PDA

View Full Version : Immigration-Related Attachments in Appropriation Legislation


virtual55
02-08-2007, 01:55 PM
02/08/2007: Chances for Immigration-Related Attachments to the FY 2007 Appropriation Legislation Slim

The House passed on January 29, 2007 the Appropriation Bill and forwarded it to the Senate. Unless another Continuing Resolution is agreeed upon between the House and the Senate, the Senate intends to pass the bill before February 15, 2007, the expiration date of the current Continuing Resolution that has been funding federal government pending the enactment of the FY 2007 Appropriation legislation.
The Appropriation Bill, H.J. Res 20, does not have any immigration-related attachments. Besides, the Senate Majority Reids announced that he would oppose any amendments or earmarks introducted in the Senate and for that purpose, he was willing to introduce Motion for Cloture quickly. The Congress wants to enact FY 2007 Appropriation legislation before it is tangled with the President proposed FY 2008 Budget legislation.
It is thus likely that the immigration legislation may have to go through the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation process which may take place next month, March 2007.

source: immigration-law.com

WillIBLucky
02-08-2007, 02:34 PM
There goes the most talked Feb 15th wait. Now it looks like nothing is going to happen. We keep saying buzz words "Lobby", "Money" "Active" and so on but i think I am convinced that its going to take another 3 years to see any changes to this retrogression problem.......I really hope I am wrong.

GCAmigo
02-08-2007, 02:39 PM
02/08/2007: Chances for Immigration-Related Attachments to the FY 2007 Appropriation Legislation Slim
source: immigration-law.com

I don't see this info anywhere on their website.. anyway it doesn't hurt to keep hoping.. hey life doesn't end here.. we'all will move on..

diqingshen
02-08-2007, 02:40 PM
should we call his office?

pani_6
02-08-2007, 02:42 PM
So its seems difficult so get anything by Feb15...ok! that's not the end...we need to intensify the lobbying effort for EAD/SKIL provisions..we have already set our path..this is nothin unexpected..!

We keep Chuging along! even more speedily now!:)

jonty_11
02-08-2007, 02:58 PM
Another piece that is strange is taht it talks abt CIr being taken up in March 2007 - that aint happening.

raju123
02-08-2007, 03:02 PM
Here is the politics my friends.

Democrats are more inclined towards CIR as they much care for illegal issue. Last year, I heard Sen Kennedy during CIR discussion speaking high for illegal (saying that high skilled immigrants are given much more than illegal). The congress man/woman who are strong supporter of CIR are not in favor to give any piecemeal otherwise they will loose supporter inside the Congress and outside the Congress.

Many lawmakers said that they want Comprehensive solution of the issue. We like or not, but CIR would be the our next rider.

jonty_11
02-08-2007, 03:24 PM
Here is the politics my friends.

Democrats are more inclined towards CIR as they much care for illegal issue. Last year, I heard Sen Kennedy during CIR discussion speaking high for illegal (saying that high skilled immigrants are given much more than illegal). The congress man/woman who are strong supporter of CIR are not in favor to give any piecemeal otherwise they will loose supporter inside the Congress and outside the Congress.

Many lawmakers said that they want Comprehensive solution of the issue. We like or not, but CIR would be the our next rider.
March 2007 seems to close for CIr given other things on Congresses plate,,,like fighting with Bush over Iraq Funding..and then those funds get embezzled by some US Army General ......

Just pisssseeeddd OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

makemygc
02-08-2007, 03:32 PM
Do you really believe Immigration-law.com?

Well there's never been an instance where they are wrong.

I still like to hear this from our core members.

msyedy
02-08-2007, 03:37 PM
There goes the most talked Feb 15th wait. Now it looks like nothing is going to happen. We keep saying buzz words "Lobby", "Money" "Active" and so on but i think I am convinced that its going to take another 3 years to see any changes to this retrogression problem.......I really hope I am wrong.

Kaahe niraash ho rahe ho bhayya.....
Agar umeed hi chod doge to ka hoga.

Logiclife(Moderator) has mentioned many a times that IV is working on it and there was a thread where people were casting their vote to approve I-485 or not. There were many discussion on this.

I was blamed by macaca that I just ask IV about I-485. Well I dont care about his comments, anywayz there was this minmum wage bill which had some reforms attached but did not passed, so we can't say at this time that the appropriation bill that is available is the final bill.

So Cheer up!!!!!! We got to fight now.

We shall overcome.

msyedy
02-08-2007, 03:39 PM
Well there's never been an instance where they are wrong.

I still like to hear this from our core members.

