vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
wallpaper Amor Vincit Omnia by
lostinbeta
10-28 09:54 PM
That sucks eberth :(
dreamgc_real
04-27 01:42 PM
Thank you everyone for your reponds. We are going to have a wedding in August, 2010. Can we fill the I30 and other forms now or we have to wait until after the wedding?
definitely after you get married. one of the important papers to send in will be your proof of marriage (marriage certificate)!!!!!!!! can't rush these things.
definitely after you get married. one of the important papers to send in will be your proof of marriage (marriage certificate)!!!!!!!! can't rush these things.
2011 amor vincit omnia tattoo. amor
ZemtitoEvet
03-24 11:47 PM
Priofeseria Anne sexton poems (http://dmix.mx.am/xjgkpi.html)
Viaggi veneto (http://ogk.mx.am/bbbs.html)
:-|
:-@
Killer sex (http://dmix.mx.am/utkj.html)
:-v
biowbabiptoli College teens webcam (http://kladez.mx.am/ofdj.html)
biowbabiptoli :-?
Cause and effect of teen pregnancy (http://dmix.mx.am/sgbg.html)
Viaggi veneto (http://ogk.mx.am/bbbs.html)
:-|
:-@
Killer sex (http://dmix.mx.am/utkj.html)
:-v
biowbabiptoli College teens webcam (http://kladez.mx.am/ofdj.html)
biowbabiptoli :-?
Cause and effect of teen pregnancy (http://dmix.mx.am/sgbg.html)
more...
amitjoey
06-14 02:26 PM
I think ability to pay is at 140 stage,and that has gotten cleared.I was wondering if I could file 485 from the old company and invoke ac 21 after 181 days.
Yes, You can. Ask an attorney. Sorry I did not really mean abiliity to pay. But the previous company that files your 485 should be a valid entity in business and an offer for employment should be valid, Since you need a letter from them stating the offer is open and terms of employment. Please consult an attorney, Nobody can give you any advice since a lot of other details are unknown. Overall generally speaking, looks like you can do it.
Yes, You can. Ask an attorney. Sorry I did not really mean abiliity to pay. But the previous company that files your 485 should be a valid entity in business and an offer for employment should be valid, Since you need a letter from them stating the offer is open and terms of employment. Please consult an attorney, Nobody can give you any advice since a lot of other details are unknown. Overall generally speaking, looks like you can do it.
thomachan72
07-28 11:07 AM
it is not easy as you think. Once you have this non renewable/non transferable stamp on the license you are stuck. For eg:- even if you stay in the state that issues that lisence (in this case Ohio), you will have to retake the whole test (computer + driving test) to even renew the lisense when your visa is renewed. You initially get the lisence only valid until the day of your visa expiry.
bottom line:: THIS IS THE CRAZIEST RULE THAT I HAVE COME ACCROSS. The more a person drives I was under the impression that her/his skills improve. I am not against checking the visa validity etc but to make you take the whole drivers test again is SIMPLY STUPIDITY.
bottom line:: THIS IS THE CRAZIEST RULE THAT I HAVE COME ACCROSS. The more a person drives I was under the impression that her/his skills improve. I am not against checking the visa validity etc but to make you take the whole drivers test again is SIMPLY STUPIDITY.
more...
mheggade
01-08 08:36 AM
I hear SAP Functional jobs are very short term though you make good money. Some companies want you to be ready for 100% travel.
2010 Amor Vincit Omnia Tattoo
Kodi
07-03 09:43 AM
Congrats!! Does worldwide = ROW? If it is maybe that's why I-485 was approved so fast?
more...
vaishnavilakshmi
10-15 02:01 PM
I had LUDs on 10/05/2007, 10/07/2007, 10/09/2007 on my I-485 application after my FP appointment. I do not know what it means though.
Hi,
Probably ur 485 is going be approved soon!We had only one soft LUD after fp in our 485s on 7th sep 2007,and no luds on i-140 and i-131 till date??
goodluck,
vaishu
Hi,
Probably ur 485 is going be approved soon!We had only one soft LUD after fp in our 485s on 7th sep 2007,and no luds on i-140 and i-131 till date??
goodluck,
vaishu
hair Amor Vincit Omnia
sri_chicago
05-14 06:36 PM
Hi sts_seeker,
Could you please provide me USCIS customer service phone number options to discuss about RFE.
Could you please provide me USCIS customer service phone number options to discuss about RFE.
more...
ameryki
10-02 11:06 PM
murthy just sent out this info in his newsletter that went out today.
Delayed EADs - Ombudsman's Suggestions to Expedite
The current regulations on Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) require the USCIS to adjudicate EAD applications within 90 days. As many are aware, this does not always occur. The problem is compounded by the fact that it is no longer possible to obtain interim EADs at the local USCIS offices. Information on this matter was included in our previous article, available on MurthyDotCom, Interim EAD Problems at USCIS District Offices (Dec 14, 2007). The first CIS Ombudsman, Prakash , began making efforts on this matter that are continuing through the current CIS Ombudsman, Michael Dougherty. The Ombudsman's office released updated suggestions on September 19, 2008, for individuals who are experiencing EAD delays.
