bathuzp
11-10 10:39 AM
Hi All,
I had worked for a company from Feb 2006 to Feb 2007 on an H-1B visa. I had applied for an H-1B extension via that company as their software engineer. I was granted that extension. After Feb 2007, i started working at a different company.
I applied for an H1B transfer as a software engineer with my current employer on Nov 27th 2006 through a law firm in Michigan. And last year my current company applied for my GC process in October 2009 under EB2 CATEGORY but with the same designation software engineer [level 2 as suggested by our lawyer] .I obtained a Master’s of Science in Management Information Systems from (University of Illinois at Springfield) in 2008 .I received my I-140 delivery notice in July 2010 stating that they have received his I-140 and it is now in process. I also received an approval on I-131 and I-765 just 2 weeks ago, I got a notice asking me and my wife to go for the biometrics test. Moreover, yesterday i.e. Nov 9th ,I received the EAD card for both me and my wife but unfortunately the very same day I get this Notice of Intent to Deny for I-140 requesting for evidence .
The notice states:
"……..The record contains a form ETA 9089 received by the department of labor on October 2009, thereby establishing a priority date in this matter. The petitioner certified in part H of that form that the proffered position is that of a "Software Engineer" and that the minimum level of education required to enter into that position is a Master's in Computer Science, Management Information Systems, Information Technology.
However the beneficiary also filed a form I-129, Petition for a non-immigrant worker in November 2006 (when i was working for the previous company) as a "Software Engineer". It is noted that the beneficiary did not have a master's degree at that time.
If the beneficiary entered into that H1B employment as a software engineer without a master's degree, the labor certificate will be invalidated since the master's level of education was not a minimum requirement. Please submit the evidence that the beneficiary obtained a master's degree prior to starting work for the petitioner as a software engineer.
The petition may be denied based on the above information. However u r hereby granted 30 days from the date of this letter to submit to this office a written rebuttal to the adverse information."
Also please note that we recently applied for my H1B extension as a programmer analyst as our lawyer had applied with this designation last year.
Now here my questions:
1. I applied for my H1B transfer with my current employer as Software engineer in 2006; I got my masters degree in Dec 2008. After consulting with my lawyer I filed for my GC in EB2 category as Software Engineer level 2 in Oct 2009. Now based on this why do you think we got this RFE? Is this a matter of concern or can it be a mistake? How can we resolve this?
2. The USCIS has asked me to provide evidence of my masters degree in 2006, but that is not true, I received it in 2008, what I have to prove is that my new job requires me to have my masters degree. But how do I do that since my work title is still just a software engineer but level 2 and in my organization level 2 software engineer requires masters degree?!!!
3. What is the worst case scenario? Is there a possibility that my I-140 will be rejected? What should my next step be then?
4. What will happen to all my approved forms (I-131 and I-765). Will they automatically get rejected too if my I-140 is denied?
5. Has anybody else had a similar case like mine? If yes, Please post your case out-comings on this thread.
6. What will happen to my EAD card? Can I change my status to EAD now or should I just wait?
7. Also we applied for H-1B extension as a different designation [Programmer Analyst]. So will that affect my GC process?
We have 30 DAYS to respond to this RFE. If u have any suggestions or advice Relating to my case please post them here ASAP. Please help us out on this.
I had worked for a company from Feb 2006 to Feb 2007 on an H-1B visa. I had applied for an H-1B extension via that company as their software engineer. I was granted that extension. After Feb 2007, i started working at a different company.
I applied for an H1B transfer as a software engineer with my current employer on Nov 27th 2006 through a law firm in Michigan. And last year my current company applied for my GC process in October 2009 under EB2 CATEGORY but with the same designation software engineer [level 2 as suggested by our lawyer] .I obtained a Master’s of Science in Management Information Systems from (University of Illinois at Springfield) in 2008 .I received my I-140 delivery notice in July 2010 stating that they have received his I-140 and it is now in process. I also received an approval on I-131 and I-765 just 2 weeks ago, I got a notice asking me and my wife to go for the biometrics test. Moreover, yesterday i.e. Nov 9th ,I received the EAD card for both me and my wife but unfortunately the very same day I get this Notice of Intent to Deny for I-140 requesting for evidence .
