satyasaich
01-11 11:18 AM
The text is at the link below.
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SpecterChairmanMark.pdf
Section 501 and 503 would help retrogression a lot.
Section 503 will do more harm and add fuel to retrogression. Either it shall be redrafted or we shall oppose without any doubt
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SpecterChairmanMark.pdf
Section 501 and 503 would help retrogression a lot.
Section 503 will do more harm and add fuel to retrogression. Either it shall be redrafted or we shall oppose without any doubt
wallpaper nate dogg dead.
addsf345
09-04 02:24 PM
All,
Lingo came up with the same plan....here is the link below....
https://www.lingo.com/shop/promotions/helloworldmax.jsp
I am not sure how to navigate from LINGO.COM, but the link gives the info...share if any body has exp. with this company....
I hate to play "who winks first" game with teleblend. They told that they would come up with similar india plan but not providing any details.
May be now I should switch to vonage or Lingo. One factor in favor of vonage is: I get two months free with referral and one year contract rather than 2 years with Lingo.
As per one my close friend, lingo CS is not very good. Vonage is still better than Lingo.
However here is my question.
The acutal cost of Vonage with unlimited india calling is $31 - $32 per month due to taxes, misc charges etc.
WHAT would be ACTUAL COST OF LINGO per month? any approximation?
Any one who uses lingo? Please advice... How much money do Lingo charges over & above regular monthly charges?
I used to be a vonage user and Vonage was horrible as they were trying as much hard to charge the MAX to the customer in extra MISC charges.
Lingo came up with the same plan....here is the link below....
https://www.lingo.com/shop/promotions/helloworldmax.jsp
I am not sure how to navigate from LINGO.COM, but the link gives the info...share if any body has exp. with this company....
I hate to play "who winks first" game with teleblend. They told that they would come up with similar india plan but not providing any details.
May be now I should switch to vonage or Lingo. One factor in favor of vonage is: I get two months free with referral and one year contract rather than 2 years with Lingo.
As per one my close friend, lingo CS is not very good. Vonage is still better than Lingo.
However here is my question.
The acutal cost of Vonage with unlimited india calling is $31 - $32 per month due to taxes, misc charges etc.
WHAT would be ACTUAL COST OF LINGO per month? any approximation?
Any one who uses lingo? Please advice... How much money do Lingo charges over & above regular monthly charges?
I used to be a vonage user and Vonage was horrible as they were trying as much hard to charge the MAX to the customer in extra MISC charges.
shankar_thanu
07-11 11:09 AM
Flowers were nice and effective.
food delivery might backfire...
food delivery might backfire...
2011 Rapper Nate Dogg Dead At 41
Almond
08-09 06:50 PM
I called today to help a friend who has been stuck in namecheck status for almost a year and a half and spoke to an immigration officer who calmly explained to me that the name check isn't done only nationally but also "internationally" meaning, not only do they do a background check on you in the US, they also look you up in your country of origin. In all my time reading about this I have never heard her version before, so I had assumed the namecheck was only done at the national level. No wonder it's taking so long, with the FBI waiting for a response from those countries. :(
more...
sroyc
09-24 05:16 PM
These assumptions marked in red are incorrect. ROW has been consolidated into 1 category to simplify the visa bulletin. ICMP countries exceed the quota, that's why they have separate entries. If another country exceeds the quota U.K. for example, then it'll have it own column in the visa bulletin. The quota for EB-ROW is 40K - per country limit for ICMP for that category X 4. That's why EB3 India has been getting screwed ever since they re-interpreted the spillover rules (in the middle of 2008). Otherwise, you would see EB3 ICMP get at least 8K GCs in 2009.
1) Each (EB1/2/3) - 28.6% WW quota = 40040
2) 5 subscription cataegories under each EB category: I,P,C,M,ROW
) Assumption - USCIS distributes equal share amon3g these 5 different subscription categories = 40040/5 =8008 in each EB category for a particular subscription category.
Example:
EB3 All = 40040 ( 0.286 x 140000)
EB3 ALL = EB3 I + EB3 C + EB3 M + EB3 P + EB3 ROW
Assuming equal share of all of these 5 subscription categories - 40040/5 = 8008 applications to be worked for "Assigning the visa number" not " for granting the visa (IN other words physical greencard order)"
7% + 2% = 9% country specific limit is meant for "Granting the visa - Ordering Physical Green card" out of "Applications which have been assigned a visa number" NOT FOR "Assigning the visa number"
1) Each (EB1/2/3) - 28.6% WW quota = 40040
2) 5 subscription cataegories under each EB category: I,P,C,M,ROW
) Assumption - USCIS distributes equal share amon3g these 5 different subscription categories = 40040/5 =8008 in each EB category for a particular subscription category.
