abhisam
01-08 02:01 PM
I also had submitted with my I-94 attached. I forgot to remove it. It was stapled and I got it back with my old passport. So dont worry.
Thank you for your reply!
Thank you for your reply!
wallpaper PGA Tour Wives Classic)
rahulpaper
11-12 03:39 PM
Rishikesh,
How long did it take from RFE response to approval?
Thanks in advance
Luckily I had all but the 1st one when I entered in US. Please see the format letter below [please note that I am copying the format from a word doc & may not display correctly
Dear Sir/Madam,
In response to your letter requesting evidence for FORM I-131. Please find below mentioned details.
a. Copies of all I-94 issued- I do not have copy of I-94 that was issued to me on <>Date (my first arrival in US on H1). The original I-94 was returned to airline official at the time of boarding the flight.
The following entries are in TAB format
Date of Entry mm/DD/yyyy
Date of Exit mm/DD/yyyy
I-94 # NA
Copy Avail? N
Remarks Original I-94 was handed over to airlines staff at the time of boarding [Departed by flight xxx ]. To support my claim, please see attached passport copy that shows arrival record in India on <xxx> [pages 3-4]
b. Approval notices for extensions or change of Status- My original H1 [XXXX] expired on [XXX]. An H1 renewal notice was filed on [XXXX] and was approved on [XXX] [WAC-XXX]. I am attaching copies of both the approval notices.
c. Any other Evidence of your lawful immigrations status: I am attaching a copy of approved I-140 [SRC-XXX] and a copy of I-485 filing receipt [WAC-XXXX]
d. Evidence of relationship: I am attaching the following documents
1. Copy of my birth certificate
2. Copy of my marriage certificate
Thanks & Regards,
<Your Name>
Encl:
1. Passport copy pages displaying the visa issued ,date of entries to US on H1 and displaying the date of arrival in India [6 pages]
2. Copies of H1 approval & extension approval notice [2 pages]
3. Copies of I-94�s issued [5 pages]
4. Copy of I-140 approval [1 pages]
5. Copy of I-485 filing receipt [1 pages]
6. Copy of birth certificate [1 page]
7. Copy of marriage certificate [1 page]
Hope this helps
QUOTE=MYGCBY2010;193771]How did you respond to your RFE?.. Did you have copies of all of your I -94 ?.. Please let me know...[/QUOTE]
How long did it take from RFE response to approval?
Thanks in advance
Luckily I had all but the 1st one when I entered in US. Please see the format letter below [please note that I am copying the format from a word doc & may not display correctly
Dear Sir/Madam,
In response to your letter requesting evidence for FORM I-131. Please find below mentioned details.
a. Copies of all I-94 issued- I do not have copy of I-94 that was issued to me on <>Date (my first arrival in US on H1). The original I-94 was returned to airline official at the time of boarding the flight.
The following entries are in TAB format
Date of Entry mm/DD/yyyy
Date of Exit mm/DD/yyyy
I-94 # NA
Copy Avail? N
Remarks Original I-94 was handed over to airlines staff at the time of boarding [Departed by flight xxx ]. To support my claim, please see attached passport copy that shows arrival record in India on <xxx> [pages 3-4]
b. Approval notices for extensions or change of Status- My original H1 [XXXX] expired on [XXX]. An H1 renewal notice was filed on [XXXX] and was approved on [XXX] [WAC-XXX]. I am attaching copies of both the approval notices.
c. Any other Evidence of your lawful immigrations status: I am attaching a copy of approved I-140 [SRC-XXX] and a copy of I-485 filing receipt [WAC-XXXX]
d. Evidence of relationship: I am attaching the following documents
1. Copy of my birth certificate
2. Copy of my marriage certificate
Thanks & Regards,
<Your Name>
Encl:
1. Passport copy pages displaying the visa issued ,date of entries to US on H1 and displaying the date of arrival in India [6 pages]
2. Copies of H1 approval & extension approval notice [2 pages]
3. Copies of I-94�s issued [5 pages]
4. Copy of I-140 approval [1 pages]
5. Copy of I-485 filing receipt [1 pages]
6. Copy of birth certificate [1 page]
7. Copy of marriage certificate [1 page]
Hope this helps
QUOTE=MYGCBY2010;193771]How did you respond to your RFE?.. Did you have copies of all of your I -94 ?.. Please let me know...[/QUOTE]
Raju
02-22 06:06 PM
Hello everyone,
I have a question abt the recent contributions. Of late i have seen a SHARP drop in contributions. Have we reached a plateau now, or are the contributions not updated live?
