mchundi
07-27 08:41 PM
Hi everyone,
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
If ur current employer did not apply for a labor, it doesnot matter anyway, as u r in the same position.
Ur friend is right. However if ur I-140 is also approved, u will continue to get H1-B extensions beyond 6 years.
--MC
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
If ur current employer did not apply for a labor, it doesnot matter anyway, as u r in the same position.
Ur friend is right. However if ur I-140 is also approved, u will continue to get H1-B extensions beyond 6 years.
--MC
wallpaper Acer Laptop Wallpaper
cox
April 4th, 2005, 10:07 PM
Thanks for the suggestions guys, I'll try 'em out. :)
baladev
05-04 09:58 AM
Here is the link for sending email to senators
http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Dev
http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Dev
2011 #100784551 Nature wallpaper
buehler
06-03 08:52 AM
I posted the list sometime ago. Do a search for "list of stem disciplines" on the forums.
akred,
The list that you had posted earlier - http://online.onetcenter.org/find/stem/title?t=0&g=Go are the Occupations that might require a STEM Education. What Bogdan wants here, is the list of degrees considered as STEM. There is a big difference between the two.
akred,
The list that you had posted earlier - http://online.onetcenter.org/find/stem/title?t=0&g=Go are the Occupations that might require a STEM Education. What Bogdan wants here, is the list of degrees considered as STEM. There is a big difference between the two.
more...
pbuckeye
06-25 04:07 PM
Agree with Teddy that your petition's case detail substantially changed during the application process. I believe, that was the main reason for the denial.
Consult an attorney and try to file a fresh case. Good luck.
Consult an attorney and try to file a fresh case. Good luck.
ssingh92
06-11 03:26 PM
I know and understand once receive GC why you want to be here. Just a request. Think about whoever left and forum and Please donate something before you leave this forum and site for good.
:D
Thanks,
:D
Thanks,
more...
nik.patelc
10-23 06:36 PM
I m on h1b and my I485 application is pending. Also i have recieved EAD valid till Sept 2010. I m on H1 Visa status with current company. if i get laid off, how do i move my status from H1 to EAD after layoff?
I m planning to take 2 or 3 months break if i get layoff and then plan to find another job on EAD. Is there any problem to assume ,my status will be automatically change to EAD if i get layoff while on h1.
I m planning to take 2 or 3 months break if i get layoff and then plan to find another job on EAD. Is there any problem to assume ,my status will be automatically change to EAD if i get layoff while on h1.
2010 wallpaper for laptop.
Aah_GC
07-25 10:14 AM
Congratulations on you new job. Like others have suggested - make sure you do a good job of sending our AC21 docs - now that you know that your employer is going to revoke I140. Also be ready for any RFE / NOID and prepare your documentation before hand.
Good luck.
Good news is that I'm working again. While I was out of a job, I converted from H1 to EAD under my previous employer (consultancy).
Now, I've finally found a job although this is a full time opportunity. I'm going to be using my EAD / AC21 .
Question: Since I'm no longer working for my previous employer, they are going to be revoking my I140 next month. I believe this is not a problem since my case has been pending for more than 180 days so that's a good thing.. What I do want to know is whether my status is in any jeopardy since I haven't generated any income for about 3 months?
Thanks for any replies. I really need to find out the answer to this. A lot of forum info suggests that I'm ok but I'd very much like to hear any / all viewpoints on this issue.
Good luck.
Good news is that I'm working again. While I was out of a job, I converted from H1 to EAD under my previous employer (consultancy).
Now, I've finally found a job although this is a full time opportunity. I'm going to be using my EAD / AC21 .
Question: Since I'm no longer working for my previous employer, they are going to be revoking my I140 next month. I believe this is not a problem since my case has been pending for more than 180 days so that's a good thing.. What I do want to know is whether my status is in any jeopardy since I haven't generated any income for about 3 months?
Thanks for any replies. I really need to find out the answer to this. A lot of forum info suggests that I'm ok but I'd very much like to hear any / all viewpoints on this issue.
more...
MerciesOfInjustices
05-23 11:26 PM
A Congressman named Pence is proposing this 'compromise', which has been posted in a Time exclusive Exclusive: A Compromise Plan on Immigration (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1196991,00.html?cnn=yes)!
With the Senate headed toward a final vote on an immigration bill this week, a leader of House conservatives is asking his colleagues to support a free-market plan aimed at bridging the gulf between the versions in the two chambers. The proposal by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), provided to TIME ahead of an unveiling speech at the Heritage Foundation, is arguably less compassionate than the version being debated in the Senate and supported in principle by President George W. Bush. But it looks to be more palatable to House Republicans, many of whom have opposed creating a guest worker program before new border crackdowns have been given a chance to work.