Example:
EB3 All = 40040 ( 0.286 x 140000)
EB3 ALL = EB3 I + EB3 C + EB3 M + EB3 P + EB3 ROW
Assuming equal share of all of these 5 subscription categories - 40040/5 = 8008 applications to be worked for "Assigning the visa number" not " for granting the visa (IN other words physical greencard order)"
7% + 2% = 9% country specific limit is meant for "Granting the visa - Ordering Physical Green card" out of "Applications which have been assigned a visa number" NOT FOR "Assigning the visa number"
gapala
09-02 06:57 PM
mr whydidntufileurgc,
U completely understood me, my point was Vonage may start charging such as 1c per min after few months once they have got most of the new customers.
I am not talking abt 5000 min fineprint here.
yes I do have a job :)
This is not an offer but a plan... and there is an underlying agreement which is legally binding between vonage and customers. If they want to make a change to the plan, they will have to inform customers well in advance and customers have rights to agree/disagree with the changes to plan and may stay with them or opt out.. This is not so simple to just start charging one fine morning 1c per minute to existing customers..
There is a possibility that they may discontinue enrollment into world plan and stop taking in new customers.. But existing customers will get the benifit of this plan as long as there is no change in governing agreement and if there is, customers may opt out at the expense of service providers..
It seems you are confused with "Offers", something that dish and comcast does..where they offer low rate to get you in for 6 months with a 12 months contract and they bump up the rates after offer period.. you can see these changes in rates in fine print of the offer any way..
U completely understood me, my point was Vonage may start charging such as 1c per min after few months once they have got most of the new customers.
I am not talking abt 5000 min fineprint here.
yes I do have a job :)
This is not an offer but a plan... and there is an underlying agreement which is legally binding between vonage and customers. If they want to make a change to the plan, they will have to inform customers well in advance and customers have rights to agree/disagree with the changes to plan and may stay with them or opt out.. This is not so simple to just start charging one fine morning 1c per minute to existing customers..
There is a possibility that they may discontinue enrollment into world plan and stop taking in new customers.. But existing customers will get the benifit of this plan as long as there is no change in governing agreement and if there is, customers may opt out at the expense of service providers..
It seems you are confused with "Offers", something that dish and comcast does..where they offer low rate to get you in for 6 months with a 12 months contract and they bump up the rates after offer period.. you can see these changes in rates in fine print of the offer any way..
more...
SDdesi
06-29 04:18 PM
Indeed there is a link on www.aila.org but its only accessible to members. However, get this - the link says - "Update on July Visa Availability" - which going by the rumors has to be bad news.....
This is a very sick joke on all the people waiting in line....:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
This is a very sick joke on all the people waiting in line....:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
2010 Tags: Death, funeral, hip-hop,
sotaz
06-15 04:18 PM
I have quick question about I-485 filing date. What will be the filing date, the day I mail the packet or the day they receive or the day they acknowledge the receipt.
I am asking this because I cannot file my I-485 before August 15th due to some personal reasons. So suppose I prepare everything beforehand and mail it on August 16th - will that be appropriate filing (assuming the dates remain current in August)?
Thanks. Any feedback will be much appreciated.
PD: July 2004, I -140 pending.
I am asking this because I cannot file my I-485 before August 15th due to some personal reasons. So suppose I prepare everything beforehand and mail it on August 16th - will that be appropriate filing (assuming the dates remain current in August)?
Thanks. Any feedback will be much appreciated.
PD: July 2004, I -140 pending.
more...
drona
07-09 11:57 PM
Thanks gdhiren! Please take pictures if possible!
Please post your message at the thread below as that is where the group is coordinating the event tomorrow.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6287
Please post your message at the thread below as that is where the group is coordinating the event tomorrow.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6287
hair hairstyles Nate Dogg is dead
ashshef
09-24 05:07 PM
1) Each (EB1/2/3) - 28.6% WW quota = 40040
2) 5 subscription cataegories under each EB category: I,P,C,M,ROW
3) Assumption - USCIS distributes equal share among these 5 different subscription categories = 40040/5 =8008 in each EB category for a particular subscription category.
Example:
EB3 All = 40040 ( 0.286 x 140000)
EB3 ALL = EB3 I + EB3 C + EB3 M + EB3 P + EB3 ROW
Assuming equal share of all of these 5 subscription categories - 40040/5 = 8008 applications to be worked for "Assigning the visa number" not " for granting the visa (IN other words physical greencard order)"
7% + 2% = 9% country specific limit is meant for "Granting the visa - Ordering Physical Green card" out of "Applications which have been assigned a visa number"
Number 2) and hence number 3) are definitely wrong.
