rb_248
12-13 11:39 AM
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
This is a good point. But, in its current state, will not fly. This can only be used as a supporting evidence for our cause. Lawmakers will never remove country cap. We can use this point in pushing any of our other agendas.
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
This is a good point. But, in its current state, will not fly. This can only be used as a supporting evidence for our cause. Lawmakers will never remove country cap. We can use this point in pushing any of our other agendas.
wallpaper Ashton Kutcher
sath2000
07-17 04:33 PM
Hi,
Here is my issue regarding the PD.
My Employer applied for labor through RIR under EB2 March6th 2004 which was then transffered to Philadelphia Backlog Center. Our Attorney suggested that we Apply through PERM process and Retain PD from the old case. Converted to PERM and applied on 09/26/2006 which was approved on 12/29/2006 but the letter said that they are not retaining PD from the old application as address is changed. Our employer moved 1 street accross in between these to application in Feb 2006. only street address changed everything including phone number remained same. My attorney said that he talked to the labor department in Chicago telling them that phone number didn't change. They said they will consider it and asked him to send a letter. It has been over 15 months he send the first letter. He said last month he also received a call from chicago office saying that they will take a look at the files.
In the meantime applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in July/Aug 2007. I-140 got approved on 05/28/2008 and got RFE for I-485 on 06/13/2008. responded to RFE and now case process resumed.
At this point I am trying to see if anyone have this kinda of issue and got resolved or there is away to get this resolved.
thank you
Here is my issue regarding the PD.
My Employer applied for labor through RIR under EB2 March6th 2004 which was then transffered to Philadelphia Backlog Center. Our Attorney suggested that we Apply through PERM process and Retain PD from the old case. Converted to PERM and applied on 09/26/2006 which was approved on 12/29/2006 but the letter said that they are not retaining PD from the old application as address is changed. Our employer moved 1 street accross in between these to application in Feb 2006. only street address changed everything including phone number remained same. My attorney said that he talked to the labor department in Chicago telling them that phone number didn't change. They said they will consider it and asked him to send a letter. It has been over 15 months he send the first letter. He said last month he also received a call from chicago office saying that they will take a look at the files.
In the meantime applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in July/Aug 2007. I-140 got approved on 05/28/2008 and got RFE for I-485 on 06/13/2008. responded to RFE and now case process resumed.
At this point I am trying to see if anyone have this kinda of issue and got resolved or there is away to get this resolved.
thank you
tikka
05-25 12:05 PM
I did my Candian PR through this firm
http://www.canadavisa.com/
Very professional. Timely communication.
Did you send your web fax today?
Please do
Thank you
http://www.canadavisa.com/
Very professional. Timely communication.
Did you send your web fax today?
Please do
Thank you
2011 kutcher two and a half men
BMS
07-03 06:47 PM
sent to all foxnews email addr
more...
g03
01-14 10:00 AM
I had a similar thought (about including EB3 too and going by priority date)
and sent a letter to local congressman yesterday afternoon.
He has not responded yet.
My company agreed to port mine to EB2 but I'll support this provision having spent my time in EB3 category.
and sent a letter to local congressman yesterday afternoon.
He has not responded yet.
My company agreed to port mine to EB2 but I'll support this provision having spent my time in EB3 category.
Googler
02-18 03:17 PM
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.
This is great -- you won't consider facts and evidence, including the fact that judges themselves are recommending class action in similar cases! Forget about considering, you won't even read a post with a different pov... (makes me wonder why you bother with the forum if even reading a post is too much work.)
My own attorney, as a matter of fact, thinks that a class action makes sense in this instance.
As lazycis points out, his attorney didn't want him to even file an individual WOM, and it turned out his attorney was absolutely wrong. The mass of evidence in WOM cases and the current Mocanu decision shows that lazycis's attorney (and other let us not disturb/question the status quo attorneys) were wrong. I should remind people again that most of our attorneys are not litigators, they are paper filers -- this dichotomy is true in most other practice areas of the law (eg: antitrust) as well.
The reason I care about this is -- if people/attorneys make up their minds without considering the facts/legal precedents, then they will not spot and/or work to figure out the legal arguments that will win the day -- the legal arguments eventually used in the WOM cases did not sprout out on day one, it was an iterative process.