I agree with you yaaaar

GCard_Dream
02-08-2007, 03:40 PM
Really.. wow ! We have seen immigration-law retract their announcement multiple times and there was one as recent as couple of weeks ago when they claimed that minimum wage bill passed in the Senate included immigration related amendment. They later retracted that announcement; and that's just one example.

Well there's never been an instance where they are wrong.

ksach
02-08-2007, 03:43 PM
in my opinion, we do not have the visibility needed to get anyone interested in our plight. i wonder if I can sue UCSIS for the plight of legal immigrants. all i care about is being able to file the I485 in absence of visa dates. my wife is close to a breakdown because she cannot work. she's tried keeping herself busy with books, TV and other things, but she is past all that now. and since she does not want to be in a hitech field, i cannot get her an h1b. I cannot wait till the CIR comes out. I am so pissed, i feel like quitting my job right now, screw my company ( yes, my position is very critical for my company - a big name), go back to my home country. i never felt like a slave until recently and i dont want to feel like one ever. all this helplessness is affecting my work and my health. i am already in the pre-hypertension phase and am close to a breakdown myself.

but its so hard to just packup 9 years of your life and move back by force. i wanted to do it on my own accord, but maybe the time has come.

and before anyone asks me, i have signed up for recurring contributions.

WillIBLucky
02-08-2007, 03:44 PM
For that you have to be active in your state. Even if you contribute and not active in state you are not going to hear anything from core members. It may be a policy by "learning lessons".

Sorry little frustrated. If anyone is going to hit back saying why am I not active in state then I tried my best but was not successful. I cannot do it alone. So I gave up on that and now I have other constraints. I still do what ever is in my hands, contributing (not signed up for monthly but I have promised myself to contribute everymonth, I will try to do that) writing mails and send mails to Senators and coming here to IV once a while to check and comment. Is that enough? May be not.

Well there's never been an instance where they are wrong.

I still like to hear this from our core members.

invincibleasian
02-08-2007, 03:44 PM
Guys chill out it gonna be a long time bfore any immigration reform occurs. What is the advantage to this country with a reformed immigration system anyway?

karthiknv143
02-08-2007, 03:56 PM
With Feb'15 round the corner, why haven't core members initiated any web-fax or something like we did last time?

factoryman
02-08-2007, 03:58 PM
What are you smoking? LOL

With Feb'15 round the corner, why haven't core members initiated any web-fax or something like we did last time?

pappu
02-08-2007, 04:02 PM
With Feb'15 round the corner, why haven't core members initiated any web-fax or something like we did last time?
Pls join your state chapter and initiate meet the lawmaker drive
if your state chapter is inactive, make it active
if you fail to make it active, then go yourself and meet all lawmakers of your state. While we are working to move things in DC it is important to have our grassroots efforts in full swing in all states.

pappu
02-08-2007, 04:03 PM
We need volunteers on H4 to help us work on various action items. It will be a great help for this cause.

chanukya
02-08-2007, 04:36 PM
Senate is discussing HR20, as we speak.....


http://www.fednet.net/

Senate floor debate

The Senate will convene and begin a period of morning business. Thereafter, proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of General George W. Casey, Jr., to be Army Chief of Staff. Subsequently, begin consideration of H.J. Res. 20, the Continuing Funding Resolution.

centaur
02-08-2007, 05:30 PM
I agree. We will be on CIR if it ever comes up.

SKIL is dead and there are no efforts to revive it so far.
Here is the politics my friends.

Democrats are more inclined towards CIR as they much care for illegal issue. Last year, I heard Sen Kennedy during CIR discussion speaking high for illegal (saying that high skilled immigrants are given much more than illegal). The congress man/woman who are strong supporter of CIR are not in favor to give any piecemeal otherwise they will loose supporter inside the Congress and outside the Congress.

Many lawmakers said that they want Comprehensive solution of the issue. We like or not, but CIR would be the our next rider.

waitingGC
02-08-2007, 05:36 PM
I agree. We will be on CIR if it ever comes up.

SKIL is dead and there are no efforts to revive it so far.

Then basically no hope in the next two years.

hopein07
02-08-2007, 05:42 PM
Then basically no hope in the next two years.


Read my post here:

http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3174&page=2

sunofeast_gc
02-08-2007, 05:46 PM
It seems neither democrats nor law-firm care about skill bill or any bill for retrogression and backlog relief. They want a grand package CIR. CIR means more vote to Democrats and more business to Law-Firm….This is what I think, I may be wrong and other people can see and feel differently….

centaur
02-08-2007, 05:58 PM
Maybe we can find a ground for class action lawsuit.

