PlainSpeak
01-14 12:42 PM
Good catch !!!!!!!!!!! HA....HA.......H.....AAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My friend it took it time to get the joke but you got it. I am happy for you
My friend it took it time to get the joke but you got it. I am happy for you
wallpaper Monaco F1 GP Auto Racing
srkamath
07-25 09:54 PM
Are you sure about # 3?
The annual limits are 140000+FB, the FB spillover number are available during the first quarter itself. So it is possible for DOS to estimate the annual limit very early in the year, it seems unlikely that they will wait till the last quarter.
.....
3. At least 20,000 if not more FB spill over is available and has not been applied to this year's count.[/B]
The annual limits are 140000+FB, the FB spillover number are available during the first quarter itself. So it is possible for DOS to estimate the annual limit very early in the year, it seems unlikely that they will wait till the last quarter.
.....
3. At least 20,000 if not more FB spill over is available and has not been applied to this year's count.[/B]
weasley
09-23 06:44 PM
I completely agree with this. USCIS has better date than prior years. PD for October is Jan 2005,the numbers available for first quarter is 750 (approx) and around 700 I485s are in Jan 2005. We will know in Dec whether quarterly spill happens or not.
The key difference compared to last year is Pre-Adjudication and improved communication between DOS and USCIS.
.
The key difference compared to last year is Pre-Adjudication and improved communication between DOS and USCIS.
.
2011 2010 Monaco GP Mark Webber has
eager_immi
07-25 10:11 AM
isn't it my choice. u can go back to india if u like i don't think i will stop u. Also using the same logic india is still ur home country u should go back even if GC works out.
WHY not go back to India if the GC process fails , I mean after all India is our home country rite .(I am talking only about Indians)
Health and Wealth are subjective after all
WHY not go back to India if the GC process fails , I mean after all India is our home country rite .(I am talking only about Indians)
Health and Wealth are subjective after all
more...
ssharma
07-08 09:34 AM
Is there certain minimum "safe" numbers of days one has to stay with the sponsoring company after getting the EB Green Card.
In my case I have been working with my employer since Sept-2001 (almost 7 years). My GC labor was started in Dec 485 filed in May and GC approved June 24, 2008.
I was in the middle of changing jobs using AC21 just before my GC got approved, hence this urgency. How soon can I join some my new job ?
Thanks for your time.
In my case I have been working with my employer since Sept-2001 (almost 7 years). My GC labor was started in Dec 485 filed in May and GC approved June 24, 2008.
I was in the middle of changing jobs using AC21 just before my GC got approved, hence this urgency. How soon can I join some my new job ?
Thanks for your time.
maximus777
08-17 02:38 PM
Well said. On a lighter not, maybe he got flagged because his IPL team Kolkata Knight Riders has so many Pak players in it, I wouldnt be surprised if someone mistook it for Karachi Knight Riders. :D
more...
vamsi_poondla
02-14 02:48 PM
chandu...have u read the lawsuit outcome? do u still think that an administrative fix is easier to achieve than a lawsuit? lets say it comes down to either/or...either a lawsuit or an administrative fix...which one would IV support?
This is not admin fix versus law suit. We should continue with admin campaign as we do not know the lawsuit outcome. Admin fix will give immediate relief for thousands of immigrants.
This is not admin fix versus law suit. We should continue with admin campaign as we do not know the lawsuit outcome. Admin fix will give immediate relief for thousands of immigrants.
2010 makeup Monaco F1 Grand Prix
eb3_nepa
06-27 11:40 PM
Yes. Agreed. But what this means is that if they approve too many cases then they may issue August bulletin with retrogressed dates. And that's fine because they can do that and everyone expects dates to retrogress either in August bulletin or in subsequent bulletin.
Which portion of the Ombudsman report says that "In the middle of the month for which bulletin is already out there with current dates, they can just stop accepting applications and sort of "REVISE" an already issued bulletin".
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT ???
And I am still looking for source of information where in the middle of the month for which a bulletin was already issued in preceding month, USCIS chose to stop accepting petitions and not honor the bulletin issued by DOS with current dates.
I am seeing a lot of copy-paste from lawyers websites but NONE, I repeat, NONE has a government website URL or any official source.
Those who still want to believe can choose to believe this. It will make people file on July 1st, if its in their hands. If its in the hands of HR department and company lawyers, it will make them raise their blood pressure until the lawyer sends them an email on July 25th that the Fedex went out today.
I believe that regardless of what August bulletin shows, July bulletin on DOS website applies to month of July all the way thru July 31st and as long as you file before July 31st, you are fine.
