.jpg "amor es caricaturas. amor, arte, caricaturas; amor, arte, caricaturas")
loudobbs
10-09 05:40 PM
This is very useful information. So it is the Job Classification code that is important right??
I agree - the post is a little erroneous. I'll try change it.
Cant change the thread title ... Sorry
I agree - the post is a little erroneous. I'll try change it.
Cant change the thread title ... Sorry
wallpaper amor es caricaturas. amor, arte, caricaturas; amor, arte, caricaturas
gcdreamer05
01-29 11:57 AM
Oh yeah, we are demainding an RFE (request for evidence) to substantiate this gossip....
sanan
05-22 11:39 AM
huh?
EAD is Employment Authorization Document. It can filed with your I 485, it has nothing to do with 485 pending for 6 months! Where are you getting such info from?
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
EAD is Employment Authorization Document. It can filed with your I 485, it has nothing to do with 485 pending for 6 months! Where are you getting such info from?
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
2011 imagenes d caricaturas; amor es caricaturas. caricaturas de zombies zum
indyanguy
12-18 08:15 PM
Gurus,
Which is more reliable / popular, scottrade.com OR scottradeR.com ?
scottrade.com
Which is more reliable / popular, scottrade.com OR scottradeR.com ?
scottrade.com
more...
cram
08-23 09:55 PM
bumping^^^^^
hoolahoous
09-15 06:23 PM
How about making it standard format. That will make it easy for admins/reporters to sum it up. For e.g. millions of dollars per year paid as taxes by people stuck in GC queue will make a good impact. And so would the average amount of years a person has to wait to get GC. So format could be
1) Name
2) Picture(s)
3) Average Tax paid per year
4) Years in US
5) Years waited for GC
6) Number of US citizen kids (with age)
7) --Optional-- Approximate amount paid to USCIS (H1b fee x number of times ported/extended + Labor cost + I140 Cost + I485 cost + Repeated EAD/AP cost) -- I myself have over 7 H1b stamps, two labors, one I-140 , 2 I-485 and 4 EAD/AP.
8) Personal Story (nothing more captures the attention of reporters than a dramatic story) dealing with USCIS (then INS)
Feel free to improve on it.
1) Name
2) Picture(s)
3) Average Tax paid per year
4) Years in US
5) Years waited for GC
6) Number of US citizen kids (with age)
7) --Optional-- Approximate amount paid to USCIS (H1b fee x number of times ported/extended + Labor cost + I140 Cost + I485 cost + Repeated EAD/AP cost) -- I myself have over 7 H1b stamps, two labors, one I-140 , 2 I-485 and 4 EAD/AP.
8) Personal Story (nothing more captures the attention of reporters than a dramatic story) dealing with USCIS (then INS)
Feel free to improve on it.
more...
monikainusa
03-22 09:46 AM
Sorry for any confusion. Here are the details :
My husband is on H1B visa and he is in US from past 4 years. I am on H-4 Visa and was in USA from past 2 years. We got extension in 2009 for another 3 years for H1 and H4. My husband stays in US but I came back to India for vacation. I appeared for H-4 visa stamping in US consulate in Delhi. After long wait they denied my H4 visa. My question is:
1) what are the options for me
2) Do they revoke my husband I797 H1 who is in US
3) What I have to do ..like appeal ..new petition..
Please advise..
My husband is on H1B visa and he is in US from past 4 years. I am on H-4 Visa and was in USA from past 2 years. We got extension in 2009 for another 3 years for H1 and H4. My husband stays in US but I came back to India for vacation. I appeared for H-4 visa stamping in US consulate in Delhi. After long wait they denied my H4 visa. My question is:
1) what are the options for me
2) Do they revoke my husband I797 H1 who is in US
3) What I have to do ..like appeal ..new petition..
Please advise..
2010 caricaturas de zombies zum; amor es caricaturas. ver las caricaturas de los
gcloner
03-28 02:46 AM
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
more...
EndlessWait
01-10 04:45 PM
So, this would mean anyone stuck in name check should never receive FP--correct? I don't think that's the case...i know of a lot of people who get FP notices every 15 (or is it 18?) months or so and are stuck in name checks forever.
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
just exactly what ur case status says ...mine hasn't changed ever since it transferred to nebraska..it still says "the case has been transferred to NSC becoz they've jurisdiction over it etc. etc '
thanks
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
just exactly what ur case status says ...mine hasn't changed ever since it transferred to nebraska..it still says "the case has been transferred to NSC becoz they've jurisdiction over it etc. etc '
thanks
hair ver caricaturas detunis Home; amor es caricaturas. La foto y la caricatura.
ingegarcia
04-17 09:08 AM
Hi All,
I am an aspiring US immigrant, and currently work with a desi-like employer who has not been paying me for last 3 months. I have resigned and started working at a new employer, using portability options. I will also contact DOL and report this to get my money back, however, DOL may not be able to recover it if the employer files for bankruptcy. I donot care much about money now, as its not too much and my new job increment covers it.
Here are my questions
1) Is there a way i can report this misdoing to USCIS directly. Is there any phone number/contact info to report frauds on I-140s and I-485s as he is holding some employees hostage (not allowing them to move out because of this situation where your money is stuck and so is your immigration).
2) What else should i do to make this injustice visible? I will work with DOl and get my money back.
3) I am thinking of reporting this directly to the I-140 processing centers. Is this is a good idea?
PK
My guess would be to report it with Labor Department instead...
I am an aspiring US immigrant, and currently work with a desi-like employer who has not been paying me for last 3 months. I have resigned and started working at a new employer, using portability options. I will also contact DOL and report this to get my money back, however, DOL may not be able to recover it if the employer files for bankruptcy. I donot care much about money now, as its not too much and my new job increment covers it.