It seems neither democrats nor law-firm care about skill bill or any bill for retrogression and backlog relief. They want a grand package CIR. CIR means more vote to Democrats and more business to Law-Firm….This is what I think, I may be wrong and other people can see and feel differently


in my opinion, we do not have the visibility needed to get anyone interested in our plight. i wonder if I can sue UCSIS for the plight of legal immigrants. all i care about is being able to file the I485 in absence of visa dates. my wife is close to a breakdown because she cannot work. she's tried keeping herself busy with books, TV and other things, but she is past all that now. and since she does not want to be in a hitech field, i cannot get her an h1b. I cannot wait till the CIR comes out. I am so pissed, i feel like quitting my job right now, screw my company ( yes, my position is very critical for my company - a big name), go back to my home country. i never felt like a slave until recently and i dont want to feel like one ever. all this helplessness is affecting my work and my health. i am already in the pre-hypertension phase and am close to a breakdown myself.

but its so hard to just packup 9 years of your life and move back by force. i wanted to do it on my own accord, but maybe the time has come.

and before anyone asks me, i have signed up for recurring contributions.

….

Raj12
02-08-2007, 07:29 PM
I agree with considering a class action lawsuit. If many of us are brought to US on a dual intention visa and left suffering, that needs to be heard publicly. Atleast, courts can order an interim relief of 485 filing without visa numbers.

Dakota Newfie
02-08-2007, 07:44 PM
I think some sort of legal action will, at the very least, bring attention to our situation - lets' look into it!

centaur
02-08-2007, 07:52 PM
thats a good idea. court can certainly order that

I agree with considering a class action lawsuit. If many of us are brought to US on a dual intention visa and left suffering, that needs to be heard publicly. Atleast, courts can order an interim relief of 485 filing without visa numbers.

nraja
02-08-2007, 07:57 PM
Is there any chance to file a class action lawsuit on the government for wasting some years of Visa numbers on GC. I really dont know what is the disadvantage on this.

chanukya
02-08-2007, 08:02 PM
Which shows, there is room for amendments

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:4:./temp/~r1104UZwnM::

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - February 07, 2007)


[Page: S1718] GPO's PDF
---

SA 233. Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Crapo) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


On page 25, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

``Sec. 20125. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or made available in this division, $400,000,000 is appropriated to make safety net payments for fiscal year 2007 under section 101 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; Public Law 106-393).

``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, each amount provided by this Act is reduced by the pro rata percentage required to reduce the total amount provided by this Act by $400,000,000.



SA 234. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


On page 65, line 8, strike ``: (1)'' and all that follows through ``or (2)'' on line 10.



SA 235. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. AIDS DRUG ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, of the amount appropriated to the Department of Commerce to carry out the Advanced Technology Program, $75,000, 000 shall be transferred to the Health Resources and Services Administration to carry out the AIDS Drug Assistance Program.



SA 236. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: ``That the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 109-289, division B) is amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting `March 1, 2007'.''.

centaur
02-08-2007, 08:16 PM
Well, the room for ammendment is always there until it gets voted upon. All these ammendments are budgeting and allocation of funds. I am unable to see how 485 can be squeezed in there. I was never hopeful of anything happening before Feb 15.

We need to start lobbying to revive SKIL again. Other than that our only realistic chance is when CIR comes up.

Which shows, there is room for amendments

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:4:./temp/~r1104UZwnM::

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - February 07, 2007)


[Page: S1718] GPO's PDF
---

SA 233. Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Crapo) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


On page 25, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

``Sec. 20125. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or made available in this division, $400,000,000 is appropriated to make safety net payments for fiscal year 2007 under section 101 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; Public Law 106-393).

``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, each amount provided by this Act is reduced by the pro rata percentage required to reduce the total amount provided by this Act by $400,000,000.



SA 234. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


On page 65, line 8, strike ``: (1)'' and all that follows through ``or (2)'' on line 10.



SA 235. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. AIDS DRUG ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, of the amount appropriated to the Department of Commerce to carry out the Advanced Technology Program, $75,000, 000 shall be transferred to the Health Resources and Services Administration to carry out the AIDS Drug Assistance Program.



SA 236. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: ``That the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 109-289, division B) is amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting `March 1, 2007'.''.

amitga
02-08-2007, 08:33 PM
Can somebody from the core answer, why our case does not qualify for a class action suit. I remeber that this question was raised long back and it was determined that our case does not qualify for any law suit.

I think one the reason is that this issue is between employers and USCIS, so we are not a party to it. Employers obviously won't do anything, unless somehow employee can sue their employees on this issue.

Secondly immigration is a privilege and not a right.