The notice states:
"……..The record contains a form ETA 9089 received by the department of labor on October 2009, thereby establishing a priority date in this matter. The petitioner certified in part H of that form that the proffered position is that of a "Software Engineer" and that the minimum level of education required to enter into that position is a Master's in Computer Science, Management Information Systems, Information Technology.
However the beneficiary also filed a form I-129, Petition for a non-immigrant worker in November 2006 (when i was working for the previous company) as a "Software Engineer". It is noted that the beneficiary did not have a master's degree at that time.
If the beneficiary entered into that H1B employment as a software engineer without a master's degree, the labor certificate will be invalidated since the master's level of education was not a minimum requirement. Please submit the evidence that the beneficiary obtained a master's degree prior to starting work for the petitioner as a software engineer.
The petition may be denied based on the above information. However u r hereby granted 30 days from the date of this letter to submit to this office a written rebuttal to the adverse information."
Also please note that we recently applied for my H1B extension as a programmer analyst as our lawyer had applied with this designation last year.
Now here my questions:
1. I applied for my H1B transfer with my current employer as Software engineer in 2006; I got my masters degree in Dec 2008. After consulting with my lawyer I filed for my GC in EB2 category as Software Engineer level 2 in Oct 2009. Now based on this why do you think we got this RFE? Is this a matter of concern or can it be a mistake? How can we resolve this?
2. The USCIS has asked me to provide evidence of my masters degree in 2006, but that is not true, I received it in 2008, what I have to prove is that my new job requires me to have my masters degree. But how do I do that since my work title is still just a software engineer but level 2 and in my organization level 2 software engineer requires masters degree?!!!
3. What is the worst case scenario? Is there a possibility that my I-140 will be rejected? What should my next step be then?
4. What will happen to all my approved forms (I-131 and I-765). Will they automatically get rejected too if my I-140 is denied?
5. Has anybody else had a similar case like mine? If yes, Please post your case out-comings on this thread.
6. What will happen to my EAD card? Can I change my status to EAD now or should I just wait?
7. Also we applied for H-1B extension as a different designation [Programmer Analyst]. So will that affect my GC process?
We have 30 DAYS to respond to this RFE. If u have any suggestions or advice Relating to my case please post them here ASAP. Please help us out on this.
wallpaper GTA 4 is the best example
whiteStallion
10-13 02:26 PM
I got the 140 denial notice.
The USCIS did not mentioned any reason like my valid labour is expired.Not sure is the denial is because of 180 day rule or not.
Here is the reason...
The petitioner did not submit an individual labour certification for the beneficiary or evidence of schedule A designation.As such, the beneficiary is ineligible for classification as a member of the preofessions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability.
I think the first line "The petitioner did not submit an individual labour certification for the beneficiary..." is relevant to your suspicion of an expired labor. It effectively says that there are no valid labor certification against your I140 application, which means that the Labor certification you filed your I140 against, is not valid anymore.
Please restart your Labor again, ASAP.
The USCIS did not mentioned any reason like my valid labour is expired.Not sure is the denial is because of 180 day rule or not.
Here is the reason...
The petitioner did not submit an individual labour certification for the beneficiary or evidence of schedule A designation.As such, the beneficiary is ineligible for classification as a member of the preofessions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability.
I think the first line "The petitioner did not submit an individual labour certification for the beneficiary..." is relevant to your suspicion of an expired labor. It effectively says that there are no valid labor certification against your I140 application, which means that the Labor certification you filed your I140 against, is not valid anymore.
Please restart your Labor again, ASAP.
TomPlate
02-03 02:54 PM
I am going to travel to India.
I am in H1B and have valid Advanced Parole and expired EAD.
What are the documents needed for Advanced Parole in Port Of Entry. Also my lawyer is going to file the EAD this week.
1. 485 Receipt Notice.
2. Copy of 140 Approval Notice.
3. Employment Verification Letter.
Anything else? Please let me know.
