WillIBLucky
11-17 12:19 PM
if EB reform is discussed as a part of CIR in 2007, i am sure it will be 2008 by the time they start implementing it and 2009 by the time you will see any tangible benefits from it. CIR is not something that will be discussed and approved in a month. After CIR is approved (thats big if) it will take a few months for CIS to come up with the guidelines and prepare itself to handle the increased work load. Look for substantial delays.
IMO, Our best hope is if EB relief is picked up earlier and approved on its own before they talk about CIR.
SKIL is the best bet for us. Hopefully we will see it being discussed soon in Senate.
IMO, Our best hope is if EB relief is picked up earlier and approved on its own before they talk about CIR.
SKIL is the best bet for us. Hopefully we will see it being discussed soon in Senate.
saileshdude
07-16 10:30 AM
Guys,
I was laid off few weeks ago and my I-485 is pending for over 180 days. I have a potential offer from a company and I was planning to port my I-140 using AC21. My GC sponsoring employer had listed the position requiring Masters degree and my I-140 says EB2 as someone mentioned in the previous post.
The new offer that I am getting may not require Masters degree but it may require BS+6 years of experience. Will this be considered EB2 port ? I am not sure about this because this position requires BS +5 , which can also be considered as Eb2. As I am on timeline (my dates will be current as per Aug bulletin) I want to have job offer in hand so I cannot be picky about the position requirement at this time.
I was laid off few weeks ago and my I-485 is pending for over 180 days. I have a potential offer from a company and I was planning to port my I-140 using AC21. My GC sponsoring employer had listed the position requiring Masters degree and my I-140 says EB2 as someone mentioned in the previous post.
The new offer that I am getting may not require Masters degree but it may require BS+6 years of experience. Will this be considered EB2 port ? I am not sure about this because this position requires BS +5 , which can also be considered as Eb2. As I am on timeline (my dates will be current as per Aug bulletin) I want to have job offer in hand so I cannot be picky about the position requirement at this time.
simmy78
08-10 02:31 PM
A friend who works in a consulting company was told by his lawyers. I really dont know if this info is true or not, which is why I posted the thread.
srkumar_2k
07-26 09:31 AM
The Link is not working.
Actually I am going to apply EAD for future purpose. In near future i am not going to change my current employer. If i continue to work with same employer after getting EAD, Will i be on H1B or EAD status?
Actually I am going to apply EAD for future purpose. In near future i am not going to change my current employer. If i continue to work with same employer after getting EAD, Will i be on H1B or EAD status?
more...
amsgc
03-31 06:03 PM
I hate to be nitpicky here, but that is not what Ronnie said.
Ronnie stated in no uncertain terms that "Immigration and Tax Filing are not at all related". This statement, in any which way you look at, is factually incorrect. Unfortunately it perpetuates the misconception that your non-immigrant status (which is an integral topic in the subject of immigration) has nothing to do with your taxes. In fact, many people often make this mistake, only to be corrected when presented with the 1040 instructions, and Publication 519.
If Ronnie had said something to the effect that filing jointly or separately will not have an affect on your immigration status or Green Card application, then I might not have objected. However, it should be filed in compliance with the law.
I am taking a guess that what Ronnie meant to say was that, Tax filing (whether or not you file jointly) has no implications on your immigration process... which is true.
If you filed 'married filing separately' does not mean that you dont want to support your spouse anymore as a derivative of your I-485 !
Ronnie stated in no uncertain terms that "Immigration and Tax Filing are not at all related". This statement, in any which way you look at, is factually incorrect. Unfortunately it perpetuates the misconception that your non-immigrant status (which is an integral topic in the subject of immigration) has nothing to do with your taxes. In fact, many people often make this mistake, only to be corrected when presented with the 1040 instructions, and Publication 519.
If Ronnie had said something to the effect that filing jointly or separately will not have an affect on your immigration status or Green Card application, then I might not have objected. However, it should be filed in compliance with the law.
I am taking a guess that what Ronnie meant to say was that, Tax filing (whether or not you file jointly) has no implications on your immigration process... which is true.
If you filed 'married filing separately' does not mean that you dont want to support your spouse anymore as a derivative of your I-485 !
LOL123
02-14 08:56 AM
Thanks for correcting me ... I changed the title
You need to say "MY priority date is current in March"
The current thread title had me thinking there was another July fiasco..
Thanks.
You need to say "MY priority date is current in March"
The current thread title had me thinking there was another July fiasco..
Thanks.
more...
ys2jax
07-11 02:21 PM
open a infopass, go to a local service center, they will schedule and u get it done, Dont loose this great chance.