I made myself look like an idiot by asking such questions to my lawyer, who is already going nuts over the suddenly sky-rocketing workload of 485 petitions. There is another guy who made a fool of himself by asking the lawyer this question.
And people keep posting new updates and baseless sources to add credence to this baseless rumor. Suit yourself.
Logiclife,
I agree with what you say. However I dont see any evidence on the USCIS/DOS website that says that USCIS/DOS CANNOT change the dates mid-month either. THAT part is worrying me (and everyone).
Which portion of the Ombudsman report says that "In the middle of the month for which bulletin is already out there with current dates, they can just stop accepting applications and sort of "REVISE" an already issued bulletin".
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT ???
And I am still looking for source of information where in the middle of the month for which a bulletin was already issued in preceding month, USCIS chose to stop accepting petitions and not honor the bulletin issued by DOS with current dates.
I am seeing a lot of copy-paste from lawyers websites but NONE, I repeat, NONE has a government website URL or any official source.
Those who still want to believe can choose to believe this. It will make people file on July 1st, if its in their hands. If its in the hands of HR department and company lawyers, it will make them raise their blood pressure until the lawyer sends them an email on July 25th that the Fedex went out today.
I believe that regardless of what August bulletin shows, July bulletin on DOS website applies to month of July all the way thru July 31st and as long as you file before July 31st, you are fine.
I made myself look like an idiot by asking such questions to my lawyer, who is already going nuts over the suddenly sky-rocketing workload of 485 petitions. There is another guy who made a fool of himself by asking the lawyer this question.
And people keep posting new updates and baseless sources to add credence to this baseless rumor. Suit yourself.
Logiclife,
I agree with what you say. However I dont see any evidence on the USCIS/DOS website that says that USCIS/DOS CANNOT change the dates mid-month either. THAT part is worrying me (and everyone).
more...
maddipati1
02-13 12:11 PM
its been a while i read the forums..
well... well !! chandubhai finally cooled down and talking wisdom :-)
Thanks for all your wonderful help to the community - people like you inspire others.
Please do not misunderstand my response to your earlier post, I was in no way pointing fingers at you but was trying to clear common misconception that IV must not be looked at like a software company doing good or bad at shares.
Once again, I respect people's space - it will be great if all of us come together and make this a success
well... well !! chandubhai finally cooled down and talking wisdom :-)
Thanks for all your wonderful help to the community - people like you inspire others.
Please do not misunderstand my response to your earlier post, I was in no way pointing fingers at you but was trying to clear common misconception that IV must not be looked at like a software company doing good or bad at shares.
Once again, I respect people's space - it will be great if all of us come together and make this a success
hair Tyrrell P34B F1 GP Monaco
Marphad
04-20 02:08 PM
GCKaMaara is right, different people operate at different IQ level.
When there is so much of repeated junk in this thread from the people who think they are political strategist, then what's wrong in posting a fun youtube video twice?
.
I can only laugh at you(r post).
When there is so much of repeated junk in this thread from the people who think they are political strategist, then what's wrong in posting a fun youtube video twice?
.
I can only laugh at you(r post).
more...
srkamath
07-23 07:03 PM
Source of information ?
From what i inferred from the text of the law,
The 28.6% limits do apply to FB to EB spill overs, as the FB spillover from the prev FY is used to arrive at this year's EB limit.
The 28.6% limit cannot be applied to EB1 to EB2 to EB3 spillovers, because that would not make sense. From what i understood, if there are 10k spilling over from EB1 to EB2, then they all go to EB2 and are not shared 2860 each between Eb2 and Eb3.
Let me know if you agree with the above.
I also realized that, if ever there is a deluge of EB1 applications and it reaches the annual limit of 28.6%+(EB4+EB5)leftovers, then that's it for EB1 ! even if Eb2 orEB3 are undersubscribed!
Ironic isn't it? Strange is the INA.
From what i inferred from the text of the law,
The 28.6% limits do apply to FB to EB spill overs, as the FB spillover from the prev FY is used to arrive at this year's EB limit.
The 28.6% limit cannot be applied to EB1 to EB2 to EB3 spillovers, because that would not make sense. From what i understood, if there are 10k spilling over from EB1 to EB2, then they all go to EB2 and are not shared 2860 each between Eb2 and Eb3.
Let me know if you agree with the above.
I also realized that, if ever there is a deluge of EB1 applications and it reaches the annual limit of 28.6%+(EB4+EB5)leftovers, then that's it for EB1 ! even if Eb2 orEB3 are undersubscribed!