As I mentioned in my other post, the categorisation for I,P,C,M and ROW is based on the fact that I,P,C,M are the only countries with demand exceeding the annual limit.
ROW = All countries not hitting the 7%(or 9%) country limit. That doesn't mean they are capped at X/5. What would be the basis of that cap.
Assuming USCIS acts like it is supposed to, follows all rules etc........They start using new numbers on Oct1st of the new FY with a fresh slate of 140k available.
Now by law, they will first divide the cap into the 5 EB categories -EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4 and EB5. Now once they reach the 7%(or 9) cap in any of the categories, they will have to stop assigning numbers for that country. So for EB3, once they reach the 7 or 9% quota for I,C,M,P - they will need to stop. The rest of the countries(ROW) will get the 100 - (7 x 4) = 72% of the quota. This could be divied up between UK, France, Pak, Germany etc etc. As none of them are going over the 7%, the country cap doesn't affect them. But Since there are a lot of apps under EB3-ROW, there's never any number to spill over to the capped countries.
In case of EB2, only 2 countries hit the cap - India and China. In this case even P and M are part of ROW. But since the apps from ROW is less than the remaining quota of (100 - 7 x 2)% of the EB2 quota, the remaining will be spilled over. The spillover rules will determine who these go to.
The way the current spillover rules stand, your final calculations will still hold true for EB2 due to the spillover ultimately remaining the same to EB2. But not for EB3.
2) 5 subscription cataegories under each EB category: I,P,C,M,ROW
3) Assumption - USCIS distributes equal share among these 5 different subscription categories = 40040/5 =8008 in each EB category for a particular subscription category.
Example:
EB3 All = 40040 ( 0.286 x 140000)
EB3 ALL = EB3 I + EB3 C + EB3 M + EB3 P + EB3 ROW
Assuming equal share of all of these 5 subscription categories - 40040/5 = 8008 applications to be worked for "Assigning the visa number" not " for granting the visa (IN other words physical greencard order)"
7% + 2% = 9% country specific limit is meant for "Granting the visa - Ordering Physical Green card" out of "Applications which have been assigned a visa number"
Number 2) and hence number 3) are definitely wrong.
As I mentioned in my other post, the categorisation for I,P,C,M and ROW is based on the fact that I,P,C,M are the only countries with demand exceeding the annual limit.
ROW = All countries not hitting the 7%(or 9%) country limit. That doesn't mean they are capped at X/5. What would be the basis of that cap.
Assuming USCIS acts like it is supposed to, follows all rules etc........They start using new numbers on Oct1st of the new FY with a fresh slate of 140k available.
Now by law, they will first divide the cap into the 5 EB categories -EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4 and EB5. Now once they reach the 7%(or 9) cap in any of the categories, they will have to stop assigning numbers for that country. So for EB3, once they reach the 7 or 9% quota for I,C,M,P - they will need to stop. The rest of the countries(ROW) will get the 100 - (7 x 4) = 72% of the quota. This could be divied up between UK, France, Pak, Germany etc etc. As none of them are going over the 7%, the country cap doesn't affect them. But Since there are a lot of apps under EB3-ROW, there's never any number to spill over to the capped countries.
In case of EB2, only 2 countries hit the cap - India and China. In this case even P and M are part of ROW. But since the apps from ROW is less than the remaining quota of (100 - 7 x 2)% of the EB2 quota, the remaining will be spilled over. The spillover rules will determine who these go to.
The way the current spillover rules stand, your final calculations will still hold true for EB2 due to the spillover ultimately remaining the same to EB2. But not for EB3.
more...
alias
08-07 11:52 AM
No, I have the conviction, but don't have money...
HAHAHAHAHAH......WHAT A JOKER!
HAHAHAHAHAH......WHAT A JOKER!
hot is nate dogg dead.
485Mbe4001
09-16 12:45 PM
If possible ask your company HR reps (and coworkers) to make a call too, it will help. Call by the company will make an additional impact. I have asked mine to call. No harm in shooting off an email.
more...
house RIP Nate Dogg 1969-2011
prioritydate
07-14 02:38 PM
Lets all inundate CNN with our one month's salary slip with all our personal details striked out and highlight federal, state, social security, medicare etc. In that way, we can show our protest and that would stir up the cotroversy, exposing how low life the lou dumbs is ....
tattoo is nate dogg dead. wallpaper
chanduv23
01-14 10:15 PM
I've sent the letters to the WH and IV. Hoping for the best.