I am in H1B and have valid Advanced Parole and expired EAD.
What are the documents needed for Advanced Parole in Port Of Entry. Also my lawyer is going to file the EAD this week.
1. 485 Receipt Notice.
2. Copy of 140 Approval Notice.
3. Employment Verification Letter.
Anything else? Please let me know.
2011 Tags: GTA4 GTAIV
imm_pro
06-11 12:55 AM
This will be useful if you filed your labor after the end of 5th year and the 140
is still pending at the end of the 6th year.
is still pending at the end of the 6th year.
more...
raju6855
02-02 08:31 AM
Its been over 3 weeks since my wife have H4 interview and the passport is still under "admin processing". This week her AP came and I have mailed it to her and now we want to get the passport back and travel on AP.
Now if anyone knows or done the process of getting the passport back from Delhi Consulate, can they please explain?
Thx
Now if anyone knows or done the process of getting the passport back from Delhi Consulate, can they please explain?
Thx
nrakkati
08-15 01:52 PM
was it send to nebraska or texas ?
Nebraska.
Nebraska.
more...
texcan
02-16 12:51 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
i somehow donot believe this guy....sounds fishy....
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
i somehow donot believe this guy....sounds fishy....
2010 GTA IV Player Mods - Niko with
need_EAD
05-18 02:56 PM
Nandini Nair's fees are very less and I got my PERM LC (in EB2) & I-140 approved through her without any questions. Real quick response!
She was a weekly columnist for Express Computer on immigration topics.
nnair@nair-law.com
www.nairlaw.com
She was a weekly columnist for Express Computer on immigration topics.
nnair@nair-law.com
www.nairlaw.com
more...
gotgc?
02-03 10:45 AM
Hi All,
I am planning to travel to India via London, UK. I am trying to see if it requires a transit Visa.
I am on H1B/AOS status but without valid visa stamp and travelling with Advance Parole. I have checked the UK Consulate page UK Border Agency | Who is exempt from having to hold a direct airside transit visa? (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/travellingtotheuk/transitthroughtheuk/transitdocuments/exempt/) it mentions that Indian passport holders needs a transit visa but with following exemptions;
one of them is a a valid Canadian Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 28th June 2002; Since I hold canadian permanent resident card, is it ok I can travel without UK transit Visa through UK? Based on this page, I thought so, but my travel agent said to double check eventhough I have a canadian permanent resident card, I am travelling to and from USA. Has any one done this before - travelled with canadian PR to/from USA through UK? Whom should I confirm with?
Passengers exempt from the DATV requirement
Holders of certain documents are, regardless of nationality, exempt from the requirement to hold a Direct Airside Transit Visa when transiting the UK.
A transit passenger is not required to hold a transit visa if he holds, or a person with whom he arrives in the United Kingdom holds on his behalf:
a valid visa for entry to Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America and a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from another country or territory to the country for which the visa is held;
a valid visa for entry to Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America and a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from the country for which the visa is held to another country or territory;
a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America to another country or territory, provided that the transit passenger does not seek to transit the United Kingdom on a date more than six months from the date on which they last entered Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America with a valid visa for entry to that country;
a valid USA I-551 Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 21st April 1998;
a valid Canadian Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 28th June 2002;
a valid common format Category D visa for entry to an EEA State;
a valid common format residence permit issued by an EEA State pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 1030/2002;
a diplomatic or service passport issued by the People�s Republic of China; or
a diplomatic or official passport issued by India; or
a diplomatic or official passport issued by Vietnam.
Notes:
A valid U.S. immigrant visa packet (form 155A/155B) is a valid visa for DATV exemption purposes.
An expired I-551 Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 21 April 1998 when accompanied by an I-797 letter issued by the Bureau of Citizenship authorising its extension, exempts the holder from the DATV requirement.