Also i have a question abt what the agreement is with QGA. Do they do nothing till we pay the $200k or do they do things in installments (like our immigration lawyers ;)). A lot of non members, but possibly potential contributors keep asking me abt the same. If the board can answer this question i would appreciate it. If you do not want to post that info on here, please send me a Private Message.
Why don't we sell some advertising space on immigrationvoice.org
I have a question abt the recent contributions. Of late i have seen a SHARP drop in contributions. Have we reached a plateau now, or are the contributions not updated live?
Also i have a question abt what the agreement is with QGA. Do they do nothing till we pay the $200k or do they do things in installments (like our immigration lawyers ;)). A lot of non members, but possibly potential contributors keep asking me abt the same. If the board can answer this question i would appreciate it. If you do not want to post that info on here, please send me a Private Message.
Why don't we sell some advertising space on immigrationvoice.org
2011 pga tour wives PGA TOUR Wives Association Receives Golf Magazine#39;s Innovator
manja
04-21 09:48 AM
Friends,
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
Welcome to H city! SugarLand and Katy have very good neighborhoods with lots of desis. A lot depends upon where your office located. Cost of living is in Houston is low compared to LA, NY. Homes are "affordable". But property taxes are high (average is above 3%). Food, gas and misc. services are cheap. Insurance and utility costs are high though. Let me know if you have any specific questions.
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
Welcome to H city! SugarLand and Katy have very good neighborhoods with lots of desis. A lot depends upon where your office located. Cost of living is in Houston is low compared to LA, NY. Homes are "affordable". But property taxes are high (average is above 3%). Food, gas and misc. services are cheap. Insurance and utility costs are high though. Let me know if you have any specific questions.
more...
alterego
10-27 12:15 PM
It is precisely this type of ignorance and reluctance to address the real issues by both sides of the issue that makes our predicament so difficult to fix(as with many other policy issues that need fixing in this country). It is an almost insurmountable feat to get the policy makers and even the debaters on this issue to distinguish between the issues of illegal immigration and legal immigration in this country. This obfuscation is not by accident but by clear intent to serve each their specific interests.
Were that not the case, why don't these "we need to stand by the rule of law" enforcement types, call for an improvement in the situation for those "who have followed the law", simply put, it is only convenient for them to say that when they are speaking about the illegals, but alas they are against us legals as well................. so how can they ask anyone to believe that they are anything but anti immigrant period.
The pro immigrant guys blur the distinction specifically because they consider us a sweetener in the deal no less and no more they really don't consider the way we came any better or worse than the way others arrived, it is simply either all or none for them.
A rational policy that the American people can be asked to accept IMHO would involve, strict enforcement both at the border and interior at multiple sites including workplace, policies to alleviate the plight of the legals to demonstrate that way is rewarded and finally a strict case by case evaluation of illegals where some are given amnesty(if they have US children, spouse, lived here over X number of years and can prove it etc) Some will have to be made to have to leave to demonstrate that illegal behavior is not condoned or rewarded, be they Mexicans, Indians or Irish.
Alas, this cannot and will not be done due to the cowardice OF BOTH SIDES of this debate. Cowardice is sadly now changing to outright disdain for immigrants and that is sad in this great country of immigrants. Now the obfuscation will see a backlash emerging against us legals as well.
Were that not the case, why don't these "we need to stand by the rule of law" enforcement types, call for an improvement in the situation for those "who have followed the law", simply put, it is only convenient for them to say that when they are speaking about the illegals, but alas they are against us legals as well................. so how can they ask anyone to believe that they are anything but anti immigrant period.
The pro immigrant guys blur the distinction specifically because they consider us a sweetener in the deal no less and no more they really don't consider the way we came any better or worse than the way others arrived, it is simply either all or none for them.
A rational policy that the American people can be asked to accept IMHO would involve, strict enforcement both at the border and interior at multiple sites including workplace, policies to alleviate the plight of the legals to demonstrate that way is rewarded and finally a strict case by case evaluation of illegals where some are given amnesty(if they have US children, spouse, lived here over X number of years and can prove it etc) Some will have to be made to have to leave to demonstrate that illegal behavior is not condoned or rewarded, be they Mexicans, Indians or Irish.
Alas, this cannot and will not be done due to the cowardice OF BOTH SIDES of this debate. Cowardice is sadly now changing to outright disdain for immigrants and that is sad in this great country of immigrants. Now the obfuscation will see a backlash emerging against us legals as well.
chanduv23
08-01 09:49 AM
Please note the reponse I got from service center to a query sent by the senators office
""
The scheduling of the biometrics is not based on the FBI fingerprints or name check being clearedfirst. ""
All waiting for FP leave no stone unturned, call, take infopass, etc
Thanks
I took infopass last week in NYC and the officer told me she will contact the TSC office and get it going and gave us a document signed by her stating the same. She asked us to come back in 45 days if nothing happens.
I doubt anything will happen, I am sure I will go back in 45 days and at that time they will say, you are not current anymore or some other reason.
""
The scheduling of the biometrics is not based on the FBI fingerprints or name check being clearedfirst. ""
All waiting for FP leave no stone unturned, call, take infopass, etc
Thanks
I took infopass last week in NYC and the officer told me she will contact the TSC office and get it going and gave us a document signed by her stating the same. She asked us to come back in 45 days if nothing happens.
I doubt anything will happen, I am sure I will go back in 45 days and at that time they will say, you are not current anymore or some other reason.
more...
snowshoe
11-15 08:28 AM
We (3 of us from the PA state chapter) had a meeting with Congressman Joe Sastak's office staff in Media, PA.
The staff member was completely unaware of our issues (other than, FBI name check takes long time and USCIS processing is slow). However, she was eager to understand our problems.
She recommended that we should meet the office staff in DC since they handle issues related to legislations.
The staff member was completely unaware of our issues (other than, FBI name check takes long time and USCIS processing is slow). However, she was eager to understand our problems.
She recommended that we should meet the office staff in DC since they handle issues related to legislations.
2010 PGA Golf Pro Brian Gay44.jpg
venky80
06-15 07:43 PM
I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering and I have been working as a system analyst for the last 2 years, does anybody here can advise if I can apply for EB2?
If yes what are the chances that there would be an RFE asking why is masters needed, I do think having done my masters i am able to understand and do the job better, but there is really no specif need for it.
Has anyone else gone through this confusion? What are the things to keep in mind?
Is there a special need how the job requirement should be?
Please advise.
Thanks
If yes what are the chances that there would be an RFE asking why is masters needed, I do think having done my masters i am able to understand and do the job better, but there is really no specif need for it.
Has anyone else gone through this confusion? What are the things to keep in mind?
Is there a special need how the job requirement should be?
Please advise.
Thanks
more...
snathan
10-03 10:44 AM
They do the same n FL and whats worse....they only issue temporary license that expires every year.
Contact your federal/state congress man/senator and protest about this. The cranky wheel gets the oil.
Contact your federal/state congress man/senator and protest about this. The cranky wheel gets the oil.
hair PGA Tour Wives Golf Classic,
brb2
04-19 08:45 AM
Politians will act when they think it is time to act. It is already known that the CIR is planned for second half of May in the senate. Why would they want to lay it out in detail and have those against conduct minute analysis and attack it. So they will only reveal the content closer to the debate.
It is clear Nancy Pelosi has told Bush, if you want it, deliver me the Republican votes and then I will schedule it. She is not going to spend her political capital on CIR. She knows Democrats will vote for it, but republicans will play both sides and she does not want it to happen. The senator who are elected for 6 years (as opposed for 2 years in the house) are less affected by short term public opinion and do what is right for the country. Even there Presidential hopefuls change their tune, like McCain. He was too left of the republican party and now he is moving too much to the right and will please no one, just like Romney.
It is clear Nancy Pelosi has told Bush, if you want it, deliver me the Republican votes and then I will schedule it. She is not going to spend her political capital on CIR. She knows Democrats will vote for it, but republicans will play both sides and she does not want it to happen. The senator who are elected for 6 years (as opposed for 2 years in the house) are less affected by short term public opinion and do what is right for the country. Even there Presidential hopefuls change their tune, like McCain. He was too left of the republican party and now he is moving too much to the right and will please no one, just like Romney.
more...