Is there any chance to file a class action lawsuit on the government for wasting some years of Visa numbers on GC. I really dont know what is the disadvantage on this.

pitha
02-08-2007, 09:06 PM
Anti-immigrants are issuing statements like "immigration is a privilege not a right", I don’t agree with it like so many others but by talking about things like law suits, rallies, demonstration etc you will be pushing away even moderate Americans who might be sympathetic to us. There is something called as PR. We cannot afford to have a negative PR.

ofcourse needless to say I am not core team :)


Can somebody from the core answer, why our case does not qualify for a class action suit. I remeber that this question was raised long back and it was determined that our case does not qualify for any law suit.

I think one the reason is that this issue is between employers and USCIS, so we are not a party to it. Employers obviously won't do anything, unless somehow employee can sue their employees on this issue.

Secondly immigration is a privilege and not a right.

Raj12
02-08-2007, 09:35 PM
Everybody is entitled to a better life. If someone thinks that they can have a better life in US and there is a legal opportunity for immigration, that itself is a human right. Also, we expect the court to smoothen and make the legal immigration more transparent. Any person should have the right to change the employer without being locked in the immigration system as long as they have similar employment or there is a national/regional requirement not met by American Citizens. I think it is a win-win situation for both sides by economic viewpoint. Also, an immigration petition (I140) would have been approved prior to change of job with pending 485 till visa numbers become current. We should just ask for flexibility not a overhaul from the court.

purgan
02-08-2007, 09:51 PM
I'm in the same situation as you guys, where H4 spouse cannot work. Here's what I'm proposing....instead of your spouses becoming a basket case by folowing the law and not working....what don't they start working....illegally....what does it matter....Amnesty is just around the corner. Atleast she tried to follow the law...

rajuram
02-08-2007, 10:11 PM
I am confused, if there are no chances of getting relief with the feb 15 bills, then why is there a funding drive going on for Interim Relief ? Check out the post titled "Interim Relief Fund - Time is running out.. " http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3167

brb2
02-08-2007, 10:48 PM
It is preposterous to think that coming to the US (read not 'brought" like you state) on a temporary work visa gives anyone the right to sue the government for "suffering" due to non availability of visas for permanent residency. The issue here is non-availability of US permanent residence visas due to demand exceeding the available visas. The law allows less visas to be issued but not exceeding the limit set by congress. Congress has never legislated automatic recapture of unused visas either.

I don't think sueing USCIS or the US government is worthwhile it will only result in loosing the public support for CIR.

I agree with considering a class action lawsuit. If many of us are brought to US on a dual intention visa and left suffering, that needs to be heard publicly. Atleast, courts can order an interim relief of 485 filing without visa numbers.

viva
02-08-2007, 11:09 PM
in my opinion, we do not have the visibility needed to get anyone interested in our plight. i wonder if I can sue UCSIS for the plight of legal immigrants. all i care about is being able to file the I485 in absence of visa dates. my wife is close to a breakdown because she cannot work. she's tried keeping herself busy with books, TV and other things, but she is past all that now. and since she does not want to be in a hitech field, i cannot get her an h1b. I cannot wait till the CIR comes out. I am so pissed, i feel like quitting my job right now, screw my company ( yes, my position is very critical for my company - a big name), go back to my home country. i never felt like a slave until recently and i dont want to feel like one ever. all this helplessness is affecting my work and my health. i am already in the pre-hypertension phase and am close to a breakdown myself.

but its so hard to just packup 9 years of your life and move back by force. i wanted to do it on my own accord, but maybe the time has come.

and before anyone asks me, i have signed up for recurring contributions.







buddy- take it easy....the green card is not as precious as your health...if you lose your health, a gc is of no value....there is always light at the end of the tunnel...have u considered applying for Canada/Australia? These countries are much friendlier immigration-wise. it's hard to throw away something you have worked to attain over 9 years.....but hey you have got your whole life ahead of you....every cloud has a silver lining....

rajuram
02-08-2007, 11:23 PM
Litigation is only going to bring bad publicity. What we need is "good" or "very good" publicity.

It is preposterous to think that coming to the US (read not 'brought" like you state) on a temporary work visa gives anyone the right to sue the government for "suffering" due to non availability of visas for permanent residency. The issue here is non-availability of US permanent residence visas due to demand exceeding the available visas. The law allows less visas to be issued but not exceeding the limit set by congress. Congress has never legislated automatic recapture of unused visas either.

I don't think sueing USCIS or the US government is worthwhile it will only result in loosing the public support for CIR.

chanukya
02-09-2007, 08:06 AM
Check Thomas


More amendments offered to H.J.Res.20, but none of them are related to 485, yet....