Here are my questions
1) Is there a way i can report this misdoing to USCIS directly. Is there any phone number/contact info to report frauds on I-140s and I-485s as he is holding some employees hostage (not allowing them to move out because of this situation where your money is stuck and so is your immigration).
2) What else should i do to make this injustice visible? I will work with DOl and get my money back.
3) I am thinking of reporting this directly to the I-140 processing centers. Is this is a good idea?
PK
My guess would be to report it with Labor Department instead...
more...
yabadaba
10-31 12:25 PM
ita....google is ur friend
just type in chennai consulate
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/
just type in chennai consulate
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/
hot Reptilianos en caricaturas; amor es caricaturas. imagenes d caricaturas
ramus
06-03 02:52 PM
You can call or send email with your personalized message.
What do you think?
Though I sent webfaxes, But I am not very convinced.
Its same text in every fax. Its not personalized.
For senatores it will be a spam kind of thing. So many faxes with just different name but same text.
I am not also happy about language. Its not very effective!!!
What do you think?
Though I sent webfaxes, But I am not very convinced.
Its same text in every fax. Its not personalized.
For senatores it will be a spam kind of thing. So many faxes with just different name but same text.
I am not also happy about language. Its not very effective!!!
more...
house ~Caricaturas famosas cojiendo; amor es caricaturas. Jirafa+caricatura
answers_seeker
09-07 09:49 AM
What do u think big companies who cannot sponsor L1 ( have to be with the firm for atleast an year ) do in situations like this.
They sponsor H1 and send them to work here on shorter / longer durations.
So in your case, though you are technically working for ABC, Canada you are still working for ABC per se. This means your visits to the US on your valid H1b will have to be on your company's business.
The catch here is that..at the end of your gc process road, you should be employed by ABC in US. So plan on coming back by that time..
They sponsor H1 and send them to work here on shorter / longer durations.
So in your case, though you are technically working for ABC, Canada you are still working for ABC per se. This means your visits to the US on your valid H1b will have to be on your company's business.
The catch here is that..at the end of your gc process road, you should be employed by ABC in US. So plan on coming back by that time..
tattoo de amor y de amistad.
Euclid
02-11 02:11 PM
Hi,
My OPT was approved and I received the approval notice. But the card itself
has been lost in mail. I have applied for a replacement card.
I am aware of something called the "I-9 receipt rule" wherein the receipt for
the replacement of a lost document can be used in place of the document itself
for a period of 90 days.
Does this apply to my case? In other words, can I use the receipt of the replacement
request to work for upto 90 days?
Thanks in advance!
PS: I am aware that I cannot start working based on the approval notice itself.
My OPT was approved and I received the approval notice. But the card itself
has been lost in mail. I have applied for a replacement card.
I am aware of something called the "I-9 receipt rule" wherein the receipt for
the replacement of a lost document can be used in place of the document itself
for a period of 90 days.
Does this apply to my case? In other words, can I use the receipt of the replacement
request to work for upto 90 days?
Thanks in advance!
PS: I am aware that I cannot start working based on the approval notice itself.
more...
pictures Un regalo de amor y amistad
immigrationmatters30
06-14 12:43 PM
Sorry to say this but there are very few memebers on this forum without EAD. I think this website existed for a while but only came to life when dates became current in 2007. You can notice that most memebers here are with EAD when you see the number responses you get for EAD/AP related threads Vs H1B. Open an H1B thread and notice how quick that gets buried. But that will soon change, when most memebers with EAD get their green card they will hopefully be replaced by newer, non-EAD memebers and then we will have one united community(H1B, non-EAD,temporary workers). FYI, no EAD for me as well.
dresses amor es caricaturas. Caricatura de Guillermo Amor
virginia_desi
05-15 11:12 AM
I agree that we need to add a poll on how many are already waiting for adjudication in I-485. This will give a better understanding of visa dates will move going forward. I am sure state dept doesn't expect people applying in June to get their GC anytime before 2008.
more...
makeup solo veo caricaturas y las
leo2606
12-22 12:56 PM
now I got it, 'sweet23guyin'
Please contribute to IV.
Please contribute to IV.
girlfriend 17 caricatura fotomontaje 11; amor es caricaturas. dar Lasheidi caricaturas
GC4US
03-23 12:21 AM
Could someone tell me please.....I'm filling the application for advance parole the first time......what should I write where it is written: " Date of intended departure"...if I dont know exactly when I'm leaving....should I write a date or should I write " I dont know yet?"
And also I read that the documents required are 2 photos, I-485 receipt notice, I-140 approval notice.....is that right? or what other documents do I need?
I would highly appreciate your help!
Thnaks in advance!
And also I read that the documents required are 2 photos, I-485 receipt notice, I-140 approval notice.....is that right? or what other documents do I need?
I would highly appreciate your help!
Thnaks in advance!
hairstyles solo veo caricaturas y las; amor es caricaturas. Caricaturas; Caricaturas
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
rjgleason
June 4th, 2004, 08:40 PM
Who remembers "The Prisoner"?
Patrick McGoohan............Number 6...........The Village.........mid 60's I think.
Patrick McGoohan............Number 6...........The Village.........mid 60's I think.
mhathi
08-22 11:04 AM
Did you efile or paper-file? Most of the E-filed applications are taking ~90 days to get to Card Production Ordered (CPO) status. Mine took exactly ninety days.
Did you know that you can make cash by locking premium sections of your blog or site?
ReplyDeleteSimply open an account with AdscendMedia and run their content locking tool.