evaluating other options how we could retrieve this information.
3. <<DEF>> is understanding how FOIA works and how long it will take us to get data and what will be the best option to get it earlier.
4. <<MMM>> is working on funding drive for this.
There is no reason to hide even this kind of information. But if we do this, members understand what we are doing at high level.
My 2 cents.
dresses Tagged with: Emo Hairstyles
anurakt
01-03 04:07 PM
I really envy all of you guys who can return to your country. I have been here 8+ years and I am 53. My country does not even give me a passport and in top of that I am stuck in the namecheck black hole.
andy
You can come to our country :D :D :D food for thought .... I am sure you can get a work permit and citizenship very easily :D :D
andy
You can come to our country :D :D :D food for thought .... I am sure you can get a work permit and citizenship very easily :D :D
more...
makeup /Emo-Girls-Emo-Hairstyles/
ilikekilo
10-22 09:11 AM
I understand what you say but interpretation differs from IO to IO. It still goes to chances....
Hey, tx for the PM, I sent the email, do we need to send a letter too?>
Hey, tx for the PM, I sent the email, do we need to send a letter too?>
girlfriend Girls Hairstyles
satishku_2000
02-08 04:18 PM
Guys
Any one got a chance to look at the statistics of BECS, I read only 33% of the applications are certified so far . I think its a good thing ..
Any one got a chance to look at the statistics of BECS, I read only 33% of the applications are certified so far . I think its a good thing ..
hairstyles hot emo girl hairstyles.
ragz4u
03-16 03:29 PM
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today reached agreement on proposals for a new guest-worker program and a plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to become permanent residents.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
alanoconnor
01-23 06:16 AM
pd dec 03
rir
case "in process"
rir
case "in process"
sam2006
09-12 11:12 PM
Done
Changed the Equation
Changed the Equation
No comments:
Post a Comment