Option 1 : Call the NCSC
It is suggested that an individual first call the USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1.800.375.5283. It is important to note the date and time of the call, as well as the name / number of the person who answers the call. It is possible to explain that the EAD has been delayed beyond the 90 days permitted for processing, and ask for a "service request." This is supposed to result in issuance of the EAD or some other type of response within a week, according to the Ombudsman's update. Alternatively, it is possible to ask the customer service representative to request the EAD. This, too, should result in either receipt of the card or some other type of response within a week. The Ombudsman's update refers to the interim EAD, even though this is no longer issued by the local offices. At the Murthy Law Firm, it has been our experience that the requests described in the update primarily have resulted in the issuance of standard EADs.
Option 2 : INFOPASS Appointment
If the EAD has been delayed beyond 90 days, then it is possible to make an appointment at the local USCIS through the INFOPASS system. At that appointment, it is possible to request the EAD, even though EADs are not actually issued at the local offices. The local office should review the case for eligibility, and then forward the request to the USCIS service center where the case is pending. This should also result in a response or EAD issuance within a week.
It should be noted that, while the one-week estimate may be a bit optimistic, we at the Murthy Law Firm have found that this approach is generally successful. Our recommendation is to make the appointment a week or two in advance, for the 91st day after filing. The reason for this is that local offices often have waiting times for appointments and if one waits until the 90th day to make the appointment it may result in more delay while waiting for an available appointment time. As with the call to the NCSC, it is best to document the date and time of the appointment, as well as the name of the officer.
Option 3: Contact the Ombudsman if Other Options Do Not Work
If an individual has completed both options 1 and 2 above, and the EAD has not been issued, then a third option is to eMail the Ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov. It is necessary to include the dates and times of the call to the NCSC, as well as the officer's identification information. Corresponding details on the INFOPASS appointment should also be provided.
Delayed EADs - Ombudsman's Suggestions to Expedite
The current regulations on Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) require the USCIS to adjudicate EAD applications within 90 days. As many are aware, this does not always occur. The problem is compounded by the fact that it is no longer possible to obtain interim EADs at the local USCIS offices. Information on this matter was included in our previous article, available on MurthyDotCom, Interim EAD Problems at USCIS District Offices (Dec 14, 2007). The first CIS Ombudsman, Prakash , began making efforts on this matter that are continuing through the current CIS Ombudsman, Michael Dougherty. The Ombudsman's office released updated suggestions on September 19, 2008, for individuals who are experiencing EAD delays.
Option 1 : Call the NCSC
It is suggested that an individual first call the USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1.800.375.5283. It is important to note the date and time of the call, as well as the name / number of the person who answers the call. It is possible to explain that the EAD has been delayed beyond the 90 days permitted for processing, and ask for a "service request." This is supposed to result in issuance of the EAD or some other type of response within a week, according to the Ombudsman's update. Alternatively, it is possible to ask the customer service representative to request the EAD. This, too, should result in either receipt of the card or some other type of response within a week. The Ombudsman's update refers to the interim EAD, even though this is no longer issued by the local offices. At the Murthy Law Firm, it has been our experience that the requests described in the update primarily have resulted in the issuance of standard EADs.
Option 2 : INFOPASS Appointment
If the EAD has been delayed beyond 90 days, then it is possible to make an appointment at the local USCIS through the INFOPASS system. At that appointment, it is possible to request the EAD, even though EADs are not actually issued at the local offices. The local office should review the case for eligibility, and then forward the request to the USCIS service center where the case is pending. This should also result in a response or EAD issuance within a week.
It should be noted that, while the one-week estimate may be a bit optimistic, we at the Murthy Law Firm have found that this approach is generally successful. Our recommendation is to make the appointment a week or two in advance, for the 91st day after filing. The reason for this is that local offices often have waiting times for appointments and if one waits until the 90th day to make the appointment it may result in more delay while waiting for an available appointment time. As with the call to the NCSC, it is best to document the date and time of the appointment, as well as the name of the officer.
Option 3: Contact the Ombudsman if Other Options Do Not Work
If an individual has completed both options 1 and 2 above, and the EAD has not been issued, then a third option is to eMail the Ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov. It is necessary to include the dates and times of the call to the NCSC, as well as the officer's identification information. Corresponding details on the INFOPASS appointment should also be provided.
hot amor vincit omnia tattoo
jthomas
10-12 11:19 AM
i filed for i-485, i-765 on July 11th. no receipt yet
more...
house amor vincit omnia tattoo wrist
gccovet
06-25 12:24 PM
The question is, did you earn any money at all in 2007? The information you provided is a bit vague, in one place you say you received paychecks till December 15 2007, in another place you say you did not get paid in 2007. It is simple really, if you did not earn any money in 2007, then you do not have to add your W2 to your tax returns. If you did earn money in 2007, then the company has to supply you with a W2.
Of course, not earning any money in 2007, while keeping you okay with respect to the IRS, might get you in trouble with the USCIS.
also, not getting paychecks while on H1 open another can of worms.
