wandmaker
02-16 12:58 PM
Hi Everyone,
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
For Q1, Please call 1-866-487-2365
For Q2, Please call 1-800-375-5283
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
For Q1, Please call 1-866-487-2365
For Q2, Please call 1-800-375-5283
wallpaper 2011 pictures Selena Gomez
vdlrao
06-01 09:26 PM
labor certificate for gc application and LCA for H1 are two different things. labor certificate for gc application is for a future job and employer is certifying that they will pay you per gc labor certificate once you get your gc and has nothing to do with h1 LCA.
really good information.
really good information.
Joey Foley
May 17th, 2005, 06:55 AM
There are several spots in the Indy area where you can get such a perspective. One with easy access is high atop Crown Hill cemetary (i.e., the James Whitcomb Riley hilltop gravesite). Sunrise or sunset would be your best bet unless you hit on a really crystal-clear day with no midday haze. You might find something close to what you are after around 16th and Georgetown road, too ;)
Awesome idea!
Anymore idea anyone while I'm out and about on my day off?;)
Awesome idea!
Anymore idea anyone while I'm out and about on my day off?;)
2011 a tall fringe boot,
ivy55
08-19 09:52 AM
I got my first FP on July 31 2008- code 2 after waiting one year. Then on Aug 16, I got another FP for Code 1. no LUD yet
Thanks
Thanks
more...
HOPE_GC_SOON
05-04 10:49 AM
Hi Immi2006:
thanks for the update and analysis. But My 140 is approved in less than 20 days.. I donot work for MNC. Work for an American owned Company. Not sure, how much time it would take to reach 10/05 priority date for eb2.
Let us hope for the best.. :rolleyes:
Thanks,:)
THose are labour filed.
It is difficult to pull the 140 stats for the same labour. But I did a rough data extract from immigration.com based on what folks have mentioned, it seems like 140 is taking 8 months average presently, RFEs are in 40 % of cases, and also approved 140 seems to be like around 2000 in total for EB2, and EB3 categories for 2005 filings.. which means large numbers are still pending in Texas or Folks have not updated their data.
One thing that emerges clear from the data pattern :
Presently EB2 turn around time for Perm is approx 26 days, EB3 is 41 days average.
140 for EB2 from a MNC = 6 months, 140 for EB2 from a small company 8 months avg.
thanks for the update and analysis. But My 140 is approved in less than 20 days.. I donot work for MNC. Work for an American owned Company. Not sure, how much time it would take to reach 10/05 priority date for eb2.
Let us hope for the best.. :rolleyes:
Thanks,:)
THose are labour filed.
It is difficult to pull the 140 stats for the same labour. But I did a rough data extract from immigration.com based on what folks have mentioned, it seems like 140 is taking 8 months average presently, RFEs are in 40 % of cases, and also approved 140 seems to be like around 2000 in total for EB2, and EB3 categories for 2005 filings.. which means large numbers are still pending in Texas or Folks have not updated their data.
One thing that emerges clear from the data pattern :
Presently EB2 turn around time for Perm is approx 26 days, EB3 is 41 days average.
140 for EB2 from a MNC = 6 months, 140 for EB2 from a small company 8 months avg.
nozerd
09-07 10:09 AM
For LI you need to have worked with foreign company for at least 1 yr. I have worked for ABC USA for 7 yrs but not ABC Canada yet. I think for L1 I should work for ABC Canada for more than 1 yr.
Also when is the next lawyers call ? The last one it says was scheduled for 9/1 and its transcript is not posted. I would like to put this question to the lawyer.
Also when is the next lawyers call ? The last one it says was scheduled for 9/1 and its transcript is not posted. I would like to put this question to the lawyer.
more...
fide_champ
03-14 02:10 PM
hello,
My mother has 10 yr multiple entry visa. She is planning to travel from Bangalore India to USA through Lufthansa Airways. She has a stop over at Frankfurt airport for about 3 hrs. Does she need to get a transit visa for that. Any recent experience or suggestion? Thanks.
If you have a valid US/Canada visa stamp, then you do not need a transit visa for Germany.
My mother has 10 yr multiple entry visa. She is planning to travel from Bangalore India to USA through Lufthansa Airways. She has a stop over at Frankfurt airport for about 3 hrs. Does she need to get a transit visa for that. Any recent experience or suggestion? Thanks.
If you have a valid US/Canada visa stamp, then you do not need a transit visa for Germany.
2010 selena gomez fringe bangs.
hary536
05-19 03:17 PM
Hello Pappu, can you please move this post to the "Ask a Lawyer" forum. I intended to post it under that forum. But i think due to duplication you moved it to the other forum. Pls, post it to Attorney forum. I really need some advise in this case. Thanks.
more...
bbenhill
04-08 12:48 PM
I filed paper last year by myself (no additional $150) ... it's really easy .. only filled some basic questions .. I like paper because all my documents will be on the same envelope :D
online filing you still need to send some documents via mail.
will do the same this year (paper filing)..
Paper is at least $150 more (lawyer fee), but saves your visit to INS office for finger printing.
online filing you still need to send some documents via mail.
will do the same this year (paper filing)..
Paper is at least $150 more (lawyer fee), but saves your visit to INS office for finger printing.
hair selena gomez fringe bangs. hair selena gomez haircut with
GCVivek
03-23 03:06 PM
If your new I-797 came with a new I-94 attached at the bottom, you should be fine. Usually, if you renew H1-B past the expiration date, you are classified under "Consular Approval" and therefore must get H1B stamped into your passport the next time you leave and want to enter the US.
more...
peer123
04-03 04:24 PM
Hi All,
I am thinking of looking for other job options. I want to know if you any one of you have changed jobs on EAD and your experience with the whole issue.