I, however, have some questions for the senior members of the IV team. Especially for the ones who are active in the lobbying efforts in Congress and the White House. How realistic are the chances for Green card visa numbers relief, even for the longer term? It seems like there are immigrants from 2 countries - India and China who are adversely effected by the low visa numbers. If one is an immigrant for any other part of the world, it actually isnt that hard to get a Green Card thru employer sponsorship. That being the case, do you think Washington would consider this an issue that needs expedient resolution or for that matter an issue that needs a resolution at all?
Dont want to sound like a downer in this inspiring thread, but at the same time, any answers to my question will be greatly appreciated.
In this highly charged anti immigration environment, chances for direct relief could be 50 50. That said, it is possible that the administration is looking seriously into fixing issues in some form or the other.
We MUST keep trying and never lose hope.
I, however, have some questions for the senior members of the IV team. Especially for the ones who are active in the lobbying efforts in Congress and the White House. How realistic are the chances for Green card visa numbers relief, even for the longer term? It seems like there are immigrants from 2 countries - India and China who are adversely effected by the low visa numbers. If one is an immigrant for any other part of the world, it actually isnt that hard to get a Green Card thru employer sponsorship. That being the case, do you think Washington would consider this an issue that needs expedient resolution or for that matter an issue that needs a resolution at all?
Dont want to sound like a downer in this inspiring thread, but at the same time, any answers to my question will be greatly appreciated.
In this highly charged anti immigration environment, chances for direct relief could be 50 50. That said, it is possible that the administration is looking seriously into fixing issues in some form or the other.
We MUST keep trying and never lose hope.
more...
pictures Snoop Dogg on the death of
gc_on_demand
04-05 04:14 PM
Is that mean they are going to move the PDs much further and again move back during the end of the year!!
So isn't this implying that the PDs will advance very very further than the available visa numbers!!!!!!!!!!
.
"Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11040563 (posted Apr. 5, 2011)"
Following-up on his earlier observations on EB-1 demand and "spill-down" to EB-2 reported on InfoNet on March 29, 2011 (InfoNet Doc. No. 11032960), Charlie Oppenheim discussed scenarios for EB-2 movement in the coming months. In preparation of the May 2011 Visa Bulletin, DOS will consider the approximately 12,000 unused EB-1 numbers that will "spill-down" to EB-2, EB-2 demand and possible unused numbers, and will consult with USCIS on its processing potential. A quick look by DOS at this point indicates that there is the possibility for greater advancement of the India EB-2 category than had earlier been thought. Doing so will give DOS better visibility into EB-3 upgrade demand in the pipeline, and will better ensure that all visas allowed annually are used. However, a rapid advance could spur a surge in demand that could impact the cut-off dates later in the year. The May Visa Bulletin, generally issued mid-April, will contain a discussion of visa availability projections for the remainder of the year.
My comments earliar this morning.
I checked some family based data and Date jumps 2-3 years once in a 2-3 year period and NVC gets enough files to work on for next 2-3 years , so dates moves slowly for next 2-3 years. USCIS learned lesson from July 2007 and may follow same approach what NVC do.
They might go upto 2008 or 2009 in advance this year or next year so they have almost 20-30 k Eb2 cases on hand which can last for year or two. USCIS needs some new cases to work on. All pre adjudicated cases are ready for approval so chances are there they can advance date so that they can get enough cases for next year's spill over quota.
So isn't this implying that the PDs will advance very very further than the available visa numbers!!!!!!!!!!
.
"Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11040563 (posted Apr. 5, 2011)"
Following-up on his earlier observations on EB-1 demand and "spill-down" to EB-2 reported on InfoNet on March 29, 2011 (InfoNet Doc. No. 11032960), Charlie Oppenheim discussed scenarios for EB-2 movement in the coming months. In preparation of the May 2011 Visa Bulletin, DOS will consider the approximately 12,000 unused EB-1 numbers that will "spill-down" to EB-2, EB-2 demand and possible unused numbers, and will consult with USCIS on its processing potential. A quick look by DOS at this point indicates that there is the possibility for greater advancement of the India EB-2 category than had earlier been thought. Doing so will give DOS better visibility into EB-3 upgrade demand in the pipeline, and will better ensure that all visas allowed annually are used. However, a rapid advance could spur a surge in demand that could impact the cut-off dates later in the year. The May Visa Bulletin, generally issued mid-April, will contain a discussion of visa availability projections for the remainder of the year.