I am assuming that will be squeezed in as some of form of additional funding by the way increased revenue, by the form of increased fees resulting from early filing of 485.

Let's watch out for these in next couple of days or last minute.


SA 237. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.

SA 238. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 237 proposed by Mr. Reid to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra.

SA 239. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra.

SA 240. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 239 proposed by Mr. REID to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra.

SA 241. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 240 proposed by Mr. Reid to the amendment SA 239 proposed by Mr. Reid to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra.

SA 242. Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEMINT, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. ENZI, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. KYL, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

SA 243. Mr. ALEXANDER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

SA 244. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

SA 245. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

SA 246. Mr. MARTINEZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

SA 247. Mr. MARTINEZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

SA 248. Mr. MARTINEZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

SA 249. Mr. MARTINEZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution H.J. Res . 20 , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table

Raj12
02-09-2007, 09:01 AM
It is preposterous to think that coming to the US (read not 'brought" like you state) on a temporary work visa gives anyone the right to sue the government for "suffering" due to non availability of visas for permanent residency. The issue here is non-availability of US permanent residence visas due to demand exceeding the available visas. The law allows less visas to be issued but not exceeding the limit set by congress. Congress has never legislated automatic recapture of unused visas either.

I don't think sueing USCIS or the US government is worthwhile it will only result in loosing the public support for CIR.

I agree with the problem of supply and demand in regards to visa numbers. Also, I am not suggesting to sue USCIS or US government. The question is how to get the ability to apply for 485 without visa number availability. It seems that executive branch is either unable to or unwilling to allow this. The legislative branch is involved in a partisan politics. So the only option left is to go through judicial branch. Allowing filing of 485 without visa numbers is a question of freedom to change the employer or job if there is a need for foreign labor exists in USA. Freedom is a basic human right.

centaur
02-09-2007, 09:30 AM
I think interim relief can be ordered through court, i asked a friend of mine who is a personal injury lawyer. We have grounds, approved i-140, Emotional stress and such. Morever we are taxpaying and our taxes pay for the courts, its not like illegal immigrants.

It is preposterous to think that coming to the US (read not 'brought" like you state) on a temporary work visa gives anyone the right to sue the government for "suffering" due to non availability of visas for permanent residency. The issue here is non-availability of US permanent residence visas due to demand exceeding the available visas. The law allows less visas to be issued but not exceeding the limit set by congress. Congress has never legislated automatic recapture of unused visas either.

I don't think sueing USCIS or the US government is worthwhile it will only result in loosing the public support for CIR.

centaur
02-09-2007, 09:30 AM
Exactly


I agree with the problem of supply and demand in regards to visa numbers. Also, I am not suggesting to sue USCIS or US government. The question is how to get the ability to apply for 485 without visa number availability. It seems that executive branch is either unable to or unwilling to allow this. The legislative branch is involved in a partisan politics. So the only option left is to go through judicial branch. Allowing filing of 485 without visa numbers is a question of freedom to change the employer or job if there is a need for foreign labor exists in USA. Freedom is a basic human right.

msyedy
02-09-2007, 09:41 AM
I'm in the same situation as you guys, where H4 spouse cannot work. Here's what I'm proposing....instead of your spouses becoming a basket case by folowing the law and not working....what don't they start working....illegally....what does it matter....Amnesty is just around the corner. Atleast she tried to follow the law...

Good man.. Why don't you send your wife to the farms. They really need help.
Concentrate more on the farm rather then IV you will be happy. Stop telling people that they are not allowed to asK IV something, concentrating on putting your enegry finding your wife's job

xbohdpukc
02-09-2007, 09:47 AM
I agree with the problem of supply and demand in regards to visa numbers. Also, I am not suggesting to sue USCIS or US government. The question is how to get the ability to apply for 485 without visa number availability. It seems that executive branch is either unable to or unwilling to allow this. The legislative branch is involved in a partisan politics. So the only option left is to go through judicial branch. Allowing filing of 485 without visa numbers is a question of freedom to change the employer or job if there is a need for foreign labor exists in USA. Freedom is a basic human right.