This is great -- you won't consider facts and evidence, including the fact that judges themselves are recommending class action in similar cases! Forget about considering, you won't even read a post with a different pov... (makes me wonder why you bother with the forum if even reading a post is too much work.)
My own attorney, as a matter of fact, thinks that a class action makes sense in this instance.
As lazycis points out, his attorney didn't want him to even file an individual WOM, and it turned out his attorney was absolutely wrong. The mass of evidence in WOM cases and the current Mocanu decision shows that lazycis's attorney (and other let us not disturb/question the status quo attorneys) were wrong. I should remind people again that most of our attorneys are not litigators, they are paper filers -- this dichotomy is true in most other practice areas of the law (eg: antitrust) as well.
The reason I care about this is -- if people/attorneys make up their minds without considering the facts/legal precedents, then they will not spot and/or work to figure out the legal arguments that will win the day -- the legal arguments eventually used in the WOM cases did not sprout out on day one, it was an iterative process.
more...
vdlrao
07-23 04:52 PM
I felt very bad and compleately moved when I was read about Mehul at that time. He was not able to get the GC in time just because he was born in India, even though he is from Fiji. During the last days of his life he was more worried about his family settlement, than his death, and moved them to sweeden. I hope this kind of sitution wont repeat to any immigrant.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15611
For things like this not to repeat, we need a legilation change so that it doesnt matter which country you are from and which EB category you are in, and make sure that there wont be years long back logs.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15611
For things like this not to repeat, we need a legilation change so that it doesnt matter which country you are from and which EB category you are in, and make sure that there wont be years long back logs.
2010 Ashton Kutcher Is Charlie
lazycis
12-13 05:41 PM
I've got some experience with the court system and I think the whole discussion is pointless. To invalidate the law, it should be in conflict with the constitution. What article of the consitution conflicts with per-country limits for EB GC? If anything, quota is equally divided between countries, so there is no discrimination. To get a GC is not a right and never will be. End of story.
more...
Michael chertoff
01-14 08:30 AM
What about people who are on there EAD? who dont have H1B anymore? any comments?
Please shere some infoormatin about this too. there are so many people like that, including me.
Thanks
MC
Please shere some infoormatin about this too. there are so many people like that, including me.
Thanks
MC
hair Ashton Kutcher: Two and a Half
andymajumder
06-02 03:54 PM
I am the one , who proposed this idea, and people tend to disagree.
I am again saying , the only solution is a lawsuit.
Its possible we will not win such a lawsuit....I am not a lawyer, and often things which seem discriminatory to the common man, cannot be proved so in the court of law.
Yet, such a lawsuit could get some publicity and at least highlight the baltantly unfair laws against certain groups people based on country of birth in the EB category.
I am again saying , the only solution is a lawsuit.
Its possible we will not win such a lawsuit....I am not a lawyer, and often things which seem discriminatory to the common man, cannot be proved so in the court of law.
Yet, such a lawsuit could get some publicity and at least highlight the baltantly unfair laws against certain groups people based on country of birth in the EB category.
more...
Lasantha
12-14 04:48 PM
I did not mean sector. I was refering to his statement about people from one country monopolizing the visas.
I am sorry but I still cannot see how a 7% per country upper limit criteria allows any one sector (say IT) from monopolizing all the available visas
I am sorry but I still cannot see how a 7% per country upper limit criteria allows any one sector (say IT) from monopolizing all the available visas
hot The multi-talented Kutcher,
BlueSkyPro
09-24 03:43 PM
done.
more...
house hot makeup Ashton Kutcher Two
needhelp!
02-13 11:18 AM
Believe me, in my office or outside, I have talked to every Indian. And not one comes back n discusses with me about IV.
I strongly feel IV is doing a commendable job with some dedicated contributors.
Thank you brij523. You are a great supporter of our cause. I cannot forget how hard you worked at diwali mela in DFW even though you already got your GC. Its inspiration from people like you that keeps us going.
I strongly feel IV is doing a commendable job with some dedicated contributors.