Holding either an I-512 Parole letter or an I-797C (Notice of Action) instead of a valid U.S. visa; or a Transportation Letter instead of a valid U.S. Permanent Residence Card issued on or after 21 April 1998; or a U.S Visa Foil endorsed, "NOT A VISA. FOIL PREPARED AT DHS REQUEST" does NOT qualify for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Holding a valid travel document with a U.S. ADIT stamp worded � �Processed for I-551. TEMPORARY EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE VALID UNTIL�. EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED� does NOT qualify for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Whether holders of non-national (including refugee travel documents) require a DATV depends on their nationality and whether they qualify for one of the exemptions listed above. So, for instance, the holder of a non-national travel document (for example, a refugee travel document) who is a national or a citizen of one of the countries listed on the DATV list (for example, Afghanistan) will require a direct airside transit visa if they are travelling to the UK to transit on to a third country.
I am planning to travel to India via London, UK. I am trying to see if it requires a transit Visa.
I am on H1B/AOS status but without valid visa stamp and travelling with Advance Parole. I have checked the UK Consulate page UK Border Agency | Who is exempt from having to hold a direct airside transit visa? (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/travellingtotheuk/transitthroughtheuk/transitdocuments/exempt/) it mentions that Indian passport holders needs a transit visa but with following exemptions;
one of them is a a valid Canadian Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 28th June 2002; Since I hold canadian permanent resident card, is it ok I can travel without UK transit Visa through UK? Based on this page, I thought so, but my travel agent said to double check eventhough I have a canadian permanent resident card, I am travelling to and from USA. Has any one done this before - travelled with canadian PR to/from USA through UK? Whom should I confirm with?
Passengers exempt from the DATV requirement
Holders of certain documents are, regardless of nationality, exempt from the requirement to hold a Direct Airside Transit Visa when transiting the UK.
A transit passenger is not required to hold a transit visa if he holds, or a person with whom he arrives in the United Kingdom holds on his behalf:
a valid visa for entry to Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America and a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from another country or territory to the country for which the visa is held;
a valid visa for entry to Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America and a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from the country for which the visa is held to another country or territory;
a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America to another country or territory, provided that the transit passenger does not seek to transit the United Kingdom on a date more than six months from the date on which they last entered Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America with a valid visa for entry to that country;
a valid USA I-551 Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 21st April 1998;
a valid Canadian Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 28th June 2002;
a valid common format Category D visa for entry to an EEA State;
a valid common format residence permit issued by an EEA State pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 1030/2002;
a diplomatic or service passport issued by the People�s Republic of China; or
a diplomatic or official passport issued by India; or
a diplomatic or official passport issued by Vietnam.
Notes:
A valid U.S. immigrant visa packet (form 155A/155B) is a valid visa for DATV exemption purposes.
An expired I-551 Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 21 April 1998 when accompanied by an I-797 letter issued by the Bureau of Citizenship authorising its extension, exempts the holder from the DATV requirement.
Holding either an I-512 Parole letter or an I-797C (Notice of Action) instead of a valid U.S. visa; or a Transportation Letter instead of a valid U.S. Permanent Residence Card issued on or after 21 April 1998; or a U.S Visa Foil endorsed, "NOT A VISA. FOIL PREPARED AT DHS REQUEST" does NOT qualify for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Holding a valid travel document with a U.S. ADIT stamp worded � �Processed for I-551. TEMPORARY EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE VALID UNTIL�. EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED� does NOT qualify for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Whether holders of non-national (including refugee travel documents) require a DATV depends on their nationality and whether they qualify for one of the exemptions listed above. So, for instance, the holder of a non-national travel document (for example, a refugee travel document) who is a national or a citizen of one of the countries listed on the DATV list (for example, Afghanistan) will require a direct airside transit visa if they are travelling to the UK to transit on to a third country.
hair Grand Theft Auto IV for PC
vcurichmond
08-21 12:35 PM
JULY 19th Filer Checks got encashed.
My I-485 checks got encashed on August 20, 2007. I filed at NSC.
VCURich
My I-485 checks got encashed on August 20, 2007. I filed at NSC.
VCURich
more...
Thiru
09-22 08:51 PM
My AP was approved on Sep2. Still awaiting the AP in mail.
Which Service Center TSC or NSC????