Very disturbing is this passage in this article
His plan includes all the security measures of the bill that has already passed the House, and adds a provision for guest worker visas would be good for two years. A limited renewal would be available if the worker studied English and passed an English proficiency class. Federal law already has visa categories A through V. �The visas will be referred to as �W Visas,� � Pence say in his remarks. �No kidding. I think it is obvious whose support we are trying to garner here.�
No mention of anything for legals here!
Hope this does not see the light of the day, and dies its own death!
With the Senate headed toward a final vote on an immigration bill this week, a leader of House conservatives is asking his colleagues to support a free-market plan aimed at bridging the gulf between the versions in the two chambers. The proposal by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), provided to TIME ahead of an unveiling speech at the Heritage Foundation, is arguably less compassionate than the version being debated in the Senate and supported in principle by President George W. Bush. But it looks to be more palatable to House Republicans, many of whom have opposed creating a guest worker program before new border crackdowns have been given a chance to work.
Very disturbing is this passage in this article
His plan includes all the security measures of the bill that has already passed the House, and adds a provision for guest worker visas would be good for two years. A limited renewal would be available if the worker studied English and passed an English proficiency class. Federal law already has visa categories A through V. �The visas will be referred to as �W Visas,� � Pence say in his remarks. �No kidding. I think it is obvious whose support we are trying to garner here.�
No mention of anything for legals here!
Hope this does not see the light of the day, and dies its own death!
hair Acer Laptop Wallpaper (158)
bluez25
08-26 02:09 PM
Yes.. I did my medicals done as soon I landed there. Got all the appoinments for the medicals before I started from here and the first thing I did was medicals.
Regarding the marriage certificate, I gave the marriage registration copy given by registrar. If the marriage certificate is in native langauage, they will not accept and they probably will need a translation affidavit. Please check the local Consulate for the exact format.
Yes.. I got in luckily 2.5 years. My priority date was feb 2006 and Eb2 category. I applied for CP when I applied for my i140 itself.
Regarding the marriage certificate, I gave the marriage registration copy given by registrar. If the marriage certificate is in native langauage, they will not accept and they probably will need a translation affidavit. Please check the local Consulate for the exact format.
Yes.. I got in luckily 2.5 years. My priority date was feb 2006 and Eb2 category. I applied for CP when I applied for my i140 itself.
more...
pappu
12-24 09:03 AM
Celebrating 2nd IV anniversary: IV action Item
Dear members,
IV will be completing a milestone in a couple of days. Let us use this opportunity to celebrate the fact that IV has been able to bring the community together and we have been able to get small successes till now.
Let us also celebrate this event by inviting as many new members we can and raise the membership of IV.
You can review IV achievements here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=47
Pls use these templates to send emails to your friends requesting them to join IV
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=36
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=36
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_iv_invite_friends&Itemid=55
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16034&highlight=walking_dude
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15976&highlight=walking_dude
======================
If you have a blog, pls post IV related messages, links, Banner ads on your blogs.
Banners are available at http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=36
Let us also list such blogs on this thread. Here are some blogs:
(1) http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com
(2) http://iv-physicians.blogspot.com
(3) http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com
(4) http://dcrally.blogspot.com
(5) http://www.touchdownusa.org/
(6) http://skilledimmigrants.blogspot.com/
(7) http://www.touchdownusa.org/floral/FloralProtest.html
(8) http://www.tired-immigrant.blogspot.com/
Dear members,
IV will be completing a milestone in a couple of days. Let us use this opportunity to celebrate the fact that IV has been able to bring the community together and we have been able to get small successes till now.
Let us also celebrate this event by inviting as many new members we can and raise the membership of IV.
You can review IV achievements here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=47
Pls use these templates to send emails to your friends requesting them to join IV
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=36
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=36
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_iv_invite_friends&Itemid=55
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16034&highlight=walking_dude
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15976&highlight=walking_dude
======================
If you have a blog, pls post IV related messages, links, Banner ads on your blogs.
Banners are available at http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=36
Let us also list such blogs on this thread. Here are some blogs:
(1) http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com
(2) http://iv-physicians.blogspot.com
(3) http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com
(4) http://dcrally.blogspot.com
(5) http://www.touchdownusa.org/
(6) http://skilledimmigrants.blogspot.com/
(7) http://www.touchdownusa.org/floral/FloralProtest.html
(8) http://www.tired-immigrant.blogspot.com/
hot Baby with Laptop
dummgelauft
03-31 12:42 PM
For once, I like what Grassley is doing.
more...
house Acer Laptop Wallpaper
sankar_203
08-04 02:51 PM
Hi,
I started working for my employer last year on H1b. I've also singed employee agreement contract which stated to work for my employer for a period of 1 year (2080 hrs). It also states that in case of improper termination of the contract, the employee is reponsible for the damages caused.