I waited, opened SR's with 0 luck. Then i tried above and it worked. Luckily they scheduled same day as inforpass for me.
what options did you choose while selecting infopass appt
-----------------------
the first screen gives 5 options
1. You need Service on a case that has already been filed
2. You are a new Permanent Resident and have not yet received your permanent Resident Card
3. You want to file an application in person
4. You need information or other services
5. You need a form.
---------------------------------
I selected #1 and it give 4 more options but I am not sure which one to select for FP
Order from Immigration Court - If you were directed to us for processing based on an order from the Immigration Judge. You must bring all documents required in the post order instructions given to you by the court.
Case Processing Appointment - If you received a notice to go to your local office for further case processing.
EAD inquiry appointment - If your I-765 employment authorization application has been pending for more than 90 days.
Case Services follow-up appointment - If it has been over 45 days since you contacted NCSC and have not received a response to your inquiry. You must bring the Service Request ID Number related to your inquiry to the appointment.
can you throw some light. Thanks
I waited, opened SR's with 0 luck. Then i tried above and it worked. Luckily they scheduled same day as inforpass for me.
what options did you choose while selecting infopass appt
-----------------------
the first screen gives 5 options
1. You need Service on a case that has already been filed
2. You are a new Permanent Resident and have not yet received your permanent Resident Card
3. You want to file an application in person
4. You need information or other services
5. You need a form.
---------------------------------
I selected #1 and it give 4 more options but I am not sure which one to select for FP
Order from Immigration Court - If you were directed to us for processing based on an order from the Immigration Judge. You must bring all documents required in the post order instructions given to you by the court.
Case Processing Appointment - If you received a notice to go to your local office for further case processing.
EAD inquiry appointment - If your I-765 employment authorization application has been pending for more than 90 days.
Case Services follow-up appointment - If it has been over 45 days since you contacted NCSC and have not received a response to your inquiry. You must bring the Service Request ID Number related to your inquiry to the appointment.
can you throw some light. Thanks
NIW
08-31 12:24 PM
Just Ignore him. He thinks foreign workers are cheap labor. My wife recently got Outstanding Resident physician award in a huge urban hospital where she competed with 100% bright and talented American MDs.
Lou! I don't think we have any classes to improve IQ. Its genetic.
Lou! I don't think we have any classes to improve IQ. Its genetic.
more...
walking_dude
10-25 01:57 PM
Guys, I couldn't reply to you all earlier , here, as I was busy with my job and personal chores.
Let's settle for Yahoo now, as it has powerful features such as Polls and Database that aren't available in Google. Also the Google group created by me has gone into 'La-La land' ( google bugs!)
Here's our new Secure and Trusted Yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ivmi
Here's the latest
1) We are getting our group registered as Official on IV (details sent to IV)
2) News from IV on Legislative updates issues will be posted on the group this weekend (10/20 attendees, be sure to join by then)
3) Some 10/20 Attendees to the meet have been added directly to the group. Others have been sent invites ( Yahoo restricts direct add to 10 per day). Please join ASAP. Let me know if there are any issues [ PM/'Private Message' or E-mail me]. I'll help you get joined.
4) Others, please provide the following details while requesting to join the group.
A) FULL NAME
B) IV handle (N/A for non-members)
C) Telephone [ we'll call you. No request to join will be accepted without Telephone number]
D) City and Zip Code + 4
We will call you to verify and then your request will be accepted. We regret the inability to accomodate anonymous requesters, as we wish to keep our group Secure and Trusted for the purpose of dissemination of sensitive IV information. Your co-operation to make this happen is greatly appreciated.
Let's settle for Yahoo now, as it has powerful features such as Polls and Database that aren't available in Google. Also the Google group created by me has gone into 'La-La land' ( google bugs!)
Here's our new Secure and Trusted Yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ivmi
Here's the latest
1) We are getting our group registered as Official on IV (details sent to IV)
2) News from IV on Legislative updates issues will be posted on the group this weekend (10/20 attendees, be sure to join by then)
3) Some 10/20 Attendees to the meet have been added directly to the group. Others have been sent invites ( Yahoo restricts direct add to 10 per day). Please join ASAP. Let me know if there are any issues [ PM/'Private Message' or E-mail me]. I'll help you get joined.
4) Others, please provide the following details while requesting to join the group.
A) FULL NAME
B) IV handle (N/A for non-members)
C) Telephone [ we'll call you. No request to join will be accepted without Telephone number]
D) City and Zip Code + 4
We will call you to verify and then your request will be accepted. We regret the inability to accomodate anonymous requesters, as we wish to keep our group Secure and Trusted for the purpose of dissemination of sensitive IV information. Your co-operation to make this happen is greatly appreciated.
gc_kaavaali
11-14 04:09 PM
somebody gave red mark...what happened???
more...
dealsnet
09-08 12:40 PM
I don't know about them. Any way free is free, till they ask for money.
BETTER CALL FROM WORK PHONE, IF YOU ARE NOT FEELING SAFE.
If they want our number for telemarketing, do the following.
If you think the number is used for telemarketing people,
dial *67 before you dial that number so it will block your caller id.
OR
you can go via Google Voice, as your Google Voice number will be displayed to the Telemarketers and not your own number!