Ironic isn't it? Strange is the INA.
hot Original 1988 Monaco F1 GP
bfadlia
02-15 05:58 PM
Can't you understand the meaning of fair shot and equality ? Let people apply in FIFO . Don't tell me what US wants ? No one has a clear idea of it.and suddenly people like you for your personal interests have started opposing IV's skill based initiative because your dates moved a little ahead and supporting existing discriminatory laws. What will happen when they retrogress again to 1999 next month ? What will be your stand then? Did you come to IV rally ? Probably not because you think of your personal interest and have nothing to do with the big picture.
No. I can't understand fairshot and equality when major bodyshops from a certain nationality flood the market here with people from that certain nationality, u keep ignoring that and coming back to the stupid suggestion that it's only because u have more talent
suit urself, anyone who argues with you reasonably, tell them they are wrong and make assumptions about their motives and insult and alienate more members of your organization
good luck
No. I can't understand fairshot and equality when major bodyshops from a certain nationality flood the market here with people from that certain nationality, u keep ignoring that and coming back to the stupid suggestion that it's only because u have more talent
suit urself, anyone who argues with you reasonably, tell them they are wrong and make assumptions about their motives and insult and alienate more members of your organization
good luck
more...
house Monaco F1 GP Auto Racing
grupak
02-13 01:34 PM
Finally you hit the nail on its head. That’s why the per country limit is there so no one country with larger population can monopolize any agenda the way you are trying to do with IV.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.
tattoo pictures monaco f1 gp 2011.
villamonte6100
02-18 11:17 AM
(1) There was no shortage of laypeople and even attorneys who asserted that "USCIS isn't doing anything wrong they are just following the law" when it came to FBI name checks. Fortunately for all of us sharper legal brains and sharper judges prevailed, and brought us to this happy day.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
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.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
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.
more...
pictures hairstyles Monaco F1 GP Auto
nomi
09-29 02:59 PM
HI can some body answer if we can apply for canadian PR with H1 B valid for less than 1 year.
For canadian citizenship you have to be in canada for 2 yr(physicaly) and after 3 yr after stamping
HI can some body answer if we can apply for canadian PR with H1 B valid for less than 1 year.
You can apply anytime for Canadian PR. It has nothing to do with H1 or any other US Visa or status.
For canadian citizenship you have to be in canada for 2 yr(physicaly) and after 3 yr after stamping
You have to live two years in Canada in order to get your Canadian
Citizenship.
For canadian citizenship you have to be in canada for 2 yr(physicaly) and after 3 yr after stamping
HI can some body answer if we can apply for canadian PR with H1 B valid for less than 1 year.
You can apply anytime for Canadian PR. It has nothing to do with H1 or any other US Visa or status.
For canadian citizenship you have to be in canada for 2 yr(physicaly) and after 3 yr after stamping
You have to live two years in Canada in order to get your Canadian
Citizenship.
dresses wallpaper Monaco F1 GP Auto
yetanotherguyinline
09-04 07:59 PM
yetanotherguyinline,
You may not care, but many members do care about what's happening in India.
I deeply care about what is happening in my motherland. But this is not the right forum to discuss these issues. Immigration voice is a organization that represents skilled immigrants seeking to emigrate to US and I believe the type of conversation in this thread is not representative of legal immigrant's views (including the majority from India). What we post on open forum is available to everyone and can be used against us in future for propaganda purposes.
I will probably not respond to future posts but I request admins to consider closing and deleting this thread.
You may not care, but many members do care about what's happening in India.
I deeply care about what is happening in my motherland. But this is not the right forum to discuss these issues. Immigration voice is a organization that represents skilled immigrants seeking to emigrate to US and I believe the type of conversation in this thread is not representative of legal immigrant's views (including the majority from India). What we post on open forum is available to everyone and can be used against us in future for propaganda purposes.
I will probably not respond to future posts but I request admins to consider closing and deleting this thread.
more...
makeup F1 Grand Prix of Monaco -
Macaca
07-04 08:49 AM
Chanduv thanks for your efforts. A correction: retrogression started in fall of 2004
I think its is Oct 1, 2005. Please verify!
I think its is Oct 1, 2005. Please verify!
girlfriend MONACO AUTO RACING F1 GP
jonty_11
06-28 12:33 PM
"expecting retrogresson ....in first wk of July... " ??
I thought logiclife already clarified that can not and will not happen!!
Thats why this thread is called " Rumour is that"
I thought logiclife already clarified that can not and will not happen!!
Thats why this thread is called " Rumour is that"
hairstyles Monaco F1 GP. Share:
Ramba
02-19 12:22 AM
Well discussion here. Under present situation (w/o any legislative relief) labor certification based EB folks, particulary Indians, cannot think of GC/485 for next 10 years. The problem here is, they are stopping the flood gate in 485 stage. If they (CIS/DOS) do not need high skilled immigrants, stop them in LC stage itself. Testing labor market in 2001, for a permanent job that is going to be assumed by a foreign worker only in (after 485 approval) 2010 is a joke. The best slution is market based numarical limitation without any country quota.