This is not about your personal freedom whatsoever. You are free to go home at any time, speaking even more broadly, you are free to do whatever your NON-IMMIGRANT status (which you promised to maintain and which rules you promised to obey when coming to this country) allows you to do. The problem any court will face is to determine whether "pain and suffering" you are going through were not an intention of the Congress mandated legislation. The fact that your I-140 approved means nothing. I-140 belongs to your employer and does not give any rights to you, ie I-140 purpose has never been to provide you with an ability to change jobs etc. Therefore there is not misinterpretation of the intent of the Congress. You may argue that the law is violating your basic rights, but I can guarantee you that you will need to go with this lawsuit right to the Supreme Court in order to get a relief, are you ready for a years long and very expensive battle with the judicial system? I didn't think so. Suing the government at this point when your rights are meager at best is the worst option you can rely on.

Raj12
02-09-2007, 10:02 AM
This is not about your personal freedom whatsoever. You are free to go home at any time, speaking even more broadly, you are free to do whatever your NON-IMMIGRANT status (which you promised to maintain and which rules you promised to obey when coming to this country) allows you to do. The problem any court will face is to determine whether "pain and suffering" you are going through were not an intention of the Congress mandated legislation. The fact that your I-140 approved means nothing. I-140 belongs to your employer and does not give any rights to you, ie I-140 purpose has never been to provide you with an ability to change jobs etc. Therefore there is not misinterpretation of the intent of the Congress. You may argue that the law is violating your basic rights, but I can guarantee you that you will need to go with this lawsuit right to the Supreme Court in order to get a relief, are you ready for a years long and very expensive battle with the judicial system? I didn't think so. Suing the government at this point when your rights are meager at best is the worst option you can rely on.

H1B is a dual intention visa. The request to the court should be only about allowing 485 filing without visa numbers not a overhaul of immigration system. 'Individual Freedom' as per the Constitution should be a basis for that.

CT_Green
02-09-2007, 10:37 AM
H1B is a dual intention visa. The request to the court should be only about allowing 485 filing without visa numbers not a overhaul of immigration system. 'Individual Freedom' as per the Constitution should be a basis for that.


I agree. The government and the american people should know that we want the current immigration system to be fixed for the legal immigrants before illegals are added to the line.

jonty_11
02-09-2007, 11:16 AM
H1B is a dual intention visa. The request to the court should be only about allowing 485 filing without visa numbers not a overhaul of immigration system. 'Individual Freedom' as per the Constitution should be a basis for that.
US Constitution and its laws hold true for American Citizens only....They do not care abt aliens..Only place here u can go to is the ACLU, even for whom this is not important.

Raj12
02-09-2007, 11:25 AM
US Constitution and its laws hold true for American Citizens only....They do not care abt aliens..Only place here u can go to is the ACLU, even for whom this is not important.

I am sure if you talk to a lawyer they would find some US law banning restriction of Freedom on its land.

waitingGC
02-09-2007, 11:41 AM
I am sure if you talk to a lawyer they would find some US law banning restriction of Freedom on its land.

Freedom is a relative concept. You can have freedom as long as you give up your GC. No one forces you to sacrifice your freedom for GC. It's totally on your hands. That's totally your freedom.

satyasaich
02-09-2007, 12:15 PM
Are you sure that constitution and its laws hold true ONLY for american citizens ?
May be a dumb question:
Then how we (means legally residing aliens) come under the net of law enforcement agencies when ever somebody does something wrong?




US Constitution and its laws hold true for American Citizens only....They do not care abt aliens..Only place here u can go to is the ACLU, even for whom this is not important.

logiclife
02-09-2007, 12:20 PM
Are you sure that constitution and its laws hold true ONLY for american citizens ?
May be a dumb question:
Then how we (means legally residing aliens) come under the net of law enforcement agencies when ever somebody does something wrong?

Constitutional rights apply to all present on US territory. That includes citizens, permenant residents, legal aliens and illegal aliens.

Constitutional rights are not dependent on immigration status - legal or illegal. Even illegal aliens enjoy all rights granted by the United States Constitution.

diqingshen
02-09-2007, 12:42 PM
Just read an article on WSJ, saying lawmakers are coming up with new ways to insert earmarks. I guess if they really try hard, they can always come up with something to get it done...

GCard_Dream
02-09-2007, 12:44 PM
Frankly, I don't think government or American people really care about the issues faced by legal immigrant community. If anybody, it's probably only the businesses that care about availability of big pool of talented people.

Notice that neither the president nor the democrats said anything about backlog or issues faced by EB immigrants in the state of the union speech despite the fact that we contribute so much to this economy. Politicians only care about politics and how they can stay in power. That's true for politicians back home and here.

Illegal immigrants make a big vote bank and hence they are talked about sympathetically all the time despite the fact that they are to some extent a drain on social programs in this country. In Arizona, millions and millions of dollars goes unpaid by illegal immigrants in medical expenses to hospitals every year and this is just one example. Same applies to schools.