My employer is based in Texas and I am working in california.
After working for my employer for a client about 6 months, I've got an offer from the same client for a permanent position and that I need to transfer my h1 inorder to accept the offer.I transfered my H1.
Since then my employer is trying to scare me with notices through mails. My friends has told me not to accept either mail/phone from my employer. My employer tried to reach me several times through mail/email/phone but couldn't.
Recently one of my room mates accepted a letter from an unknown person (through my employer's advocate) without my knowledge. The mail is a NOT legal notice but a printed document stating the breach of employee agreement handed by a person.
The letter stated the same thing which is present in the employee agreement that in case of improper termination, the employee has to pay for the damages. The damages in the letter include the damages over $10,000 incurred by my employer as a result of the termination of contract.
It has also stated in case I do not pay for the damamges, my employer has no choice but to persue with the arbitration method of resolving this issue.
The same thing I shared with few of my friends and I had mixed responses. One was insisting to pay for the damages in order for a smooth transition. The other has told me to post in this forum to get valuable advice from the members.
Another friend has told me not to bother as my employer also breached the general labour acts such as not paying for me while on bench, taking fees for the filing of h1,not paying for the medical insurance (as stated in the employment agreement). I dont know how to proceed in this regard.
I've the following queries it would be great if I could get some answers/discussions/advice on the same.
1. Is my employer really trying to scare me so that I can pay them for the damamges?
May be
2. Or is my employer completely confident about the breach of agreement and indeed heading for legal action?
May be
3. If so how would I approach from here?
Consulting with an attorney
4. Has anybody similar experiences with their employers?
yes me and my friend did
5. Is it advisable to send any such letters (as my employer did) stating the breach of agreement by my employer (such as not paying while on bench etc) ?
Not at all advisable..patience is virtue in this matter..
6. Should I wait till I get any legal notices from my employer? (I am very much scared about this and I should'nt regret in future that I didn't react to it).
Need not..call him up or go to his office(i recommend this) because we sound different over the phone..try to talk him/her out on this matter..he violated some labor rules, it doesn't mean he/she cannot come after u on this matter..court and labor department are two separate issues..any evidence against him/her can only be used by the discretion of judge..there are several loop holes in this contract issues..by experience i have only got to know a few of them..don't be scared..coz that doesn't help u..finally sorry to tell that i am not able to help you in giving a straight answer..but please do contact a legal attorney in this matter..just consult him/her and get their first hand opinion..also talk to ur employer face to face(if possible) and tell him/her u made few mistakes and i have done one mistake..tell them to get it over with..if u run away from him, he/she thinks ur scared and will try to scare u more..lastly please do not lose ur control by threating / abusing with emails or voice mails or any of that kind..coz that can be used against u inspite of his/her mistake..
Good luck..keep us posted..btw when ur working in calif..which state tax ur paying..was it calif or texas??
I started working for my employer last year on H1b. I've also singed employee agreement contract which stated to work for my employer for a period of 1 year (2080 hrs). It also states that in case of improper termination of the contract, the employee is reponsible for the damages caused.
My employer is based in Texas and I am working in california.
After working for my employer for a client about 6 months, I've got an offer from the same client for a permanent position and that I need to transfer my h1 inorder to accept the offer.I transfered my H1.
Since then my employer is trying to scare me with notices through mails. My friends has told me not to accept either mail/phone from my employer. My employer tried to reach me several times through mail/email/phone but couldn't.
Recently one of my room mates accepted a letter from an unknown person (through my employer's advocate) without my knowledge. The mail is a NOT legal notice but a printed document stating the breach of employee agreement handed by a person.
The letter stated the same thing which is present in the employee agreement that in case of improper termination, the employee has to pay for the damages. The damages in the letter include the damages over $10,000 incurred by my employer as a result of the termination of contract.
It has also stated in case I do not pay for the damamges, my employer has no choice but to persue with the arbitration method of resolving this issue.
The same thing I shared with few of my friends and I had mixed responses. One was insisting to pay for the damages in order for a smooth transition. The other has told me to post in this forum to get valuable advice from the members.
Another friend has told me not to bother as my employer also breached the general labour acts such as not paying for me while on bench, taking fees for the filing of h1,not paying for the medical insurance (as stated in the employment agreement). I dont know how to proceed in this regard.
I've the following queries it would be great if I could get some answers/discussions/advice on the same.