My comments earliar this morning.
I checked some family based data and Date jumps 2-3 years once in a 2-3 year period and NVC gets enough files to work on for next 2-3 years , so dates moves slowly for next 2-3 years. USCIS learned lesson from July 2007 and may follow same approach what NVC do.
They might go upto 2008 or 2009 in advance this year or next year so they have almost 20-30 k Eb2 cases on hand which can last for year or two. USCIS needs some new cases to work on. All pre adjudicated cases are ready for approval so chances are there they can advance date so that they can get enough cases for next year's spill over quota.
dresses images Nate Dogg Dead at 41 is
chanduv23
09-15 10:29 AM
Thanks folks for your wishes. I had not been active on the volunteering side due to multiple reasons and other day to day challenges and career.
I agree with a lot of people in the community that it is a challenge to balance a challenging personal life, especially in a country like America where regular day to day life poses many challenges.
In the green card process, the challenge is just not about one needing a job to fulfill day to day needs but to secure a future for him/her and family.
A lot of people I have come across through IV have been absolutely amazing in stepping up and doing what they do and this platform provided by IV (Aman, Pappu, Jay etc..) has been a blessing for all of us.
I have written to IV core that I will continue to support IV and its activities.
I agree with a lot of people in the community that it is a challenge to balance a challenging personal life, especially in a country like America where regular day to day life poses many challenges.
In the green card process, the challenge is just not about one needing a job to fulfill day to day needs but to secure a future for him/her and family.
A lot of people I have come across through IV have been absolutely amazing in stepping up and doing what they do and this platform provided by IV (Aman, Pappu, Jay etc..) has been a blessing for all of us.
I have written to IV core that I will continue to support IV and its activities.
more...
makeup Nate Dogg, who lent his voice
pappu
08-20 12:00 PM
I remember 11 years ago calls to India were 75 cents per minute.
Now they are 1 cents a minute if you use Airtel.
This Vonage offer is truly revolutionary for international calling to the 60 countries listed. I suspect soon other VOP services in USA will start providing free calls to India once they see customers switching over to Vonage. This should include VOIP service providers that also provide internet and cable services. If they do not catch up, cable companies will lose customers in the phone sector. If ooma: Free home phone service. Call anywhere in the US with no monthly fees. (http://www.ooma.com/) , MagicJack or Skype provides this, it will be much for cost effective to customers.
Such services will help bridge the communication gap between immigrants in USA and their home countries. It will feel like making a local call to family and friends anywhere in the world.
Now they are 1 cents a minute if you use Airtel.
This Vonage offer is truly revolutionary for international calling to the 60 countries listed. I suspect soon other VOP services in USA will start providing free calls to India once they see customers switching over to Vonage. This should include VOIP service providers that also provide internet and cable services. If they do not catch up, cable companies will lose customers in the phone sector. If ooma: Free home phone service. Call anywhere in the US with no monthly fees. (http://www.ooma.com/) , MagicJack or Skype provides this, it will be much for cost effective to customers.
Such services will help bridge the communication gap between immigrants in USA and their home countries. It will feel like making a local call to family and friends anywhere in the world.
girlfriend RIP Nate Dogg. Any death in
Macaca
12-05 04:15 PM
AMY GOODMAN: In the beginning of the broadcast, we played a clip�
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: �of you talking about various concerns that you have around immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: The last part of that clip�and maybe we can play it again�
LOU DOBBS: Illegal immigrants, if I may, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Illegal immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Only illegal immigrants.
AMY GOODMAN: Maybe we can play a last part of this clip that we played, just to go through it again. We�ll see if our folks have that clip ready. And this is the clip that we played in the billboard. It�s�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I can recall what was said if it�s at all helpful. I said that according to a study�I didn�t use the attribution, but according to a study that Jorge Borjas at Harvard University had completed, that the cost of excess immigration into this country amounts to $200 billion a year in wages, that the cost of incarceration, medical care, social services approximates $50 billion in this country per year. And the reality is that about a third of the crimes that are of those in state prisons�federal prisons, excuse me, federal prisons, are�I�m sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: Are�?
LOU DOBBS: Are those who are in this country illegally.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s play it.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: And then let�s talk about it.
Let�s say the number is eleven million, although some studies put the number as high as twenty million illegal aliens in this country. That not only amounts to a shift of six to ten congressional seats among the states based on the population of illegal immigration. The fact is, those illegal aliens are costing our economy $200 billion in depressed wages for working Americans. It is costing $50 billion a year in social and medical costs. And it�s costing us, no one knows precisely how much, to incarcerate what is about a third of our prison population who are illegal aliens.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it�s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.
