desi3933
07-09 04:42 PM
Certainty is related to belief not reality. It still means the name check was not completed. The law does not say they "when you are certain that the FBI name check can be cleared..please allot a visa."
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
wallpaper trees wallpapers, palm
raghu112
11-17 05:08 PM
I totally agree. I did that 1 month back.
Had kept new quota in octo. as deadline. No promising change there.. and I switched job to new employer.. better position, better compensation and better life.
The new employer will start GC PERM labor after 6 months. I have 140 approved from old employer. So I believe I can transfer PD whenever new employer files 140.
Cannot just wait for years waiting for PD to become current and ruin career.
Had kept new quota in octo. as deadline. No promising change there.. and I switched job to new employer.. better position, better compensation and better life.
The new employer will start GC PERM labor after 6 months. I have 140 approved from old employer. So I believe I can transfer PD whenever new employer files 140.
Cannot just wait for years waiting for PD to become current and ruin career.
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
2011 palm wallpaper.
gcdreamer05
10-20 01:31 PM
Obama or Mccain or Joe the plumber whoever becomes the next president, the bottom line is, nothing is going to happen with regards to reforms for legal immigration atleast for teh first 1-2 years. So we are all still going to keep posting in IV forums, predicting VB dates and fighting between Eb2 and Eb3..... that is really the sad reality....... because these guys have far more important issues to deal and to steer titanic america.......
more...
stucklabor
07-24 12:42 PM
It all depend how we interpret the law.
Here is the arguement by stuck labor
"INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) or may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed."
BUT
The above is applicable for adjustment of status only not for filing of 485.
Here the case in point is to argue for filing 485, not for adjusting of status even VISA numbers are not available. It is not mentioned anywhere in the act that the 485 petition cannot be filed. It is worth to give a try with USCIS. The present law does not mention anything about filing and we can take advantage of that.
The law is the law, there is no room for interpretation. We cannot file for Adjustment of Status using form I-485 without visa number availability. Remember that I-485 is the form name that you use to apply for Adjustment of Status. When you file I-485, you are filing for Adjustment of Status.
Please think through your ideas before posting them.
Just as a FYI and anticipating arguments that may arise, EAD is available by law to Adjustment of Status applicants and others - such as students on OPT etc - and the law specifically says who may get EAD.
I will not respond to any further arguments on this thread that are on the lines of "Let us get USCIS to reinterpret the law, let us file I-485 and not call it an Adjustment of Status application, let us lobby USCIS to get EADs without filing for Adjustment of Status etc".
In response to the posts by rpatel, valabor etc - there is ZERO potential in pursuing this directly with USCIS. IV will not and should not waste any time in this effort.
Here is the arguement by stuck labor
"INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) or may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed."
BUT
The above is applicable for adjustment of status only not for filing of 485.
Here the case in point is to argue for filing 485, not for adjusting of status even VISA numbers are not available. It is not mentioned anywhere in the act that the 485 petition cannot be filed. It is worth to give a try with USCIS. The present law does not mention anything about filing and we can take advantage of that.
The law is the law, there is no room for interpretation. We cannot file for Adjustment of Status using form I-485 without visa number availability. Remember that I-485 is the form name that you use to apply for Adjustment of Status. When you file I-485, you are filing for Adjustment of Status.
Please think through your ideas before posting them.
Just as a FYI and anticipating arguments that may arise, EAD is available by law to Adjustment of Status applicants and others - such as students on OPT etc - and the law specifically says who may get EAD.
I will not respond to any further arguments on this thread that are on the lines of "Let us get USCIS to reinterpret the law, let us file I-485 and not call it an Adjustment of Status application, let us lobby USCIS to get EADs without filing for Adjustment of Status etc".
In response to the posts by rpatel, valabor etc - there is ZERO potential in pursuing this directly with USCIS. IV will not and should not waste any time in this effort.
sayantan76
08-23 11:10 AM
Hi, I hope somebody helps in my dilemma.
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
i am not a lawyer -so get expert opinion.....
but the logic of L1A becoming instantly invalid for someone already in US office if the foreign office closes does not sound logical, even by USCIS standards. I would suggest taking a good 2nd opinion.
Also - if you are in L1A - you should technically qualify for EB-1 which is current for all countries and if that category applies to your situation - you would not need to go through Labor Cert - a couple of friends of mine got their GC in less than 90 days using the EB1 route.
All the best!
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
i am not a lawyer -so get expert opinion.....
but the logic of L1A becoming instantly invalid for someone already in US office if the foreign office closes does not sound logical, even by USCIS standards. I would suggest taking a good 2nd opinion.
Also - if you are in L1A - you should technically qualify for EB-1 which is current for all countries and if that category applies to your situation - you would not need to go through Labor Cert - a couple of friends of mine got their GC in less than 90 days using the EB1 route.