1. Did you find have any issues when getting 485 approved.
2. Did you file AC21.
3. Does the job responsibility has to meet 100% word by word.
4. Has any one you applied for EAD extension on your own.
5. Has any one got an RFE after changing the Job on EAD and submitting AC21. if so what kind of questions do they ask.
Thanks
Peer123
I am thinking of looking for other job options. I want to know if you any one of you have changed jobs on EAD and your experience with the whole issue.
1. Did you find have any issues when getting 485 approved.
2. Did you file AC21.
3. Does the job responsibility has to meet 100% word by word.
4. Has any one you applied for EAD extension on your own.
5. Has any one got an RFE after changing the Job on EAD and submitting AC21. if so what kind of questions do they ask.
Thanks
Peer123
hot Lauren Conrad Fringe Boots.
jscris
July 15th, 2004, 03:27 PM
Those are wonderful, Anders! They should make up for quite a few days without great shots. :)
And thanks, QJ. I wish I could figure out how to make money at this. ;)
Janet
And thanks, QJ. I wish I could figure out how to make money at this. ;)
Janet
more...
house Minnetonka Fringe Boot - Tall; Minnetonka Fringe Boots. minnetonka fringe
langagadu
03-29 03:53 PM
nope
tattoo Conrad Fringe Boots.
Bezzer
09-06 08:51 PM
im not really new to photoshop...i've been using it for a couple of years...just never done a pixel stretch before.. :)
more...
pictures selena gomez fringe bangs.
dontcareanymore
07-30 04:15 AM
I liked the joke.. the title originally was: "Difficult Spouse related GC question" ;)
I will definitely consider doing that. I am just afraid that I might get my GC even before I get a chance to do a court marriage.
Thanks for the input.
I think it is time for quick action :):)
I agree with the above poster, that was my first impression as soon as i saw the title. Don't put "difficult" and "spouse" next to each other. There is only one universal meaning for that :)
At least you have a good problem , rather than rotting in various queues for a decade.
I will definitely consider doing that. I am just afraid that I might get my GC even before I get a chance to do a court marriage.
Thanks for the input.
I think it is time for quick action :):)
I agree with the above poster, that was my first impression as soon as i saw the title. Don't put "difficult" and "spouse" next to each other. There is only one universal meaning for that :)
At least you have a good problem , rather than rotting in various queues for a decade.
dresses selena gomez fringe bangs.
bluez25
08-26 02:41 PM
Hi guestforgc,
If you have applied for CP while you applied for 140 then you can do as I have described. But in case you have applied for AOS after you have applied for 140 you CP will automatically get canceled and converted to AOS. If you want to go back to CP , contact your attorney to do so since I know for sure there is a form to do that. But why are you confusing your self and confusing USCIS and making your case over complicated?
Contact your attorney and see what are your options.
If you have applied for CP while you applied for 140 then you can do as I have described. But in case you have applied for AOS after you have applied for 140 you CP will automatically get canceled and converted to AOS. If you want to go back to CP , contact your attorney to do so since I know for sure there is a form to do that. But why are you confusing your self and confusing USCIS and making your case over complicated?
Contact your attorney and see what are your options.
more...
makeup selena gomez fringe angs.
americandesi
08-11 05:39 PM
That is not a flaw in the system and in the USCIS manual, they know it. Since the previous I-140 is already approved and you've stayed more than 6 months in that I-140, then there's no need for the ability to pay. USCIS is treating your case as if you already have a GC, it is just that it is pending.
If one has a GC, he can transfer to another employer. It is your risk if your new employer has not the ability to pay you. The same is true with portability, USCIS doesn't care anymore if you transfer to an employer with no ability to pay you because the first I-140 is already approved and you worked for it already. They are concerned now about your I-485 (AOS) and your qualifications under it.
What you say holds good only if employer A had already paid the proffered wage during those 6 months.
Suppose employer A is currently paying 70K and the wage for the proposed GC position is 80K and if employer A is able to prove that his Net Income or Net Assets is >=80K then it’s sufficient to prove ability to pay. In such a case, he is bound to pay 80K only after I-485 approval.
Going by above, the employee wasn’t paid 80K at anytime. Even then, USCIS approves his I-485 if he is able to provide an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A, though the abilty to pay 80K by employer C is in question.
If one has a GC, he can transfer to another employer. It is your risk if your new employer has not the ability to pay you. The same is true with portability, USCIS doesn't care anymore if you transfer to an employer with no ability to pay you because the first I-140 is already approved and you worked for it already. They are concerned now about your I-485 (AOS) and your qualifications under it.
What you say holds good only if employer A had already paid the proffered wage during those 6 months.
Suppose employer A is currently paying 70K and the wage for the proposed GC position is 80K and if employer A is able to prove that his Net Income or Net Assets is >=80K then it’s sufficient to prove ability to pay. In such a case, he is bound to pay 80K only after I-485 approval.
Going by above, the employee wasn’t paid 80K at anytime. Even then, USCIS approves his I-485 if he is able to provide an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A, though the abilty to pay 80K by employer C is in question.
girlfriend Selena Gomez Fringe Bangs
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
hairstyles LOVES ALEXANDER WANG BOOTS
waitingGC
03-14 12:07 PM
.
JunRN
12-28 06:22 AM
I can see it in my browser. Good news for NSC as most of the dates moved significantly. Expecting to get news on my I-140 by May 2008 or earlier.
hemya
12-10 11:44 AM
any suggestions if 140 is not approved?
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
No comments:
Post a Comment