Which Service Center TSC or NSC????
hot Filed under: GTA IV Leave
ragz4u
05-09 02:04 PM
Anyone from Philly interested to car pool?
more...
house I am f*#king addicted to GTA 4
JunRN
05-16 02:55 PM
My friend is in the I-140 stage of green card processing
She needs to choose between Counselor Processing or I485
Which one is better Counselor Processing or I485 ?
Your feedback is greatly appreciated
It is easier to convert from Consular Processing to Adjustment of Status (i-485) than the other way around. So, she can choose Consular Processing for now if PD is not current and then, once PD becomes current and she's still here in US, she can submit I-485.
She needs to choose between Counselor Processing or I485
Which one is better Counselor Processing or I485 ?
Your feedback is greatly appreciated
It is easier to convert from Consular Processing to Adjustment of Status (i-485) than the other way around. So, she can choose Consular Processing for now if PD is not current and then, once PD becomes current and she's still here in US, she can submit I-485.
tattoo Niko Vs Memati
ashkam
04-02 10:46 AM
you dont have to marry. just remain as illegal and they will GC sooner.
I know you're kidding, but I don't think Mr Sebastian knows that. It's kinda dangerous to tell him he'll get his GC by remaining illegal. Just my opinion.
I know you're kidding, but I don't think Mr Sebastian knows that. It's kinda dangerous to tell him he'll get his GC by remaining illegal. Just my opinion.
more...
pictures This is how Niko impresses the
pappu
04-09 04:12 PM
For last 48 hours, I have been spreading word in Hrderabad IT community about the latest H1-B issues & subsequent EB issues . Since recent H1-B issues has caused a lot of stirr, I am getting much better response at this time. We need members & they may be anywhere in the world. Once we have members, we will get more visibility & contribution.
SO PLEASE TRY TO SPREAD THE MESSAGE IN ALL IT COMMUNITIES IN THE WORLD ABOUT ISSUES & HOW IV IS FIGHTING THE CHALLANGE
We must have 100,000 members in a short time
Thanks
Thanks.
SO PLEASE TRY TO SPREAD THE MESSAGE IN ALL IT COMMUNITIES IN THE WORLD ABOUT ISSUES & HOW IV IS FIGHTING THE CHALLANGE
We must have 100,000 members in a short time
Thanks
Thanks.
dresses nikomunny GTA IV Niko Bellic
Bhaskar_80
06-10 04:16 PM
Mr. gnutin,
I really appreciate your help on this regard.
Thanks a lot!
I really appreciate your help on this regard.
Thanks a lot!
more...
makeup Niko Bellic (GTA IV)
kramesh_babu
08-20 03:58 PM
once and for all.. the adjudicators dont answer calls. its just cust service people...who are contractors. so if u dont call them.. all they will be doing is sitting around doing nothing.
I fully agree.
I fully agree.
girlfriend pLayday: 5/6 – GTA 4 Real, yo.
small2006
08-20 02:38 PM
I gto the same response last week. They were so adamant in denying me the info that I got frustrated and hung up on her.:mad:
hairstyles Grand Theft Auto IV – Had a
GCeffect
01-29 04:16 PM
I'm from Bangladesh and my PD is May 2006....EB3
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you�re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I�m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved��
Some help here will be highly appreciated��.thanks in advance
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you�re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I�m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved��
Some help here will be highly appreciated��.thanks in advance
eb3India
05-22 09:22 AM
Admin,
I do understand core members have fulltime job I mentioned earlier I volunteer to do some research in this subject.
However I don't want re-invent the wheel and I was expecting a very simple answers and pointers on the subject
for example, if someone had spent time on this, they could simply answer yes and provide some links etc where I get more answers.
as I write I am googling on this subject and will provide my findings
between, guys we are all in a same boat we should work collective to get out of this mess
I do understand core members have fulltime job I mentioned earlier I volunteer to do some research in this subject.
However I don't want re-invent the wheel and I was expecting a very simple answers and pointers on the subject
for example, if someone had spent time on this, they could simply answer yes and provide some links etc where I get more answers.
as I write I am googling on this subject and will provide my findings
between, guys we are all in a same boat we should work collective to get out of this mess
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
No comments:
Post a Comment