All the best!
more...
shahrks
02-02 03:56 PM
Just wanted to make sure that the organizers are aware that the 4/4 and 4/5 dates will fall in the middle of Cherry Blossom Festival in DC and specifically in and around the national mall. Travel and stay could get little expensive. Just wanted to make sure that this gets on to the radar. On the more positive note, lots of IV members will get a chance to visit DC during the most beautiful time of the year. Will attend anyways and will spread the word.
National Cherry Blossom Festival: The Nation's Greatest Springtime Celebration (http://www.nationalcherryblossomfestival.org/)
National Cherry Blossom Festival: The Nation's Greatest Springtime Celebration (http://www.nationalcherryblossomfestival.org/)
2010 Palm Island Wallpaper
jonty_11
07-11 04:37 PM
>>>>>>>>
more...
venkataramesh
07-02 01:14 PM
Done
hair Hammock Beach Palm Trees
EkAurAaya
09-26 10:09 AM
I sent an email too and asked the editor to contact info@immigrationvoice.org for more information on why the rally was conducted (to clear up backlog of already filed petitions for green cards and not h1b increase)
more...
bigboy007
07-18 09:26 AM
other than some quoting did you know any of your friends or your attorneys cases getting rejected.
hot Palm Tree Ocean Wallpaper
Since1997
08-15 05:28 PM
The reason for availability is:
D. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY FOR SEPTEMBER
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
D. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY FOR SEPTEMBER
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
more...
house wallpaper with palm trees,
senthil1
04-04 03:39 PM
If number of H1b increases obviously waiting period will increase for GC. So H1b reform will be positive in multiple aspects
1.It will satisfy anti immigrants and will give some kind of security to US citizens. There is no question that only new jobs that too no skilled worker is available in USA then only H1b should be hired. Even India we are rarely hiring foreigners in any company. Not only India any other country in the world does that(only when no personsare available they hire foreigners).
2.If no of H1b decreases automatically waiting period will reduce as no of people applying are less for gc .
And how does "reshaping current mad behavior of H1B application" help fix green card backlog. Circulating debate around H-1b is the favorite trick of large IT companies. It is also the favorite trick of anti-green card reform groups like IEEE.
Just because the quota got over the first day it implies that the system is abused, right? Let me tell who is abused. People waiting for green card are abused. Not fixing green card delays and deliberately keeping the debate around H-1b is an abuse.
1.It will satisfy anti immigrants and will give some kind of security to US citizens. There is no question that only new jobs that too no skilled worker is available in USA then only H1b should be hired. Even India we are rarely hiring foreigners in any company. Not only India any other country in the world does that(only when no personsare available they hire foreigners).
2.If no of H1b decreases automatically waiting period will reduce as no of people applying are less for gc .
And how does "reshaping current mad behavior of H1B application" help fix green card backlog. Circulating debate around H-1b is the favorite trick of large IT companies. It is also the favorite trick of anti-green card reform groups like IEEE.
Just because the quota got over the first day it implies that the system is abused, right? Let me tell who is abused. People waiting for green card are abused. Not fixing green card delays and deliberately keeping the debate around H-1b is an abuse.
tattoo palm islands dubai,palm
nixstor
07-05 02:33 PM
I found the forum by chance and didn't realize there was more to this website until a while after I signed up. On second thought look at my sign up date, I think I'll just let you old timers battle this one out.
I am neither taking shots at you nor pointing fingers at you. Its not about old timers or new comers. I hope it will not take for ever for you to be convinced that your favorite website needs contributions from every one
I am neither taking shots at you nor pointing fingers at you. Its not about old timers or new comers. I hope it will not take for ever for you to be convinced that your favorite website needs contributions from every one
more...
pictures wallpaper of palm tree,
va_jan_03
12-13 09:44 AM
I am sure the IV core would have thought about this option of contacting USCIS and let them know the problems because of retrogression.
But I like the idea of collecting 10$ for the fax and creating awareness. Lets move.
But I like the idea of collecting 10$ for the fax and creating awareness. Lets move.
dresses Palm Tree on a Beech,
desi3933
02-11 07:40 PM
If someone port their EB3 i-485 to EB2, say somebody who's PD is in 2002.
Does his Visa number go waste or it will be re-used for another case.
this is with presumption that the cases are pre-adjudicated
Visa number is considered used only when I-485 is approved or immigrant visa is approved at US consulate.
Visa number is NOT allocated if I-485 is pre-adjudicated. Pre-adjudicated means that application can be approved but due to lack of visa number it must wait.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
Does his Visa number go waste or it will be re-used for another case.
this is with presumption that the cases are pre-adjudicated
Visa number is considered used only when I-485 is approved or immigrant visa is approved at US consulate.