One big question:
Who runs this free calling service?
There is no contact information or legal disclaimers. It is just a one page website.
BTW I tried and it worked. But these questions are important to know this is not a fishy site or what their true goal of providing this free call is.
BETTER CALL FROM WORK PHONE, IF YOU ARE NOT FEELING SAFE.
If they want our number for telemarketing, do the following.
If you think the number is used for telemarketing people,
dial *67 before you dial that number so it will block your caller id.
OR
you can go via Google Voice, as your Google Voice number will be displayed to the Telemarketers and not your own number!
One big question:
Who runs this free calling service?
There is no contact information or legal disclaimers. It is just a one page website.
BTW I tried and it worked. But these questions are important to know this is not a fishy site or what their true goal of providing this free call is.
InTheMoment
07-17 09:32 PM
XM0625 is the officer id.
more...
fcres
07-06 11:40 AM
I am almost sure even if you have an approved I-140, it still isn't enough to get an H-1B extension.
Thanks,
Jayant
If I have approved LC and I140, can't i get 1yr (or if PD dates are retrogressed get 3yr) H1 extension??
Thanks,
Jayant
If I have approved LC and I140, can't i get 1yr (or if PD dates are retrogressed get 3yr) H1 extension??
Dipika
03-28 09:41 AM
guys, Murthy says EB2 will move forward in May 2008 bulletine. Reason is getting leftover visa from EB1 India's category.
http://murthy.com/bulletin.html
hoping big forward move.:D
http://murthy.com/bulletin.html
hoping big forward move.:D
more...
engineer
06-03 02:10 AM
I didnot like the webfax as it doesnot cover wishes of many people like me. People who have approved Perm should be allowed to file I140 and I1485 under old system even if Point Based system becomes law.
engineer
engineer
sam_gc
04-07 04:14 PM
I did extended for my in-laws when they entered last time to US. When they entered next time they entered without any issues.
Last time time also lot of my friends scared me (immigration people will stop them at the port of entry), my another friend (both husband and wife doctors), they bring there in - laws everytime they will extend it to 3 times approxmately they will stay in US 2 years, they left several times and entered into US without any issues.
Last time time also lot of my friends scared me (immigration people will stop them at the port of entry), my another friend (both husband and wife doctors), they bring there in - laws everytime they will extend it to 3 times approxmately they will stay in US 2 years, they left several times and entered into US without any issues.
more...
ilovestirfries
07-06 10:28 AM
I thought that Kaiser was only for Western States. Is it there for other places also?
A little peek into Kaiser's website will help you a long way in answering your basic questions...
Here is the info. about their locations,
http://members.kaiserpermanente.org/kpweb/toc.do?theme=locate_members
Here is their website, where you can do "SEARCH" before you ask any kind of basic questions,
http://www.kaiserpermanente.org/
A little peek into Kaiser's website will help you a long way in answering your basic questions...
Here is the info. about their locations,
http://members.kaiserpermanente.org/kpweb/toc.do?theme=locate_members
Here is their website, where you can do "SEARCH" before you ask any kind of basic questions,
http://www.kaiserpermanente.org/
GCard_Dream
07-09 02:07 AM
Both my wife and I applied for our AOS together during the July fiasco. My wife received a RFE for another medical exam today. We both did our medical at the same time and were submitted with the AOS application but only my wife received the RFE for medical. I did receive another RFE but not for medical.
Why would she receive the RFE for medical? Does the medical exam also expire as the finger print does? If it does expire then why would only one of us receive the medical RFE and not the other?
Why would she receive the RFE for medical? Does the medical exam also expire as the finger print does? If it does expire then why would only one of us receive the medical RFE and not the other?
tikka
08-07 11:48 AM
[QUOTE=tnite;141114]Please join us for a tri state lunch meet. We would like to start working on volunteers/ mobilizing members for the DC rally. Even if you cannot take the day off and come to DC please come by for the lunch. We could really use help with banners/posters/ and ideas to make this a success.
WHEN: Saturday AUGUST 11th
LOCATION- 148 E 48TH St, New York, NY 10017 (between Lexington and Third Avenues.)
SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION!! LUNCH IS AT NOON!!!
WHEN: Saturday AUGUST 11th
LOCATION- 148 E 48TH St, New York, NY 10017 (between Lexington and Third Avenues.)
SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION!! LUNCH IS AT NOON!!!
Siboo
07-28 07:22 PM
My prediction for this year..
EB1 = Current
EB2 = Jan 2003 (Because of BEC cases coming out, chance for them to file I-485 in October)
EB3 = U
This looks like September 13 bulletin.
What about October 02, 2007 update??:D :D
EB1 = Current
EB2 = Jan 2003 (Because of BEC cases coming out, chance for them to file I-485 in October)
EB3 = U
This looks like September 13 bulletin.
What about October 02, 2007 update??:D :D
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment