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

Go Back   Immigration Voice > Towards Citizenship > The physical green card
Click to log in with Facebook
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:19 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Nov-10
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
01/25/2011
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 89
longwait4gc has a reputation beyond repute longwait4gc has a reputation beyond repute longwait4gc has a reputation beyond repute longwait4gc has a reputation beyond repute longwait4gc has a reputation beyond repute longwait4gc has a reputation beyond repute longwait4gc has a reputation beyond repute longwait4gc has a reputation beyond repute longwait4gc has a reputation beyond repute longwait4gc has a reputation beyond repute longwait4gc has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by forever_waiting View Post
A lawsuit isnt the answer to everything. The chinese EB folks learnt that after spending thousands of dollars and few years on their lawsuit, the judgement they got back was that 'the law is being followed'.
.
Hey forever,
What is this lawsuit? Do you have info?
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #92 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:26 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-08
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 197
forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute
Default

eb3chinese.org was the site created. But of the info is in Chinese.

I had gone through their presentation sometime back and they were basically complaining about how EB india gets most of the spillover and they don't (along with some common arguments about visa recapture, FIFO etc etc.) You should be able to get details from their class action doc against USCIS uploaded on the site.
when news of this class action lawsuit initially came out, lots of folks on IV were mad at why we were not joining in and that we should launch a barrage of lawsuits against USCIS as well. IV core at that time calmly explained that lawsuit options have been explored and will not be viable but few people listened.
Anyway a recent update on this forum shared that they lost the lawsuit. So on hindsight we saved ourself lot of time, effort and money.




Quote:
Originally Posted by longwait4gc View Post
Hey forever,
What is this lawsuit? Do you have info?

Last edited by forever_waiting; 04-22-2011 at 08:33 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #93 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:48 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-07
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,253
gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by longwait4gc View Post
Hey forever,
What is this lawsuit? Do you have info?
It was about why more visas were given to EB-I and less to EB-C. Nothing to do with present debate
__________________
Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | YouTube
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #94 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:54 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-08
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 197
forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute
Default

The point behind the lawsuit example was that just talking frivolously about lawsuits without understanding background and facts - is completely meaningless. This has been proven in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gk_2000 View Post
It was about why more visas were given to EB-I and less to EB-C. Nothing to do with present debate
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #95 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:54 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-07
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,253
gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by forever_waiting View Post
Ok. But how does this apply to immigration?

On the page you quote, below is what I see -

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:

Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting


The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.

So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]

In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.

The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
There are far too many points here to address at one go. Let me touch upon this for starters:

The Article 1, Section 8 has this clause, regarding the power of congress:

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Are we disputing the fact that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
No. We are not. We are just saying, that the current Rule of Naturalization is in violation of the discrimination clause in the constitution, and ought to be disregarded. We are not asking to strip congress of this power, so this argument you make is not relevant. Agreed?


More later ..
__________________
Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | YouTube
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
  #96 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:57 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-07
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,253
gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by forever_waiting View Post
The point behind the lawsuit example was that just talking frivolously about lawsuits without understanding background and facts - is completely meaningless. This has been proven in the past.
Thats not the idea I got. The idea of invoking the Chinese lawsuit appeared to me as saying: "They already established that they can do anything they want, as in the Chinese case, so let's not even try to question them from now". Yes, it lacked so much in specifics
__________________
Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | YouTube
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #97 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:59 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-08
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 197
forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Nope. You are misunderstanding the point again.
The Article clarifies that that Congress has the power to regulate immigration. they used the power and created the INS laws we have today, which as per Congress is the hallmark of US immigration. We have to change those laws specific to EB.
You are muddling immigration laws with civil rights. Your argument about the current law being in violation of ANY constitutional right is completely baseless. You did not respond to my question about how the civil rights clauses you quoted have anything to do with immigration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gk_2000 View Post
There are far too many points here to address at one go. Let me touch upon this for starters:

The Article 1, Section 8 has this clause, regarding the power of congress:

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Are we disputing the fact that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
No. We are not. We are just saying, that the current Rule of Naturalization is in violation of the discrimination clause in the constitution, and ought to be disregarded. We are not asking to strip congress of this power, so this argument you make is not relevant. Agreed?


More later ..
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
  #98 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 09:08 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-07
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,253
gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by forever_waiting View Post
Nope. You are misunderstanding the point again.
The Article clarifies that that Congress has the power to regulate immigration. they used the power and created the INS laws we have today, which as per Congress is the hallmark of US immigration. We have to change those laws specific to EB.
You are muddling immigration laws with civil rights. Your argument about the current law being in violation of ANY constitutional right is completely baseless. You did not respond to my question about how the civil rights clauses you quoted have anything to do with immigration.
They used the power. No problem. But how?

Let me quote an extreme example.

If they make a law saying, a foreign woman may be raped at port of entry in exchange for citizenship, will it stand?

NOW do you see the connection between immigration and civil rights?
__________________
Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | YouTube
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
  #99 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 10:14 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-08
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 197
forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute forever_waiting has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Cmon dude. We expect a better example to back up your argument.
The example you state is a violation of anyone's civil rights...leave alone an immigrant.
To use your example, no one is "raping" the applicant by imposing a per-country limit on your green card application and making you wait a few years while you work in the country and enjoy all civil rights.