I am not pro or against amnesty but would like to see these politicians realize and address the issues of legal immigration as well, not just illegal immigration. What a shame.

I agree. The government and the american people should know that we want the current immigration system to be fixed for the legal immigrants before illegals are added to the line.

vik123
02-09-2007, 01:12 PM
Frankly, I don't think government or American people really care about the issues faced by legal immigrant community. If anybody, it's probably only the businesses that care about availability of big pool of talented people.

Notice that neither the president nor the democrats said anything about backlog or issues faced by EB immigrants in the state of the union speech despite the fact that we contribute so much to this economy. Politicians only care about politics and how they can stay in power. That's true for politicians back home and here.

Illegal immigrants make a big vote bank and hence they are talked about sympathetically all the time despite the fact that they are to some extent a drain on social programs in this country. In Arizona, millions and millions of dollars goes unpaid by illegal immigrants in medical expenses to hospitals every year and this is just one example. Same applies to schools.

I am not pro or against amnesty but would like to see these politicians realize and address the issues of legal immigration as well, not just illegal immigration. What a shame.
That is so true.I just happened to be on an anti-immigrant website (to check latest updates for them) and was shocked to see the letter from senator Dick DURBIN to one of the anti-immigrants,most of the paragraphs were just copy -pasted.It was almost the same reply , I got from him few days ago.
They don't read our letters ,they just read the topic as "IMMIGRATION" and write about border security,illegal etc.
I urge everybody not to write to the politicians,there is no use.They don't care.Rather than writing to the politicians,we should write to the media.

pappu
02-09-2007, 01:16 PM
That is so true.I just happened to be on an anti-immigrant website (to check latest updates for them) and was shocked to see the letter from senator Dick DURBIN to one of the anti-immigrants,most of the paragraphs were just copy -pasted.It was almost the same reply , I got from him few days ago.
They don't read our letters ,they just read the topic as "IMMIGRATION" and write about border security,illegal etc.
I urge everybody not to write to the politicians,there is no use.They don't care.Rather than writing to the politicians,we should write to the media.
After writing, follow up with lawmakers and take appointment to meet them/staffers. do the whole 9 yards in order to influence them.

msp1976
02-09-2007, 01:23 PM
Can somebody from the core answer, why our case does not qualify for a class action suit. I remeber that this question was raised long back and it was determined that our case does not qualify for any law suit.

I think one the reason is that this issue is between employers and USCIS, so we are not a party to it. Employers obviously won't do anything, unless somehow employee can sue their employees on this issue.

Secondly immigration is a privilege and not a right.

I am not a core member but let me have a crack at the answer....
Rajiv Khanna on behalf of some client did take a crack at suing the USCIS at a certain point...After certain arguements that suit was thrown out.....
For a court to intervene, you have to prove that the court has jurisdiction over the issue....More information about that lawsuit is at this location...Read through it to get a better understanding of why the lawsuit was thrown out..

All those who keep talking about litigation...Here is some educational material for you...
You are not the only ones with the brilliant idea...

http://www.immigration.com/litigation/I-485_litigation.html

Suing federal govt is not a trivial exercise...They have small armies of lawyers in the justice department....They fight back....Another thing is once a federal court gives a decision against you...that kind of becomes the precedent on the issue....So other judges would follow the lead of this decision on making other decisions.....So you can try...I would even contribute money but the chances of litigation success are low.....

Jaime
02-09-2007, 02:14 PM
Listen to this podcast

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12590/

CT_Green
02-09-2007, 02:15 PM
Seems like immigration is becoming a hot topic everywhere. Atleast here in the US they have not changed any laws abruptly.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_doctors_lose_case_against_British_governmen t/articleshow/1586856.cms

diqingshen
02-09-2007, 02:19 PM
What are the details (title, author, date, etc) of the article? Thanks.

The secret new way of earmarks.

pani_6
02-09-2007, 02:36 PM
I am not a core member but let me have a crack at the answer....
Rajiv Khanna on behalf of some client did take a crack at suing the USCIS at a certain point...After certain arguements that suit was thrown out.....
For a court to intervene, you have to prove that the court has jurisdiction over the issue....More information about that lawsuit is at this location...Read through it to get a better understanding of why the lawsuit was thrown out..

All those who keep talking about litigation...Here is some educational material for you...
You are not the only ones with the brilliant idea...

http://www.immigration.com/litigation/I-485_litigation.html

Suing federal govt is not a trivial exercise...They have small armies of lawyers in the justice department....They fight back....Another thing is once a federal court gives a decision against you...that kind of becomes the precedent on the issue....So other judges would follow the lead of this decision on making other decisions.....So you can try...I would even contribute money but the chances of litigation success are low.....