Thank you brij523. You are a great supporter of our cause. I cannot forget how hard you worked at diwali mela in DFW even though you already got your GC. Its inspiration from people like you that keeps us going.
tattoo A Half Men Ashton Kutcher
rajsenthil
05-03 06:46 AM
Here Some Arava became Sherlock Holmes II
Unfortunately its a flop show.. I pity you dude..
If you are not Sinhalese then you must be SAROJA DEVI :D
I could guess this from one of your post :cool:
Unfortunately its a flop show.. I pity you dude..
If you are not Sinhalese then you must be SAROJA DEVI :D
I could guess this from one of your post :cool:
more...
pictures Ashton Kutcher Set to Replace
oguinan
02-15 06:52 PM
No claim, just fact. Sure, you can dress up a pig, but some people will still see it for a pig.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act
Racial restrictions which previously existed were abolished in the INA, but a quota system was retained and the policy of restricting the numbers of immigrants from certain countries was continued.
A couple of points. Firstly it's usually a good idea when quoting wikipedia to include the primary reference that the quote or opinion is based on. A contentious issue like immigration reform produces lots of opinion but not all of it is based on fact. Secondly, there are shocking racial elements in the history of immigration laws in the US. Perhaps it's not that shocking when one considers the racial history of the country. Many people will be familiar with the supreme court case 1923 of Bhagat Singh Thind, a Sikh man who fought for the US in World War I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind
The immigration laws at the time said that only Caucasians could become US citizens. The framers of the law assumed that Caucasian meant "white" while Singh Thind relied on science to prove that people of South Asian origin were also Caucasian. He lost the case with one judge stating "the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences".
My point is that the immigration laws of the United States were racist until the 1952 INA act. They specifically placed quotas on people based on the color of their skin. Today's restrictions, while bizarre, unreasonable and unfair in many ways, cannot be defined as racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act
Racial restrictions which previously existed were abolished in the INA, but a quota system was retained and the policy of restricting the numbers of immigrants from certain countries was continued.
A couple of points. Firstly it's usually a good idea when quoting wikipedia to include the primary reference that the quote or opinion is based on. A contentious issue like immigration reform produces lots of opinion but not all of it is based on fact. Secondly, there are shocking racial elements in the history of immigration laws in the US. Perhaps it's not that shocking when one considers the racial history of the country. Many people will be familiar with the supreme court case 1923 of Bhagat Singh Thind, a Sikh man who fought for the US in World War I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind
The immigration laws at the time said that only Caucasians could become US citizens. The framers of the law assumed that Caucasian meant "white" while Singh Thind relied on science to prove that people of South Asian origin were also Caucasian. He lost the case with one judge stating "the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences".
My point is that the immigration laws of the United States were racist until the 1952 INA act. They specifically placed quotas on people based on the color of their skin. Today's restrictions, while bizarre, unreasonable and unfair in many ways, cannot be defined as racist.
dresses 2010 Ashton Kutcher will be
saileshdude
05-29 03:42 PM
I am not sure if I agree with doing two things at the same time. We can try to solve 12 things at the same time, but at the end are we effective? As an organization,If by focusing on eliminating EB1 fraud gives us significant advantage in short and long term then I am all for it. Numbers do not suggest that.However if we focus our energy on legislative fixes to eliminate the backlog, most of the categories will benefit.Question is do we suggest 20 things and dont complete anything or take one important initiative to the finish line. In my limited experience, I have seen second one works better.
Reporting to USCIS about possible L1/ EB1 fraud should not take too much efforts so as to impact the effectiveness. Its just about bringing to attention to the USCIS about the possible misuse of EB1 by these consulting firms. Ultimately its upto USCIS to make a judgement about a particular case but with our help of informing them this is happening will make the adjudicating process tough for these people.
Reporting to USCIS about possible L1/ EB1 fraud should not take too much efforts so as to impact the effectiveness. Its just about bringing to attention to the USCIS about the possible misuse of EB1 by these consulting firms. Ultimately its upto USCIS to make a judgement about a particular case but with our help of informing them this is happening will make the adjudicating process tough for these people.
more...
makeup Ashton Kutcher Will Play In
longq
02-13 07:10 PM
(a) INA 202(a)(3) states that the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) [...] exceeds the number of qualified immigrants [...] (2) shall not apply [...]. In your case, there are no excess visas available for FB immigrants.
