AGC4ME
02-12 10:06 AM
I140 porting is based on an approved I140 from a previous labor and hence is different from labor substitution. Therefore theoretically that labor was not allowed to expire even after the rule comes in to effect. Having said that I would rather pose this question to a lawyer.
franklin
07-17 10:28 AM
Welcome to the board folks.
I can't believe our membership numbers either! Please do help to contribute - everything helps!
I can't believe our membership numbers either! Please do help to contribute - everything helps!
gomirage
06-09 11:33 PM
Dear Viewers
I have all the proof that my client has paid him the money for which I worked but he continue to ignore my request.
Any piece of advice would be of great help.
You do NOT need to have proof that he was paid. If you are working for him on H1B, he needs to pay you the compensation stated on labor certifications. No ifs or buts.
I have all the proof that my client has paid him the money for which I worked but he continue to ignore my request.
Any piece of advice would be of great help.
You do NOT need to have proof that he was paid. If you are working for him on H1B, he needs to pay you the compensation stated on labor certifications. No ifs or buts.
amoschid
07-18 04:01 PM
thanks for the answer buddy
1) Yes, 140K includes primary applicant,spouse and minor children.
woaaah.. that's a very little number.... :p
2) It means India or any other country can be alloted upto 9800 green card per Fiscal Year, again this number includes spouse and children.
i see... thanks for the explanation,
this part still confused me though:
if i divide 140000 / 9800 = 14.28
that's only 14 countries, how was that suppose to work ?
also... let's use Japan & India again for example:
- suppose that India already used up to 9800 GC, and Japan only use 1500,
the 8300 GC (9800-1500) will remain unused ?
thanks again for the answer :D
1) Yes, 140K includes primary applicant,spouse and minor children.
woaaah.. that's a very little number.... :p
2) It means India or any other country can be alloted upto 9800 green card per Fiscal Year, again this number includes spouse and children.
i see... thanks for the explanation,
this part still confused me though:
if i divide 140000 / 9800 = 14.28
that's only 14 countries, how was that suppose to work ?
also... let's use Japan & India again for example:
- suppose that India already used up to 9800 GC, and Japan only use 1500,
the 8300 GC (9800-1500) will remain unused ?
thanks again for the answer :D
more...
kondur_007
08-16 06:29 PM
Hello everyone -
I am planning to change my job and would like to seek some advice. I already used AC21 once without informing USCIS, and now would like to do it again. I would like to seek advice on couple of issues:
1. I would like to do this without informing USCIS and worry about a response if and and when I get RFE. However, new employer has E-Verify system. Would them checking my eligibility to work through E-verify make it certain that I would get an RFE for employment verification?? In other words, E-Verify tells USCIS that one has changed employment? or E-verify and 485 have no connection?
2. My new job is in the same engineering field; however, there is still a big difference in salary owing to additional managerial duties. Labor was done based on technical responsibilities in engineering field, new job involved technical as well as business responsibilities in the same field. With years going by, I am taking on more and more project/division management experience and that is what the new position would entail.
Original title - Transportation Analyst/Engineer with 55K as salary
New Title - Director of Transportation Systems and Services Engineering with 135K as salary
Based on my research, the job needs to be in the same occupational classification. The original SOC code is 17-2051 - Civil Engineer. The new SOC could be same 17-2051 or could be classified as 11-9140 Architectural and Engineering Managers owing to managerial duties. However, the new job also has technical aspect to it since I will be responsible for sound technical design for the product/services we will prepare.
Can you guys please give your thoughs on these two issues. Thank you in advance for your time and help.
best,
I am not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge I can answer as follows:
1. As far as I know, E-verify does not speak with I485 system. Even if it does, it should not be a big deal as you can always reply to the RFE about EVL.
2. Similarity of jobs is a major issue in your case. This needs to be very very carefully evaluated by a good lawyer, as to me (and I am not a lawyer) these two jobs sound totally different. There is a major salary difference that will need to be justified as well. If I were to be you, I will definitely have it evaluated by a good lawyer before making the switch as this can potentially put the entire GC process at risk.
Good Luck.