Ramba
07-27 03:31 PM
In very rare ocassions people get to know that their 485 is preadjudicated.
Check out this case
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/344724-post54.html
Now, once preadjudicated does not mean that your case may not be reviewed again (My thoughts)
The good indication of anyone 485 is pre-adjudicated, if LUD changes continously for 3 or 4 days on their online account with uscis. To notice thist, one has to moniter every day. If they receive RFE, it is the good indication of the application will be pre-adjudicated based on the aswer to the RFE. If they recive answer to RFE, the LUD will normalyy change with in 10 days continously. Pre-adjudicatred does not mean that it is 100% pre-approved. They may ask a question at the time of approval, if the 485 is pending for pro-lonnged time after it is pre-adjudicated.
Check out this case
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/344724-post54.html
Now, once preadjudicated does not mean that your case may not be reviewed again (My thoughts)
The good indication of anyone 485 is pre-adjudicated, if LUD changes continously for 3 or 4 days on their online account with uscis. To notice thist, one has to moniter every day. If they receive RFE, it is the good indication of the application will be pre-adjudicated based on the aswer to the RFE. If they recive answer to RFE, the LUD will normalyy change with in 10 days continously. Pre-adjudicatred does not mean that it is 100% pre-approved. They may ask a question at the time of approval, if the 485 is pending for pro-lonnged time after it is pre-adjudicated.
hot Join with the PGA Tour Wives
Widget
04-18 03:28 PM
Yesterday, there was a problem with the uscis web site. I tried to use the web site several times. Did you try to use the web site yesterday? or before?
I received a receipt confirmation for my I-140 petition. It shows that they received on March 24, 2006. I tried to check on the status on USCIS website in case status. I could not find my case so far. Does it take so long to be updated. I am worried if my petition is misplaced somewhere...
Please give me your advice.
I received a receipt confirmation for my I-140 petition. It shows that they received on March 24, 2006. I tried to check on the status on USCIS website in case status. I could not find my case so far. Does it take so long to be updated. I am worried if my petition is misplaced somewhere...
Please give me your advice.
more...
house PGA Tour player Brian Gay#39;s
kumar1
08-01 01:09 PM
Is it just your imagination or did you base this on any source.
buddy...can I buy you a lunch today? Please..
buddy...can I buy you a lunch today? Please..
tattoo PGA Tour Wives Classic.
Green.Tech
09-16 03:08 PM
Pray God!!!
It Is More Important!!!!!!
HE will help if we do our part i.e. Call.
Keep calling guys!
It Is More Important!!!!!!
HE will help if we do our part i.e. Call.
Keep calling guys!
more...
pictures PGA Golf Pro Brian Gay50.jpg
pappu
07-18 02:14 PM
=======================
Message from IV
IV does not recommend any such actions.
We are aware of the issue and if there is any acion item, we will post it.
also be aware of what we posted earlier on this issue:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6084
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=100024#post100024
=========================
Message from IV
IV does not recommend any such actions.
We are aware of the issue and if there is any acion item, we will post it.
also be aware of what we posted earlier on this issue:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6084
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=100024#post100024
=========================
dresses WNB Golf Classic assures
pou-pou
06-06 01:30 PM
the one lovely green is there a few times :love:
more...
makeup PGA Tour players twitter on
reverendflash
05-27 03:31 PM
Well, Fester's is the most ugly, Golgi's is the least immaginative, but Soul's transitions and blinking graphics are the nastiest...
Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif
Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif
girlfriend Honda Classic Wives Golf
larmani
10-16 02:19 PM
Hi I got FP notice on 10/13. I filed on July 2nd and got receipt August 24 with TSC.
hairstyles RECIPES BY WIVES OF THE PGA
chapper
11-08 01:57 PM
Yes - I agree with andy garcia
mps
06-04 11:26 AM
I had used 6 months of previous bank statement (original) and had mentioned the same in the letter written to consulate officer.
Using that my parents did get 10 year multiple entry visa.
Using that my parents did get 10 year multiple entry visa.
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
No comments:
Post a Comment