Congress used the power given to them by the Constitution to frame Immigration laws and they created a formula for regulation. Per-country limit is that formula which they had the constitutional right to create in order to uphold the balance of immigration in their country. Getting a GC is not anyone's right..its a privelege bestowed based on the applicant meeting certain criteria which includes quotas, as per the country's laws. There is NO civil rights impact. You are getting your green card in the end...only problem is they are making you wait 10 years because of that formula. But none of your civil rights are being impinged upon. So we should work to change flawed law and the formula rather than try to muddle the issue with civil rights. No matter what extreme example you give, you will still never be able to prove that your civil rights were impinged because you are having to wait for 10 years in a legal queue while your application is pending.

Don't get caught up trying to defend a stance no matter how irrelevant it may be. Its better we focus our time and effort on more achievable and valid provisions.
Good Luck to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gk_2000 View Post
They used the power. No problem. But how?

Let me quote an extreme example.

If they make a law saying, a foreign woman may be raped at port of entry in exchange for citizenship, will it stand?

NOW do you see the connection between immigration and civil rights?

Last edited by forever_waiting; 04-22-2011 at 10:18 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
  #100 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 10:17 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-07
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,253
gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute gk_2000 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by forever_waiting View Post
Cmon dude. We expect a better example to back up.
The example you state is a violation of anyone's civil rights...leave alone an immigrant.
No one is raping you by imposing a per-country limit on your green card application.

Congress used the power given to them by the Constitution to frame Immigration laws and they created a formula for regulation. Per-country limit is that formula which they had every right to create in order to uphold the balance of immigration in their country. Getting a GC is not anyone's right..its a privelege bestowed based on the applicant meeting certain criteria which includes quotas, as per the country's laws. There is NO civil rights impact. You are getting your green card in the end...only problem is they are making you wait 10 years because of that formula. But none of your civil rights are being impinged upon. So we should work to change flawed law rather than try to muddle the issue with civil rights. No matter what extreme example you give, you will still never be able to prove that your civil rights were impinged because you are having to wait for 10 years in a legal queue while your application is pending.

Don't get caught up trying to defend a stance no matter how irrelevant it may be. Its better we focus our time and effort on more achievable and valid provisions.
Good Luck to you.
Ok bye....... until next time
__________________
Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | YouTube
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
  #101 (permalink)  
Old 04-23-2011, 07:24 AM
Member
Priority Date
:
Aug-04
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
Labor Certification
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 33
jimytomy has a reputation beyond repute jimytomy has a reputation beyond repute jimytomy has a reputation beyond repute jimytomy has a reputation beyond repute jimytomy has a reputation beyond repute jimytomy has a reputation beyond repute jimytomy has a reputation beyond repute jimytomy has a reputation beyond repute jimytomy has a reputation beyond repute jimytomy has a reputation beyond repute jimytomy has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ksvreg View Post
Did you get finger printing notice? You did not mention that in the porting process.
No, I did not get get finger printing notice .

Thanks,

Jimytomy
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #102 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2011, 02:12 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Jun-06
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
09/09/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/22/2007
Compare
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 40
extra_mint is infamous around these parts extra_mint is infamous around these parts extra_mint is infamous around these parts extra_mint is infamous around these parts extra_mint is infamous around these parts extra_mint is infamous around these parts extra_mint is infamous around these parts extra_mint is infamous around these parts extra_mint is infamous around these parts extra_mint is infamous around these parts extra_mint is infamous around these parts
Default Totally agree

I totally support banishing country quota. It is totally unfair specially to folks from India/China/Mexico and others (in EB category).

However if we analyze the current mess. Following are some of the things that led to it
First of all 65K is the number of H1-B's that are issued every year. Lets assume all of 65K applies for GC >> then we get 65 K * 2.2 (dependents) = 143K GC's.

Then how come we have such a big backlog.

1. H1b visa ceiling was increased to 195K during the tech boom of 2000's but they never increased the EB based green card (it remained 140K)

2. Wastage of EB visa by USCIS. Some estimates are in range of 500K. But let's say they wasted half of it (250K). This should be sufficient to clear the backlog.

3. Third of last few years with rise in economies of India and china and ROW, we have seen an increase in the L1's (globalization). I totally agree with this and have no issues with L1's. And many of L1's decide to stay in US. And of course GC comes from EB category.

Simple logic is H1-B non-immigrant visa has been recognized as dual intent, which means holders of H1B can legally apply for GC.
On the other hand Congress and US govt have failed to provide adequate GC for EB. The system is a total chaos now for all the above reasons.

This is what we need to communicate to congress/us govt and if required challenge in court.







Quote:
Originally Posted by SGP View Post
Can't agree less with you pappu
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 2 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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EAD Fast Approval immiinfo Receipt tracker of 485, EAD and AP applications 0 11-25-2008 11:56 PM
USCIS Worked super fast on my application for EAD tejonidhi Self-filing, documents, forms, directions, mailing. 27 10-09-2008 04:30 PM
Tribute to Super Cop M C Sharma sanjuatl All other Green Card Issues 27 09-23-2008 12:56 PM
Sheela Murthy - 2008 Maryland Super Lawyer! rkat News articles and reports 10 01-04-2008 11:18 AM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org