I am planning to change my job and would like to seek some advice. I already used AC21 once without informing USCIS, and now would like to do it again. I would like to seek advice on couple of issues:
1. I would like to do this without informing USCIS and worry about a response if and and when I get RFE. However, new employer has E-Verify system. Would them checking my eligibility to work through E-verify make it certain that I would get an RFE for employment verification?? In other words, E-Verify tells USCIS that one has changed employment? or E-verify and 485 have no connection?
2. My new job is in the same engineering field; however, there is still a big difference in salary owing to additional managerial duties. Labor was done based on technical responsibilities in engineering field, new job involved technical as well as business responsibilities in the same field. With years going by, I am taking on more and more project/division management experience and that is what the new position would entail.
Original title - Transportation Analyst/Engineer with 55K as salary
New Title - Director of Transportation Systems and Services Engineering with 135K as salary
Based on my research, the job needs to be in the same occupational classification. The original SOC code is 17-2051 - Civil Engineer. The new SOC could be same 17-2051 or could be classified as 11-9140 Architectural and Engineering Managers owing to managerial duties. However, the new job also has technical aspect to it since I will be responsible for sound technical design for the product/services we will prepare.
Can you guys please give your thoughs on these two issues. Thank you in advance for your time and help.
best,
I am not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge I can answer as follows:
1. As far as I know, E-verify does not speak with I485 system. Even if it does, it should not be a big deal as you can always reply to the RFE about EVL.
2. Similarity of jobs is a major issue in your case. This needs to be very very carefully evaluated by a good lawyer, as to me (and I am not a lawyer) these two jobs sound totally different. There is a major salary difference that will need to be justified as well. If I were to be you, I will definitely have it evaluated by a good lawyer before making the switch as this can potentially put the entire GC process at risk.
Good Luck.
GoRedSox2007
10-31 12:46 AM
Guys,
EAD/AP - RD 10/12/2007
Checks Cleared - 10/14/2007
ND - 10/16/2007
Notice Received - 10/19/2007
Online Case Status - Not available
EAD/AP - RD 10/12/2007
Checks Cleared - 10/14/2007
ND - 10/16/2007
Notice Received - 10/19/2007
Online Case Status - Not available
more...
lost
02-07 08:56 AM
this is sad. it will give a bad name to india.
btw, what religious persecution are they talking about?
btw, what religious persecution are they talking about?
skillet
05-24 01:57 PM
05/23/2007: IMPORTANT CIR UPDATE MESSAGE
For the last two days, the Senate floor focused on the procedural motions as to whether the Senate should take up and continue S. 1348 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. People know that this is the bill which the Senate passed last year and was killed in the House. S. 1348 is this bill which was reintroduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. By agreeing to proceed and go into debate, the Senate floor at least overcame the opposition by a few anti-immigration Senators.
On May 21, 2007, the Senator Reid introduced, for himself, Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter, a motion to substitute the text of the S.1348 by the bi-partisan compromise which was produced by a bi-partisan group of Senators and White House during the weekend. Accordingly, there was no serious debate about the controversial issues in the compromise during last two days other than Senator Dorgan's motion to amend the Senator's Reid's amendment to substitute S. 1348 to kill temporary worker program. The floor rejected his motion and his motion was defeated yesterday.
The debates on controversial issues in the compromise bill are expected to be heated up from today after the Senate floor passes the Senator Reid's motion to substitute the S. 1348. A series of amendments to the substituted bill are expected to be introduced from today on. This means that those who oppose the controversial poisonous elements in the compromise bill must mobilize their forces to pressure the Senate to amend these poisonous proposals in the compromise. This is the most important time for people to arise and act!
It appears that the restrictionist Republicans opposed the CIR last year on the issues of relief of illegal immigrants including temporary guest worker program and legalization of 12 million illegal aliens in the country. Since then, as affected by the pressures from in and outside of the country, including the swift of position in the Christian forces, Hispanic forces, White House, and other forces, these core groups of restrictionist Republicans shifted their strategies in such a way that they give concession to the issues relating to the illegal aliens including guest worker program and legalization of illegal aliens, and instead focus on strategy to overhaul immigration system to achieve control and reduction of the number of immigrants allowed to come into this country and more importantly to control the types of immigrants allowed to immigrate to this country in terms of the ethnic and racial backgrounds, and immigrants from non-English speaking countries. Underlying the point systems, concept of control of chain of immigrants, and removal of certain family-based immigrant categories are the hidden agenda of the restrictivonist and right wing Republican forces to control immigrants and more importantly immigrants from certain part of the world. This hidden agenda is disguised in the name of the country's need for immigrants who can contribute to the nation's economy. The center of development of this concept and proposal was the Heritage Foundation, the think-tank of the conservative Republicans. This agenda has been pushed forward for the last few years through its arms in various communities, including some immigration groups. They penetrated into some immigrant groups, particularly employment-based immigrant groups, to divide the immigrant community and their supporters.