Macaca
06-27 08:56 AM
HOW THE SYSTEM OPERATES
At the beginning of each month, the Visa Office receives a report from each immigrant visa processing post listing totals of documentarily qualified immigrant visa applicants in categories subject to numerical limitation.
Cases are grouped by foreign state chargeability/preference/priority date. No names are reported. During the first week of each month, this documentarily qualified demand is tabulated.
VO subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations which are specified by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants reported to VO, and the expected INS demand for numbers, are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment. This allows for the determination of the monthly cut-off dates, and the allotment of numbers for reported applicants who have priority dates within the newly established cut-off dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered "current."
From this it is very clear that the number of Visas available for the rest of the FY 07 is enough to accept as many applications as can be approved in those 3 months(July, Aug and Sep).
According to Ombudsmn report a documentarily qualified applicant is an applicant with approved I-485. The ombudsman report is a must read; most of the threads will not pop up if everyone reads them.
The report also says USCIS can not predict these numbers accurately. That is why 10K GCs were wasted last year and 40K were exepected to be wasted this year. They moved PD to avoid the waste.
USCIS knows the exact # of approved 485's before dates moved for June. So they know exactly when 2007 GCs will get exhausted by earlier approved ones, if at all they will get exhausted.
I think they will retrogress dates after using 2008 quota. That is dates will retrogress in Nov/Dec.
We can do some more analysis based on PD for june (which I don't know). What is the date set for June submissions? Thanks!
At the beginning of each month, the Visa Office receives a report from each immigrant visa processing post listing totals of documentarily qualified immigrant visa applicants in categories subject to numerical limitation.
Cases are grouped by foreign state chargeability/preference/priority date. No names are reported. During the first week of each month, this documentarily qualified demand is tabulated.
VO subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations which are specified by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants reported to VO, and the expected INS demand for numbers, are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment. This allows for the determination of the monthly cut-off dates, and the allotment of numbers for reported applicants who have priority dates within the newly established cut-off dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered "current."
From this it is very clear that the number of Visas available for the rest of the FY 07 is enough to accept as many applications as can be approved in those 3 months(July, Aug and Sep).
According to Ombudsmn report a documentarily qualified applicant is an applicant with approved I-485. The ombudsman report is a must read; most of the threads will not pop up if everyone reads them.
The report also says USCIS can not predict these numbers accurately. That is why 10K GCs were wasted last year and 40K were exepected to be wasted this year. They moved PD to avoid the waste.
USCIS knows the exact # of approved 485's before dates moved for June. So they know exactly when 2007 GCs will get exhausted by earlier approved ones, if at all they will get exhausted.
I think they will retrogress dates after using 2008 quota. That is dates will retrogress in Nov/Dec.
We can do some more analysis based on PD for june (which I don't know). What is the date set for June submissions? Thanks!
sroyc
02-14 11:59 AM
I was watching an episode of the BBC series - Planet Earth where people involved in the conservation and protection of the tiger and other endangered animals were lamenting about how difficult it is for the intellectuals to convince those living close to these animal habitats to help in conservation when they are not able to feed their children and are affected by the tiger killing farm animals.
This is not exactly similar to the ROW Vs India/China debate. I'm definitely not implying that ROW applicants are not intellectuals. The gist of what I've learnt from that episode was that we cannot push for removal of per country quotas without significantly speeding the processing times for everyone. I have no doubt that the per country quota is unfair to people from countries with large populations simply because we are representing ourselves and not our countries here. (We have been bracketed according to the country of birth in order for USCIS to enforce the current immigration laws.) But at the same time, we'll lose the much required support of ROW members if our approach is to unload a few years of our misery on them.
With so many people stuck in the backlog, we definitely need a one-time fix to flush the queue before we can lobby for removal of per country quotas.
This is not exactly similar to the ROW Vs India/China debate. I'm definitely not implying that ROW applicants are not intellectuals. The gist of what I've learnt from that episode was that we cannot push for removal of per country quotas without significantly speeding the processing times for everyone. I have no doubt that the per country quota is unfair to people from countries with large populations simply because we are representing ourselves and not our countries here. (We have been bracketed according to the country of birth in order for USCIS to enforce the current immigration laws.) But at the same time, we'll lose the much required support of ROW members if our approach is to unload a few years of our misery on them.
With so many people stuck in the backlog, we definitely need a one-time fix to flush the queue before we can lobby for removal of per country quotas.