(b) INA 202(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. requires that additional visas are distributed according to the world-wide distribution across FB and EB categories. Of the 100 unused visas 77 would have to be alloted to FB, and only 22 to EB categories. Assuming a 1/3 distribution in EB categories EB1, EB2, EB3, 7 would go to EB2.
If USCIS cannot follow this rule, those 100 visas would be unused for that fiscal year.
With AC21, the 100 can be assigned to oversubscribed countries, if Visas are available, ie. demand in all categories is less than supply. With EB3-ROW retrogressed, that is not the case.
Just the way I see it....
No. You are wrong..
202 (e)(3) will not applicable, because of (a)(5).
The third point excempts that ..
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
(b) INA 202(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. requires that additional visas are distributed according to the world-wide distribution across FB and EB categories. Of the 100 unused visas 77 would have to be alloted to FB, and only 22 to EB categories. Assuming a 1/3 distribution in EB categories EB1, EB2, EB3, 7 would go to EB2.
If USCIS cannot follow this rule, those 100 visas would be unused for that fiscal year.
With AC21, the 100 can be assigned to oversubscribed countries, if Visas are available, ie. demand in all categories is less than supply. With EB3-ROW retrogressed, that is not the case.
Just the way I see it....
No. You are wrong..
202 (e)(3) will not applicable, because of (a)(5).
The third point excempts that ..
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
girlfriend charlie-sheen-ashton-kutcher-
whoever
04-28 12:48 PM
so no more labor substitution han? that sounds so sweet to me. we should expect pd movement for eb3 now and maybe for eb2 too now. and this is the best news i have heard in such a long time.
hairstyles Ashton Kutcher officially
snathan
01-16 12:53 PM
One truth: Indian employers mistreat their employees. But this is
You have a choice: Don't join them. It doesn't require a USCIS memo.
USCIS and scumbags (Hira, Matloff, ...) have absolutely no interest in the welfare of these affected H-1Bs. Their motivation is 100% sadistic.
>>> Sure so tell the truth to USCIS and tell them that we join them knowing very well what they do but you have no problem with that and hence USCIS should not bother us. What is issue here then ?
We believe we are targetted unfairly and we are looking what can be done legally. If you are not interested, please ignore this thread or gladly go back to india. DONT DEVIATE FROM TEH SUBJECT. No one is looking here for your advise....please dont bother to ignore us and waste our time. No one is stopping you to go India Please get lost.:mad:
You have a choice: Don't join them. It doesn't require a USCIS memo.
USCIS and scumbags (Hira, Matloff, ...) have absolutely no interest in the welfare of these affected H-1Bs. Their motivation is 100% sadistic.
>>> Sure so tell the truth to USCIS and tell them that we join them knowing very well what they do but you have no problem with that and hence USCIS should not bother us. What is issue here then ?
We believe we are targetted unfairly and we are looking what can be done legally. If you are not interested, please ignore this thread or gladly go back to india. DONT DEVIATE FROM TEH SUBJECT. No one is looking here for your advise....please dont bother to ignore us and waste our time. No one is stopping you to go India Please get lost.:mad:
Caliber
09-04 09:25 PM
CHANDUV23 THE TERRORIST:
It is easy to locate him in New York and give his details to FBI to check his links to underworld, VHP terrorists, and all other things. Your wife is doing residency. Right??
Hang on, you will be caught before you got GC and will be deported.
Dealsnet: You do not even know if "_Truefacts" is Chandu or not. Do not assume. It will make an ass of you.
Why are you talking about family? Shall we also start bashing your family? Shall we start? Are you ready?
It is easy to locate him in New York and give his details to FBI to check his links to underworld, VHP terrorists, and all other things. Your wife is doing residency. Right??
Hang on, you will be caught before you got GC and will be deported.
Dealsnet: You do not even know if "_Truefacts" is Chandu or not. Do not assume. It will make an ass of you.
Why are you talking about family? Shall we also start bashing your family? Shall we start? Are you ready?
cbpds
01-13 01:20 PM
I am not sure why everyone is complaining but your post has quite a lot of facts as well, well written !!
Good Things about IV
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
Good Things about IV
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