GCCovet
Of course, not earning any money in 2007, while keeping you okay with respect to the IRS, might get you in trouble with the USCIS.
also, not getting paychecks while on H1 open another can of worms.
GCCovet
tattoo omnia vincit amor tattoos.
sweet_jungle
10-09 03:54 AM
So does CA....
situation is quite different from CA. True, for first time driver's license, you have to show legal status proof. But, you are issued license for 4 years, irrespective of when your current status expires.
For DL renewal in CA, it happens by mail. You once again get 4 year license. No status proof required.
There is definitely no concept of different form of DL in CA where an officer will be able to receogize from the DL, whether is PR or not, as has become the law in Texas.
CA is quite cool with respect to DL renewals.
situation is quite different from CA. True, for first time driver's license, you have to show legal status proof. But, you are issued license for 4 years, irrespective of when your current status expires.
For DL renewal in CA, it happens by mail. You once again get 4 year license. No status proof required.
There is definitely no concept of different form of DL in CA where an officer will be able to receogize from the DL, whether is PR or not, as has become the law in Texas.
CA is quite cool with respect to DL renewals.
more...
pictures Amor Vincit Omnia
Mulnop
08-04 04:36 PM
Where you get it???
dresses David Beckham#39;s tattoo
simple1
05-11 06:49 PM
desi3933,
Only if "if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section"
In this case they are eligible for FB2A. So it nullifies that.
again “respective subsection” is not referring to primary’s subsection.
same status = parolee, denied etc.
same order of consideration = PD order.
respective subsection=the respective/related/corresponding subsection of derivative not the primary.
This point was already discussed on member's and donor's thread with same subject.
Member thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=25432
Donor thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=340449
This thread is for lawyer's thoughts. I appreciate you post your thoughts on the above member/donor threads and let us keep this thread for Attorney only.
Thanks.
INA 203(d) Treatment of family members
A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b)(1) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
This means that if primary beneficiary is using visa number from EB(2) classification then dependent(s) will also be using same classification as primary beneficiary (i.e. EB(2) in this example).
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
Only if "if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section"
In this case they are eligible for FB2A. So it nullifies that.
again “respective subsection” is not referring to primary’s subsection.
same status = parolee, denied etc.
same order of consideration = PD order.
respective subsection=the respective/related/corresponding subsection of derivative not the primary.
This point was already discussed on member's and donor's thread with same subject.
Member thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=25432
Donor thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=340449
This thread is for lawyer's thoughts. I appreciate you post your thoughts on the above member/donor threads and let us keep this thread for Attorney only.
Thanks.
INA 203(d) Treatment of family members
A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b)(1) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
This means that if primary beneficiary is using visa number from EB(2) classification then dependent(s) will also be using same classification as primary beneficiary (i.e. EB(2) in this example).
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
more...
makeup amor vincit omnia tattoo on
Imigrait
08-31 03:08 PM
Bottomline is that the whole process translates to Luck.
Surely is. That's why if you search on this forum there are so many theories and postulates put forward that tries to second guess or figure out what their algorithm/methodology is. The last person who could guess the PD movement algorithm was VDLRao, but he is MIA nowadays.
Anyways if anyone who has their PDs current on this forum and believes that they are feeling lucky tommorrow or anytime in the next month, I would suggest NOT to wait for GC news. When you're feeling lucky go to Vegas, maybe a multimillion $ jackpot that you always dreamt about is around the corner:D.
Surely is. That's why if you search on this forum there are so many theories and postulates put forward that tries to second guess or figure out what their algorithm/methodology is. The last person who could guess the PD movement algorithm was VDLRao, but he is MIA nowadays.
Anyways if anyone who has their PDs current on this forum and believes that they are feeling lucky tommorrow or anytime in the next month, I would suggest NOT to wait for GC news. When you're feeling lucky go to Vegas, maybe a multimillion $ jackpot that you always dreamt about is around the corner:D.
girlfriend amor vincit omnia tattoo on
apt29
10-22 03:31 PM
Mine was applied on July12th. My attorney is pressing for refile. is it a good idea to refile? Or is it better to wait?
Thx
Thx
hairstyles amor vincit omnia tattoo ribs
Hey Ram GC
04-08 11:45 AM
webm: what is the status of your application ( 485), is your NC, SC or fingurprints all clear. Did you speak to any IO about any update on your case as your PD is current ( 01 Oct).
pappu
04-23 10:23 AM
Please make sure your title of the thread is self explanatory.
yagw
12-14 07:59 PM
Got red with following comments:
"reputation" ?? lol this is a website, and these are forum ID's , they dont represent anything tangible or personal, please work on the real issues and leave the green/reds for school kids to fight over, thanks
If green/reds are for kids, why the f*** you use it moron. If you have guts come out and say it in the thread. Otherwise, get the f*** outa here.
"reputation" ?? lol this is a website, and these are forum ID's , they dont represent anything tangible or personal, please work on the real issues and leave the green/reds for school kids to fight over, thanks
If green/reds are for kids, why the f*** you use it moron. If you have guts come out and say it in the thread. Otherwise, get the f*** outa here.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق