Immigration Voice - Forums
Register Get Involved Contact Lawmakers Advocacy Discussion Image Image Image Image

Go Back   Immigration Voice > General Information > Interesting Topics
Click to log in with Facebook
Interesting Topics This forum is to discuss any topic of interest to members and to gossip about anything that members prefer. All the terms of the forum and terms of use of the website do apply to this forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 01:00 AM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-06
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
07/16/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 152
dvb123 has a reputation beyond repute dvb123 has a reputation beyond repute dvb123 has a reputation beyond repute dvb123 has a reputation beyond repute dvb123 has a reputation beyond repute dvb123 has a reputation beyond repute dvb123 has a reputation beyond repute dvb123 has a reputation beyond repute dvb123 has a reputation beyond repute dvb123 has a reputation beyond repute dvb123 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Challenging Per County Quota Law

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...8b4o6Fcrv-YXTw

Consequences of the
National Origins Act
The goal of the National Origins Act was to control
both the quantity and quality of U.S. immigrants in an
effort to prevent further erosion of the ethnic composi-
tion of U.S. society. The law accomplished this goal
using three mechanisms: capping the overall number of
immigrants allowed into the United States in a given
month and year; favoring immigrants from certain
countries; and screening out otherwise qualified immi-
grants as unsuitable to the United States during the visa
screening process. The sorting mechanism heavily
favored northern and western European countries. The
temporary formula of 2% of the foreign-born of each
nationality in the 1890 census gave 85% of the quotas
to northern and western European nations. The national
origins system fully implemented in 1929 continued
the trend of both overall restriction and nation bias.
Indeed, the act virtually halted all immigration from
southern and eastern Europe. Thus, European immigra-
tion dropped from more than 800,000 in 1921 to less
than 150,000 by the end of the decade.
In addition to controlling the volume of immigra-
tion from Europe, the National Origins Act also
allowed a mechanism for selection of immigrants as
well. In its creation of consular offices abroad, the act
provided a frontline screening mechanism for select-
ing out those deemed unsuitable for the United States.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42...1----000-.html

1981. Equal rights under the law
How Current is This? (a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42..._21_20_IX.html

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER IX > 2000h–2Prev | Next 2000h–2. Intervention by Attorney General; denial of equal protection on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin
How Current is This? Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in such action upon timely application if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42...0_21_20_I.html


PART THREE

ORGANISATIONS TO CONTACT - IV CORE PLs endorse this so that a few members will help me. OTHER MEMBERS CAN FORM GROUPS AND CONTACT THESE OFFICES.

American Immigration Council
1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005-3141
Tel.: 202-507-7500
Fax: 202-742-5619


Carl Shusterman

Law Offices of Carl Shusterman
600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1550, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel (213) 623-4592 Fax (213) 623-3720

National Origin, Immigration and Language Rights Program

The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
600 Harrison Street, Suite 120
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone (415) 864-8848
Fax: (415) 864-8199
TTY/TDD Line: (415) 593-0091
Email: info@las-elc.org

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004 USA
Phone: (212) 344-3005
URL: http://www.aclu.org/

Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)

14 Pidegon Hill Drive, Suite 500
0 Sterling, VA> 20165 USA
Phone: (703) 421-5443
Fax: (703) 421-6401
E-Mail: comment@ceousa.org
URL: http://www.ceousa.org/

Primary Contact: Linda Chavez, President

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

1801 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: (202) 663-4900
URL: http://www.eeoc.gov/

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, MD 21215
Phone: (410) 521-4939
URL: http://www.naacp.org/
E-Mail: members@naacp.org







PART TWO

LEGAL RESEARCH - EVERYBODY CAN CONTRIBUTE ABOUT COURT CASES, PRECEDENTS ETC AND I WILL TRY TO CONSOLIDATE ALL THE REPLIES HERE

Different Supreme Court Decisions

http://public.findlaw.com/civil-righ...n-history.html

Gratz v. Bollinger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger



In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke v. Regents that public universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment.[1

Bakke vs Regents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakke_v._Regents



Supreme Court Opinions

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment14/20.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment14/30.html


Articles

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...me-court_N.htm


http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-e...against-racial

PART ONE


This is an old topic but I thought I would post some interesting info that I found. Give me green before someone drowns me in red.


Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:

Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.


In Bakke, the Court held that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but that educational institutions could legally use race as one of many factors to consider in their admissions process. In Grutter and Gratz, the Court upheld both Bakke as a precedent and the admissions policy of the University of Michigan law school. In dicta, however, Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, said she expected that in 25 years, racial preferences would no longer be necessary. In Gratz, the Court invalidated Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, on the grounds that unlike the law school's policy, which treated race not as one of many factors in an admissions process that looked to the individual applicant, the undergraduate policy used a point system that was excessively mechanistic.

In these affirmative action cases, the Supreme Court has employed, or has said it employed, strict scrutiny, since the affirmative action policies challenged by the plaintiffs categorized by race. The policy in Grutter, and a Harvard College admissions policy praised by Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, passed muster because the Court deemed that they were narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in diversity. On the other side, it is argued that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to prevent the socio-political subordination of some groups by others, not to prevent classification; since this is so, non-invidious classifications, such as those used by affirmative action programs, should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny.[30]

One law firm I found dealing with Federal Litigation. There maybe many.

http://www.vblaw.com/PracticeAreas/F...on-Appeals.asp

Should we not look at this option when Mexico's ambassador to the United States said Friday he expects immigration reform is unlikely to pass in that country in 2010 because of unemployment and midterm elections?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010...Migration.html

Antis are ahead of us in taking lawsuits to supreme court

http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventure...reme-court-024


OPINION JULY 1, 2009 The Supreme Court Says No To Quotas
Residents in a burning building want competent firefighters. They don't care about the race of those whose job it is to save them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640586803076705.html




VERY INTERSTING ARTICLES ABOUT THIS PER COUNTRY QUOTAS

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...846255,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...ty_Act_of_1965

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula

The 1921 Emergency Quota Act restricted immigration to 3% of foreign-born persons of each nationality resident in the United States in 1910.
The Immigration Act of 1924 provided that for three years immigration will be restricted to 2% based on the census of 1890, and that after June 30, 1927, total immigration from all countries will be limited to 150,000 based upon national origins of white inhabitants as shown by the census of 1920.

http://americanhistory.suite101.com/...huddled_masses

http://homepage3.nifty.com/ubiquitou...s_E/Page05.htm

Last edited by dvb123; 01-12-2010 at 10:30 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


2 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 11:04 AM
Member
Priority Date
:
Sep-02
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
11/20/2005
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
06/21/2007
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 43
jhaalaa will become famous soon enough jhaalaa will become famous soon enough
Thumbs up Equal Employment Opportunity Law

Countrywise visa allocation limits contradicts Equal Employment Opportunity law, specially in the presence of the Diversity visa lottery.

I have pledged $1K for the lawsuit, because I believe in this just cause.

We need to find a good attorney to fight it - can anyone talk to the Big names - one name who sounds passionate in his posts is Ron G.

I have no big name lawyers around this remote interior place. I urge the folks who truly believe in this cause to:
- Talk to a few good attorneys
- come up with a plan for action and form an action committee
- Let the attorney determine the way we fund it ( A bare minimum $ amount be advertised), so that a conditional collective representation as well as refund clause is present in the agreement.
- We shall all collectively urge others to contribute too.
- If we do not receive the minimum amount by a certain date (say 60days), we would trust the Attorney to refund the cheque amounts as per the agreements we sign.
- It should not matter whether we win or loose. At least we would have stood for Justice and Equality for all.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #3 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 11:13 AM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Mar-03
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
05/31/2005
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
05/31/2007
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,026
reddymjm has a reputation beyond repute reddymjm has a reputation beyond repute reddymjm has a reputation beyond repute reddymjm has a reputation beyond repute reddymjm has a reputation beyond repute reddymjm has a reputation beyond repute reddymjm has a reputation beyond repute reddymjm has a reputation beyond repute reddymjm has a reputation beyond repute reddymjm has a reputation beyond repute reddymjm has a reputation beyond repute
Default I am in for another 1k

I am in for another 1k.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #4 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 11:29 AM
Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 74
kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold
Default me too

I have not applied for labor yet and already in my sixth year. I will donate $100 for the cause.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #5 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 11:38 AM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Before 2000
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,569
desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhaalaa View Post
Countrywise visa allocation limits contradicts Equal Employment Opportunity law, specially in the presence of the Diversity visa lottery.

I have pledged $1K for the lawsuit, because I believe in this just cause.

.......
Please refer to this link
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity - Immigration

Quote:
The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits employers (when hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee) from discriminating because of national origin against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and authorized aliens or discriminating because of citizenship status against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and the following classes of a aliens with work authorization: permanent residents, temporary residents (that is, individuals who have gone through the legalization program), refugees, and asylees.

Equal Employment Opportunity applies only to applicants who are eligible to apply for that job. It does NOT apply to immigrant visa allocation (aka I-485 approval).


If you don't agree with this, I would suggest spending $200 with an attorney to get initial consultation and get the answer to enlighten yourself.




___________________
Not a legal advice.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #6 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 11:48 AM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Jul-06
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
01/01/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
01/01/2007
Compare
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 131
mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of
Lightbulb

Here we go again!

It can be shown that per country quota leads to (unintended) discrimation at employment and hence the GC per country quota is illegal.

Employment based GC per country quota => A very long wait (eg. more than 3 years) in same or similar job position for people born in only few countries => Hinderance to career growth because one cannot advance from engineer to managerial position even though he/she is qualified for the promotions while his colleagues from other countries can => Person from an oversubscribed countries such as India does not have equal opportunity to career advancement because of a very long wait time difference between people born in these 2 or 3 countries and people from all of the other countries.

Key Point: Equal opportunity employement advancement is protected by "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)" and hence the Supreme Court can overturn the per country quota limitation if the Supreme Court finds that the per country quota leads to discrimination at employment.

National Origin Discrimination & Work Situations:
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

National Origin Discrimination

Someone with more than 3 years of wait and still in same or similar job description should definitely be able to file a lawsuit against the US Government and claim compensation for the lost opportunities.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


4 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 11:55 AM
Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 74
kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold kumar1305 is a splendid one to behold
Default Fight

If we fight we lose once, if we do not we lose every time we don't. IV has nothing to lose if it can at least talk to a very good attorney. I'm not a lawyer but there could many ambiguous statements in it, and good attorney could make use of them to fight.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 12:07 PM
Donor
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 641
eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by desi3933 View Post
Please refer to this link
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity - Immigration




Equal Employment Opportunity applies only to applicants who are eligible to apply for that job. It does NOT apply to immigrant visa allocation (aka I-485 approval).


If you don't agree with this, I would suggest spending $200 with an attorney to get initial consultation and get the answer to enlighten yourself.




___________________
Not a legal advice.
I agree with you.

Country limits is a law. A court has to follow the law. Court does not decide if the law is fair or unfair.

If you want to change the law, go to congress.

BUT SOME PEOPLE HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY TO THROW AWAY TO LAWYERS.

And whats with big lawyer names? Just because a lawyer has a website and writes on a website, does not mean he is a big lawyer. Look beyond the marketing of lawyers and see their skills, track record and genuine concern for your long wait. You are asking the same lawyers to help you whose bread and butter comes because you are applicants in a long line.

Highly educated innocents!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 12:26 PM
Donor
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 155
ak_2006 is a glorious beacon of light ak_2006 is a glorious beacon of light ak_2006 is a glorious beacon of light ak_2006 is a glorious beacon of light ak_2006 is a glorious beacon of light
Default I will contribute

If the law suit needs money, I will contribute minimum $500.
__________________
Contribution so far - $736
Monthly $25 Contribution signedup on 06-26-2009 for one year
Donated 50 towards Advocacy day contributions.
Monthly $25 Contribution signedup on 04-13-2011 for one year
Got Green Card 10/25/2011
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 01:47 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Jul-06
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
01/01/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
01/01/2007
Compare
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 131
mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of mundada has much to be proud of
Lightbulb

Sorry eastindia but you are plain wrong. The US is not East India Company.

Here are the facts about the US checks and balances:

1. No single entity - not the President, Senate, House of Representatives, state Governors, nor anyone else - has the power to overturn a US Supreme Court ruling. Supreme Court decisions cannot be nullified by other parts of government.
2. If the Supreme Court strikes down a federal law, Congress can always modify the law until it is such that the Supreme Court does not consider it to violate the U.S. Constitution. Then they would have to vote to pass the new law, and the President would sign it.
3. The Supreme court can overrule its own rulings.
4. Congress can rewrite a law to conform with Constitutional standards.
5. The Constitution can be amended. This would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and ratification by three-quarters of the states (actually, at least 39).

If you think a law is unconstitutional then it can be challenged in the court. For example, there was an article in WSJ about some lawyers planning to challenge the health care bill once it becomes a law. One of the reasons: the health care law would require a person to buy health insurance, which infringes upon constitutionally guaranteed individual right of freedom. Now not to deflect from the topic of this thread, the bottomline is if you think the law is unconstitutional then you can challenge the law in the court.

The Key Point: Equal opportunity employement advancement is protected by Constitution ("Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)")and hence the Supreme Court can overturn the per country quota limitation if the Supreme Court finds that the per country quota leads to discrimination at employment, which is unconstitutional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eastindia View Post
I agree with you.

Country limits is a law. A court has to follow the law. Court does not decide if the law is fair or unfair.

If you want to change the law, go to congress.

BUT SOME PEOPLE HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY TO THROW AWAY TO LAWYERS.

And whats with big lawyer names? Just because a lawyer has a website and writes on a website, does not mean he is a big lawyer. Look beyond the marketing of lawyers and see their skills, track record and genuine concern for your long wait. You are asking the same lawyers to help you whose bread and butter comes because you are applicants in a long line.

Highly educated innocents!

Last edited by mundada; 01-12-2010 at 01:52 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


5 out of 5 members found this post helpful.
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 02:09 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Before 2000
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,569
desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute desi3933 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/fo...quota-law.html (Can't we challenge the discriminatory country wide quota law?)
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #12 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 02:52 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Oct-07
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
02/15/2008
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 102
stemcell has a reputation beyond repute stemcell has a reputation beyond repute stemcell has a reputation beyond repute stemcell has a reputation beyond repute stemcell has a reputation beyond repute stemcell has a reputation beyond repute stemcell has a reputation beyond repute stemcell has a reputation beyond repute stemcell has a reputation beyond repute stemcell has a reputation beyond repute stemcell has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Carl Shusterman is very well known in immigration circles. If he is willing to take this up another $ 1K from me.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #13 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 03:06 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-03
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
probe is a glorious beacon of light probe is a glorious beacon of light probe is a glorious beacon of light probe is a glorious beacon of light probe is a glorious beacon of light probe is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Count me in I can contribute 500$
__________________

EB3 India (RIR) PD DEC 2003
I-140 approved Aug 2007 TSC
I-485 sent to NSC Jul 29
I-485 RD JUL 30
I-485 ND SEP 6 NSC
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #14 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 03:07 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
United Kingdom
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 85
AllVNeedGcPc is just really nice AllVNeedGcPc is just really nice AllVNeedGcPc is just really nice AllVNeedGcPc is just really nice
Default Count me in...

...I will donate minimum $100 for the cause.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #15 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2010, 03:14 PM
Donor
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 641
eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute eastindia has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mundada View Post
Sorry eastindia but you are plain wrong. The US is not East India Company.

Here are the facts about the US checks and balances:

1. No single entity - not the President, Senate, House of Representatives, state Governors, nor anyone else - has the power to overturn a US Supreme Court ruling. Supreme Court decisions cannot be nullified by other parts of government.
2. If the Supreme Court strikes down a federal law, Congress can always modify the law until it is such that the Supreme Court does not consider it to violate the U.S. Constitution. Then they would have to vote to pass the new law, and the President would sign it.
3. The Supreme court can overrule its own rulings.
4. Congress can rewrite a law to conform with Constitutional standards.
5. The Constitution can be amended. This would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and ratification by three-quarters of the states (actually, at least 39).

If you think a law is unconstitutional then it can be challenged in the court. For example, there was an article in WSJ about some lawyers planning to challenge the health care bill once it becomes a law. One of the reasons: the health care law would require a person to buy health insurance, which infringes upon constitutionally guaranteed individual right of freedom. Now not to deflect from the topic of this thread, the bottomline is if you think the law is unconstitutional then you can challenge the law in the court.

The Key Point: Equal opportunity employement advancement is protected by Constitution ("Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)")and hence the Supreme Court can overturn the per country quota limitation if the Supreme Court finds that the per country quota leads to discrimination at employment, which is unconstitutional.
You are talking about rights as if you are a citizen of this country. Constitutional rights are given to the citizens of the country. It is not your right to stay in this country. Legally it is your employer who wants you here and petitions for your Greencard. Now can you get your employer to talk to your congressman or media or file a lawsuit for you?

There were some folks talking about lawsuit 3 months ago after the visa bulletin. That thread ran 9 pages and nobody did anything. 2 months ago again people talked about lawsuit and hunger strike. Nobody did anything. So it is not going to happen. Are you willing to spend thousands and keep going to courts or testify? Are you ok with your greencard application be used as an example and allow USCIS to scrutinize it?

This talk about lawsuit is all gas.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


0 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
H1B transfer--quota to non quota garyn Out of status, employment gap and status revalidation 1 04-22-2008 03:38 AM
H1B transfer--quota to non quota garyn Non-Immigrant Visas 3 04-22-2008 03:32 AM
The first law suit challenging the July bulletin gets filed today.... mihird Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins 21 07-17-2007 04:47 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org