Since this case went to court USCIS officials took the podim were sweating to answers questions...also this lead to speeding up of the I-485 adjudication and also publication of the instruction manuals...read the entire case you will know...it did have a significant impact on 485 time line and cases...

msp1976
02-09-2007, 02:40 PM
Since this case went to court USCIS officials took the podim were sweating to answers questions...also this lead to speeding up of the I-485 adjudication and also publication of the instruction manuals...read the entire case you will know...it did have a significant impact on 485 time line and cases...
I am not against litigation per se ... I want people to understand the issues before we get into the same mode again....
Only thing is got to be prepared better.... Also the court has set a precedent now and it would be difficult to get it reversed...I want that eduction to spread...

Canadian_Dream
02-09-2007, 03:32 PM
The only way you can file a lawsuit against govenment agency in the court is, if they have not followed the law or have knowingly or unknowigly interpreted the law incorrectly. None of this has occured as far as retrogression is concerned. When you started the process 7% limit was cleary spelled out and there were no gurantees anywhere of a fixed timeline. No laws have been broken and no harm being done knowingly. May be WOM can be invoked for individual delays but no possibility of class action.

Another way one can question a law as passed by congress is if the rules are changed while you are in the process and as a result you are treated unfairly. You have a reason to say that you started the process with the existing laws so should not be treated retroactivley and you should be subject to the old laws. This has happened in Canada when they increased the points and the plaintiffs won the law suit. Same is happening in UK now and there is a good chance that of a favorable outcome.
Unfotunately we can't use this avenue because nothing has been changed that worked against us. Only thing one can argue for is, as an indirect result of passage of 245(i) and consequent backlog at DOL led waste of visas and people from the retrogressed country and EB3 ended up with a long wait. Thus as a result of 245(i) people are treated unfairly.
But this will be a long shot as there will be three different agencies involved (DOL, USCIS and DOS). It will be hard to prove how 245(i) negatively affected most of us in 2002, 2003 and 2004 becaue when we started the process 245(i) was already passed and we staretd the process knowing fully well what is in store for us.
I think legal route is worth a try but might not go anywthere. That's my 2 cents.

raju123
02-09-2007, 04:29 PM
I fully agreed. Court can give judgment per existing Federal laws. They didn't break any law. As some one say; Immigration is not a right.
We can only have emotional ground to request Congress to help us by changing law. Most important thing is media attention. If 200 active members publish at least one story each, it would be enough.

We may take non-conventional and positive approach to draw the quick attention of media. As some one suggested Mahatma Gandhi approach (I don't like Gandhigiri word).

My 2 cents


The only way you can file a lawsuit against govenment agency in the court if they have not followed the law or have knowingly or unknowigly interpreted the law incorrectly. None of this has occured as far as retrogression is concerned. When you started the process 7% limit was cleary spelled out and there were no gurantees anywhere of a fixed timeline. No laws have been broken and no harm being done knowingly. May be WOM can be invoked for individual delays but no possibility of class action.

Another way one can question a law as passed by congress is if the rules are changed while you are in the process and as a result you are treated unfairly. You have a reason to say that you started the process with the existing laws so should not be treated retroactivley and you should be subject to the old laws. This has happened in Canada when they increased the points and the plaintiffs won the law suit. Same is happening in UK now and there is a good chance that of a favorable outcome.
Unfotunately we can't use this avenue because nothing has been changed that worked against us. Only thing one can argue for is, as an indirect result of passage of 245(i) and consequent backlog at DOL led waste of visas and people from the retrogressed country and EB3 ended up with a long wait. Thus as a result of 245(i) people are treated unfairly.
But this will be a long shot as there will be three different agencies involved (DOL, USCIS and DOS). It will be hard to prove how 245(i) negatively affected most of us in 2002, 2003 and 2004 becaue when we started the process 245(i) was already passed and we staretd the process knowing fully well what is in store for us.
I think legal route is worth a try but might not go anywthere. That's my 2 cents.

xbohdpukc
02-09-2007, 05:43 PM
H1B is a dual intention visa. The request to the court should be only about allowing 485 filing without visa numbers not a overhaul of immigration system. 'Individual Freedom' as per the Constitution should be a basis for that.

You have already benefited from the dual intention status of the H1b visa when you didn't have to prove the abscence of immigration intention to the officer at the consulate.
The rulemaking is not a prerogative of the court, but of the appropriate government agency. While you can't prove that USCIS breaks a law or doesn't provide a rule pertinent to the implementation of a law, you have got nothing to do at the US court.