1. Is my employer really trying to scare me so that I can pay them for the damamges?
May be
2. Or is my employer completely confident about the breach of agreement and indeed heading for legal action?
May be
3. If so how would I approach from here?
Consulting with an attorney
4. Has anybody similar experiences with their employers?
yes me and my friend did
5. Is it advisable to send any such letters (as my employer did) stating the breach of agreement by my employer (such as not paying while on bench etc) ?
Not at all advisable..patience is virtue in this matter..
6. Should I wait till I get any legal notices from my employer? (I am very much scared about this and I should'nt regret in future that I didn't react to it).
Need not..call him up or go to his office(i recommend this) because we sound different over the phone..try to talk him/her out on this matter..he violated some labor rules, it doesn't mean he/she cannot come after u on this matter..court and labor department are two separate issues..any evidence against him/her can only be used by the discretion of judge..there are several loop holes in this contract issues..by experience i have only got to know a few of them..don't be scared..coz that doesn't help u..finally sorry to tell that i am not able to help you in giving a straight answer..but please do contact a legal attorney in this matter..just consult him/her and get their first hand opinion..also talk to ur employer face to face(if possible) and tell him/her u made few mistakes and i have done one mistake..tell them to get it over with..if u run away from him, he/she thinks ur scared and will try to scare u more..lastly please do not lose ur control by threating / abusing with emails or voice mails or any of that kind..coz that can be used against u inspite of his/her mistake..
Good luck..keep us posted..btw when ur working in calif..which state tax ur paying..was it calif or texas??
tattoo jadiin wallpaper laptop
cal_dood
07-20 10:17 AM
in Mexico and Canada - though there may be a catch - they may not process a B1/B2 to H4. You'll have to find that out. Getting a appointment/emergency appointment in ur home country is the best bet.
more...
pictures dell. wallpaper laptop
crystal
09-14 03:43 PM
i understood that. I was just kidding :Di meant the quality was like, that perhaps my computer is messing it up
dresses wallpaper laptop acer
admin
05-18 10:40 PM
The title means ... You r right, not only Indian, but Chineese, Russians and all others ... but title is "Indian immigrants .... " :(
The title was something that the journalist came up with so that it will capture the attention of it's viewers. So please don't read too much into it.
The title was something that the journalist came up with so that it will capture the attention of it's viewers. So please don't read too much into it.
more...
makeup wallpaper laptop compaq. dv-nr
sayantan76
07-21 08:51 AM
Normally my wife is the one who is used to post or follow up on the latest here.
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
wow - thats a new one.......and really intriguing........one could argue that if a work can be done remotely - then why should the work be located in United States at all and hence - why the need for a visa? on the other hand - that would be totally counterproductive as companies would use the logic to outsource work outside the country and result in reduction in number of employees who pay US taxes.......
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
wow - thats a new one.......and really intriguing........one could argue that if a work can be done remotely - then why should the work be located in United States at all and hence - why the need for a visa? on the other hand - that would be totally counterproductive as companies would use the logic to outsource work outside the country and result in reduction in number of employees who pay US taxes.......
girlfriend wallpaper laptop acer.
whitecollarslave
02-06 05:27 PM
I don't think an employer can force you to repay the green card costs if you leave them as soon as you get it. That is illegal and against the law to make a foreign national pay for the costs of green card sponsorship!
I know its against the law to make the employee pay for H1-B application fees (not attorney fees). I have not heard about any law that prohibits employers from making the employees pay for green card costs. Can you provide information on where you go this information and/or point to some credible source which we can use as a reference in case we need to?
I know its against the law to make the employee pay for H1-B application fees (not attorney fees). I have not heard about any law that prohibits employers from making the employees pay for green card costs. Can you provide information on where you go this information and/or point to some credible source which we can use as a reference in case we need to?
hairstyles Free Vaio Laptop Wallpapers
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
kanshul
02-24 08:30 AM
As a prcatical matter you should have copy of your labor or at least the job description so that you can look for 'similar' job.
You may be in trouble if you don't have it or are not sure what your employer has put int he labor application. Also, at the minimum you should have you 140 application number, only then can you be sure that it has been approved.
If you have these, you can easily use AC21 with no harm. Also, if I were you I will avoid any travel even if you have approived 131 as the IO at port of entry may ask you about your employment status.
You may be in trouble if you don't have it or are not sure what your employer has put int he labor application. Also, at the minimum you should have you 140 application number, only then can you be sure that it has been approved.
If you have these, you can easily use AC21 with no harm. Also, if I were you I will avoid any travel even if you have approived 131 as the IO at port of entry may ask you about your employment status.
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