Visa number is NOT allocated if I-485 is pre-adjudicated. Pre-adjudicated means that application can be approved but due to lack of visa number it must wait.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
makeup 3D Palm Beach
chnaveen
01-16 03:32 PM
signed up for $20 per month though paypal.
girlfriend View from the Palm Jumeirah
greyhair
09-09 02:36 PM
With republican House there is zero chance of anything happening on any kind of immigration bill. Nothing other than border security will be taken up. It will be best to kiss good bye to GC dreams if republicans win the House.
hairstyles palm wallpaper
srkamath
07-20 01:26 PM
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
delax,
There is a mistake in your numbers, thousands of cases applied for in 2005 were approved in 2006.
If you look at the 2006 PERM Data Sheet, there are 7290 Approved, India cases with receipt dates in the year 2005.
I'm assuming PD = PERM Receipt Date (correct me if i'm wrong)
Similarly for 2006 in the 2007 tables.
Therefore there are ~ 8700 - EB1, EB2, EB3 cases in 2005 and not 1350.
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
delax,
There is a mistake in your numbers, thousands of cases applied for in 2005 were approved in 2006.
If you look at the 2006 PERM Data Sheet, there are 7290 Approved, India cases with receipt dates in the year 2005.
I'm assuming PD = PERM Receipt Date (correct me if i'm wrong)
Similarly for 2006 in the 2007 tables.
Therefore there are ~ 8700 - EB1, EB2, EB3 cases in 2005 and not 1350.
abhijitp
07-28 02:02 AM
Copying from the reply I posted here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=133404#post133404
I consulted a high profile ($200 per 15 minutes) lawyer to discuss this issue. 1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got today.
Thanks
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=133404#post133404
I consulted a high profile ($200 per 15 minutes) lawyer to discuss this issue. 1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got today.
Thanks
mbawa2574
02-16 12:06 PM
You don't get it, do you? I've never talked about you. What I am saying is simply this: If you don't limit the number of immigrants from one country, you essentially become a part of that country with the influx of people coming from there. This is what people in America are afraid of. They can't limit the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico and other latin america countries, and it is becoming a big deal for them, since they don't want to be forced to learn spanish next time they go to a diner.
Is it racist? probably so. But remember, it is their country; They make the laws. They can make people dance for 5 minutes at ports of entry while they film it and post it to youtube if they like (see recent articles about search and seizures of returning greencard holders' electronic equipment).
And who the hell are you to tell me this?
What did I say? What I mentioned was the natural tendency of people of one language and one common background to gather together and stay together, even though the whole society asks them "Please forget your background and become one of us". How is that racist? This law stops the society to become divided into two factions of 'Us' vs. 'Irish' or 'Us' vs. 'Italians' or 'Us' vs. 'Iranians', etc. There have been several waves of people coming to US for whatever reasons; They are just making sure this doesn't happen again.
This per country cap law is very much like the tax code. If you change it to favor one class of people, you end up screwing everyone else. The current immigration law favors me, so I am happy. It doesn't favor you, so you are (understandably) unhappy. Calling me racist and trying to chase me out of IV is not going to solve your problem.
On one side you are praising the bigotry of 1940's and racism and on the other hand talking unity. I am sure you are are looser in your life and now Indians and Chinese are your targets since you don't know the meaning of competition. I am not going to waste my time as I am not even sure who planted you here. If you are really not a non-immigrant phony, please state your contribution to the IV efforts. Otherwise we don't need a racist punk like you. Now get off my back:mad:
Is it racist? probably so. But remember, it is their country; They make the laws. They can make people dance for 5 minutes at ports of entry while they film it and post it to youtube if they like (see recent articles about search and seizures of returning greencard holders' electronic equipment).
And who the hell are you to tell me this?
What did I say? What I mentioned was the natural tendency of people of one language and one common background to gather together and stay together, even though the whole society asks them "Please forget your background and become one of us". How is that racist? This law stops the society to become divided into two factions of 'Us' vs. 'Irish' or 'Us' vs. 'Italians' or 'Us' vs. 'Iranians', etc. There have been several waves of people coming to US for whatever reasons; They are just making sure this doesn't happen again.
This per country cap law is very much like the tax code. If you change it to favor one class of people, you end up screwing everyone else. The current immigration law favors me, so I am happy. It doesn't favor you, so you are (understandably) unhappy. Calling me racist and trying to chase me out of IV is not going to solve your problem.
On one side you are praising the bigotry of 1940's and racism and on the other hand talking unity. I am sure you are are looser in your life and now Indians and Chinese are your targets since you don't know the meaning of competition. I am not going to waste my time as I am not even sure who planted you here. If you are really not a non-immigrant phony, please state your contribution to the IV efforts. Otherwise we don't need a racist punk like you. Now get off my back:mad:
No comments:
Post a Comment