LOU DOBBS: Well, it�s actually�I think it�s 26% in federal prison.
AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.
LOU DOBBS: I said about�yes, but I�and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn�t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn�t, but then I just explained it to you.
AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.
LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.
AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants�
LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.
AMY GOODMAN: �in this country, of prisoners�
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: �are immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we�ve established�we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That�s what I was referring to. I did not�I misspoke when I said �prisons.� I was referring to the federal prisons, because that�s the federal crime: immigration. And that�
AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of�?
LOU DOBBS: I�m sure we have. We�ve reported�absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: We didn�t see it.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know how many reports we�ve done on illegal immigration in this country?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, many.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, my god.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, but I�d like to get into this issue�I mean, aside from the fact that the GAO report�
LOU DOBBS: Excuse me, just one second.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Sure.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, what if I were to sit here and just hound you because you said I was anti-immigrant, when I am, point of fact, I�m anti-illegal immigrant, and it�s absolutely a matter of fact. We could quarrel over the terminology, if you want. But why should people of good faith and intelligence sit there and be so absurd about it?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we agree on that. But this is precisely the lumping of illegal or undocumented immigrants and legal immigrants in one category that�s a problem�
LOU DOBBS: Right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �because, for instance�
LOU DOBBS: Right, I agree with you.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �the total percentage of the non-citizen population of the United States right now is about thirty-five million, 12% of the population.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know this?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, this is Census Bureau�
LOU DOBBS: I was just�I was just�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Wait, wait, Lou. Let me finish. Let me finish, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: I have to say, I was laughing about the NIE, because, as you heard Steve Hadley talk about�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: �high confidence levels in those estimates,�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Right, but let me�
LOU DOBBS: What do you suppose the confidence level is of the United States government in the number of people in this country illegally, the number of people�
JUAN GONZALEZ: We�re assuming now�the legal population is pretty well documented, right? But the�
LOU DOBBS: Documented, undocumented.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The legal immigrant population is pretty well documented. It�s about twenty-three million. And then you add maybe another eleven to twelve million of the undocumented population, and you get thirty-five million. The point is�my point is this: if 12% of the non-citizen population of the United States�non-citizens comprise 12% of the population. They comprise 6% of the prison population. That suggests to me that crime rates are far lower among non-citizen immigrants�legal and illegal�than they are among the general population of the United States.
LOU DOBBS: Can I ask you a question?
JUAN GONZALEZ: You have raised the issue of crime�you�ve raised the issue of crime in relationship to immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Well, silly me, silly me. MS-13, all sorts of gangs. You know, the fact that Mexico is the largest source of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, marijuana entering the United States. Silly me for bringing up crack.
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: But may I ask you a question?
AMY GOODMAN: I think you agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: I think you would agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: �that facts matter.
LOU DOBBS: Of course, they do. Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: And so�
LOU DOBBS: I am an empericist to the bone.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, if 6% of prisoners are immigrants�documented and undocumented�and you said 30% of prisoners, a third of the population of prisons in this country, are prisoners, it conveys a very different sense.
LOU DOBBS: Different meaning.
AMY GOODMAN: And as you�ve pointed out�
LOU DOBBS: I agree.
AMY GOODMAN: �you�ve done hundreds of shows on these issues.
LOU DOBBS: More than that. More like thousands.
AMY GOODMAN: And that reinforces the feeling that people have, who watch the show�
LOU DOBBS: So, your point is?
AMY GOODMAN: �either they believe you or�either they don�t believe you, or they believe you and are being fed wrong information.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I don�t�you know, I think it�s important for all of us, because, as you say, I�m�we�re all interested in the facts. So let me ask both of you, please, a question that seeks a fact: Does the United States government and do state governments inquire of their prisoners as to whether they are legal or illegal, and can they under the law? Or are these estimates that we�re talking about?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, if the government doesn�t know, how do you know?
LOU DOBBS: No, that�s as straightforward question.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you know?
LOU DOBBS: Well, because in the federal prisons, they are permitted to make a decision as to whether or not they can ask if they�re citizens or non-citizens, but cannot ask if they�re legal or illegal. So it is, at best, a projection. When Juan says eleven million to twelve million illegal aliens, you and I both know that the Bear Stearns study suggests twenty million people. There is no one in this country today�that�s why I referred to the National Intelligence�
AMY GOODMAN: And the Bear Stearns study has been critiqued over and over again�
LOU DOBBS: By whom?
AMY GOODMAN: �by the top economists.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on!
AMY GOODMAN: Bear Stearns study, saying it is wildly exaggerated, that their�
LOU DOBBS: The National Intelligence Estimate is closer probably on Iran today than it is on the makeup of the US population today. I mean, if you want to talk about this nonsense, I mean, that�s what it is.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s go to break, and we�ll come back.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Lou Dobbs. He is the well-known anchor of CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight and has written a new book called Independents Day. We�ll be back with him in a minute.
[break]
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: �of you talking about various concerns that you have around immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: The last part of that clip�and maybe we can play it again�
LOU DOBBS: Illegal immigrants, if I may, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Illegal immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Only illegal immigrants.
AMY GOODMAN: Maybe we can play a last part of this clip that we played, just to go through it again. We�ll see if our folks have that clip ready. And this is the clip that we played in the billboard. It�s�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I can recall what was said if it�s at all helpful. I said that according to a study�I didn�t use the attribution, but according to a study that Jorge Borjas at Harvard University had completed, that the cost of excess immigration into this country amounts to $200 billion a year in wages, that the cost of incarceration, medical care, social services approximates $50 billion in this country per year. And the reality is that about a third of the crimes that are of those in state prisons�federal prisons, excuse me, federal prisons, are�I�m sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: Are�?
LOU DOBBS: Are those who are in this country illegally.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s play it.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: And then let�s talk about it.
Let�s say the number is eleven million, although some studies put the number as high as twenty million illegal aliens in this country. That not only amounts to a shift of six to ten congressional seats among the states based on the population of illegal immigration. The fact is, those illegal aliens are costing our economy $200 billion in depressed wages for working Americans. It is costing $50 billion a year in social and medical costs. And it�s costing us, no one knows precisely how much, to incarcerate what is about a third of our prison population who are illegal aliens.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it�s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.
LOU DOBBS: Well, it�s actually�I think it�s 26% in federal prison.
AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.
LOU DOBBS: I said about�yes, but I�and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn�t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression�
LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn�t, but then I just explained it to you.
AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.
LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.
AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants�
LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.
AMY GOODMAN: �in this country, of prisoners�
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: �are immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we�ve established�we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That�s what I was referring to. I did not�I misspoke when I said �prisons.� I was referring to the federal prisons, because that�s the federal crime: immigration. And that�
AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of�?
LOU DOBBS: I�m sure we have. We�ve reported�absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: We didn�t see it.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know how many reports we�ve done on illegal immigration in this country?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, many.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, my god.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, but I�d like to get into this issue�I mean, aside from the fact that the GAO report�
LOU DOBBS: Excuse me, just one second.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Sure.
LOU DOBBS: I mean, what if I were to sit here and just hound you because you said I was anti-immigrant, when I am, point of fact, I�m anti-illegal immigrant, and it�s absolutely a matter of fact. We could quarrel over the terminology, if you want. But why should people of good faith and intelligence sit there and be so absurd about it?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we agree on that. But this is precisely the lumping of illegal or undocumented immigrants and legal immigrants in one category that�s a problem�
LOU DOBBS: Right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �because, for instance�
LOU DOBBS: Right, I agree with you.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �the total percentage of the non-citizen population of the United States right now is about thirty-five million, 12% of the population.
LOU DOBBS: Do you know this?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, this is Census Bureau�
LOU DOBBS: I was just�I was just�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Wait, wait, Lou. Let me finish. Let me finish, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: I have to say, I was laughing about the NIE, because, as you heard Steve Hadley talk about�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: �high confidence levels in those estimates,�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Right, but let me�
LOU DOBBS: What do you suppose the confidence level is of the United States government in the number of people in this country illegally, the number of people�
JUAN GONZALEZ: We�re assuming now�the legal population is pretty well documented, right? But the�
LOU DOBBS: Documented, undocumented.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The legal immigrant population is pretty well documented. It�s about twenty-three million. And then you add maybe another eleven to twelve million of the undocumented population, and you get thirty-five million. The point is�my point is this: if 12% of the non-citizen population of the United States�non-citizens comprise 12% of the population. They comprise 6% of the prison population. That suggests to me that crime rates are far lower among non-citizen immigrants�legal and illegal�than they are among the general population of the United States.
LOU DOBBS: Can I ask you a question?
JUAN GONZALEZ: You have raised the issue of crime�you�ve raised the issue of crime in relationship to immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: Well, silly me, silly me. MS-13, all sorts of gangs. You know, the fact that Mexico is the largest source of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, marijuana entering the United States. Silly me for bringing up crack.
AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou�
LOU DOBBS: But may I ask you a question?
AMY GOODMAN: I think you agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: I think you would agree�
LOU DOBBS: May I ask this question�
AMY GOODMAN: �that facts matter.
LOU DOBBS: Of course, they do. Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: And so�
LOU DOBBS: I am an empericist to the bone.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, if 6% of prisoners are immigrants�documented and undocumented�and you said 30% of prisoners, a third of the population of prisons in this country, are prisoners, it conveys a very different sense.
LOU DOBBS: Different meaning.
AMY GOODMAN: And as you�ve pointed out�
LOU DOBBS: I agree.
AMY GOODMAN: �you�ve done hundreds of shows on these issues.
LOU DOBBS: More than that. More like thousands.
AMY GOODMAN: And that reinforces the feeling that people have, who watch the show�
LOU DOBBS: So, your point is?
AMY GOODMAN: �either they believe you or�either they don�t believe you, or they believe you and are being fed wrong information.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I don�t�you know, I think it�s important for all of us, because, as you say, I�m�we�re all interested in the facts. So let me ask both of you, please, a question that seeks a fact: Does the United States government and do state governments inquire of their prisoners as to whether they are legal or illegal, and can they under the law? Or are these estimates that we�re talking about?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, if the government doesn�t know, how do you know?
LOU DOBBS: No, that�s as straightforward question.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you know?
LOU DOBBS: Well, because in the federal prisons, they are permitted to make a decision as to whether or not they can ask if they�re citizens or non-citizens, but cannot ask if they�re legal or illegal. So it is, at best, a projection. When Juan says eleven million to twelve million illegal aliens, you and I both know that the Bear Stearns study suggests twenty million people. There is no one in this country today�that�s why I referred to the National Intelligence�
AMY GOODMAN: And the Bear Stearns study has been critiqued over and over again�
LOU DOBBS: By whom?
AMY GOODMAN: �by the top economists.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on!
AMY GOODMAN: Bear Stearns study, saying it is wildly exaggerated, that their�
LOU DOBBS: The National Intelligence Estimate is closer probably on Iran today than it is on the makeup of the US population today. I mean, if you want to talk about this nonsense, I mean, that�s what it is.
AMY GOODMAN: Let�s go to break, and we�ll come back.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Lou Dobbs. He is the well-known anchor of CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight and has written a new book called Independents Day. We�ll be back with him in a minute.
[break]
hairstyles Singer Nate Dogg, whose real
kshitijnt
05-10 10:55 PM
Are you sure you are not confusing with Indian epics that discuss how Lord Brahma had sex with his own daughter? :D :D
Unfortunately, you are showing your culture here with responses like this by clearly proving that you are incapable of provding a proper response. You are not making any case here, actually you are undermining it. This clearly shows the contempt that you have for the people of the country where you are desparately trying to immigrate to.
If things were so rosy in India compared to US, you wouldn't be posting in this forum, will you?
As a matter of fact, people like you, irrespective of the qualifications, should never be allowed to immigrate to anywhere. You should remain in India or should I say "arsha-bharatha"?
What are you showing hunter here? American hipocracy & bigotry in full light? How is your culture any good with what you have posted?
Unfortunately, you are showing your culture here with responses like this by clearly proving that you are incapable of provding a proper response. You are not making any case here, actually you are undermining it. This clearly shows the contempt that you have for the people of the country where you are desparately trying to immigrate to.
If things were so rosy in India compared to US, you wouldn't be posting in this forum, will you?
As a matter of fact, people like you, irrespective of the qualifications, should never be allowed to immigrate to anywhere. You should remain in India or should I say "arsha-bharatha"?
What are you showing hunter here? American hipocracy & bigotry in full light? How is your culture any good with what you have posted?
immi2006
07-09 10:11 PM
This they cannot send there.... they have to take this :D
apriti
06-25 03:32 PM
Posting my case, in case someone in similar situation is interested.
Self : PD July 2002 -EB3
Spouse : PD Feb 2006 - EB3.
Suggested by our lawyers.
File my I-485 with spouse as dependent,
File my spouse's I-485 with me as dependent mentioning receipt notice of first I-485.
File for only one set of EAD and AP docs. Doesn't matter with which.
Filing both in July '07.
Self : PD July 2002 -EB3
Spouse : PD Feb 2006 - EB3.
Suggested by our lawyers.
File my I-485 with spouse as dependent,
File my spouse's I-485 with me as dependent mentioning receipt notice of first I-485.
File for only one set of EAD and AP docs. Doesn't matter with which.
Filing both in July '07.
No comments:
Post a Comment