By now, people have learnt the hidden agenda of the conservative and restrictionist group, and the opposition to the poinonous agenda that are conceived in the compromise is growing fast. It is clear that the country and the immigrant community have to pass a comprehensive immigration reform legislation this year. The way to achieve this goal is to contact with the legislators en masse to remove the poinonous segments in the bill and the hidden agenda of the restrictionists and pass the bill. Accordingly, the amendment process is extremely important to achieve the overall goals of passing the CIR and passing the CIR without poisons. This is achievable since this is the Democrat Congress. This reporter assures the readers that should the Senate fail to pass such workable bill, there will be no, repeat no, CIR legislation enacted this year and in the next few years.
Please copy and send this message to any one or any organizations via email or web posting or fax as quickly as possible!
For the last two days, the Senate floor focused on the procedural motions as to whether the Senate should take up and continue S. 1348 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. People know that this is the bill which the Senate passed last year and was killed in the House. S. 1348 is this bill which was reintroduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. By agreeing to proceed and go into debate, the Senate floor at least overcame the opposition by a few anti-immigration Senators.
On May 21, 2007, the Senator Reid introduced, for himself, Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter, a motion to substitute the text of the S.1348 by the bi-partisan compromise which was produced by a bi-partisan group of Senators and White House during the weekend. Accordingly, there was no serious debate about the controversial issues in the compromise during last two days other than Senator Dorgan's motion to amend the Senator's Reid's amendment to substitute S. 1348 to kill temporary worker program. The floor rejected his motion and his motion was defeated yesterday.
The debates on controversial issues in the compromise bill are expected to be heated up from today after the Senate floor passes the Senator Reid's motion to substitute the S. 1348. A series of amendments to the substituted bill are expected to be introduced from today on. This means that those who oppose the controversial poisonous elements in the compromise bill must mobilize their forces to pressure the Senate to amend these poisonous proposals in the compromise. This is the most important time for people to arise and act!
It appears that the restrictionist Republicans opposed the CIR last year on the issues of relief of illegal immigrants including temporary guest worker program and legalization of 12 million illegal aliens in the country. Since then, as affected by the pressures from in and outside of the country, including the swift of position in the Christian forces, Hispanic forces, White House, and other forces, these core groups of restrictionist Republicans shifted their strategies in such a way that they give concession to the issues relating to the illegal aliens including guest worker program and legalization of illegal aliens, and instead focus on strategy to overhaul immigration system to achieve control and reduction of the number of immigrants allowed to come into this country and more importantly to control the types of immigrants allowed to immigrate to this country in terms of the ethnic and racial backgrounds, and immigrants from non-English speaking countries. Underlying the point systems, concept of control of chain of immigrants, and removal of certain family-based immigrant categories are the hidden agenda of the restrictivonist and right wing Republican forces to control immigrants and more importantly immigrants from certain part of the world. This hidden agenda is disguised in the name of the country's need for immigrants who can contribute to the nation's economy. The center of development of this concept and proposal was the Heritage Foundation, the think-tank of the conservative Republicans. This agenda has been pushed forward for the last few years through its arms in various communities, including some immigration groups. They penetrated into some immigrant groups, particularly employment-based immigrant groups, to divide the immigrant community and their supporters.
By now, people have learnt the hidden agenda of the conservative and restrictionist group, and the opposition to the poinonous agenda that are conceived in the compromise is growing fast. It is clear that the country and the immigrant community have to pass a comprehensive immigration reform legislation this year. The way to achieve this goal is to contact with the legislators en masse to remove the poinonous segments in the bill and the hidden agenda of the restrictionists and pass the bill. Accordingly, the amendment process is extremely important to achieve the overall goals of passing the CIR and passing the CIR without poisons. This is achievable since this is the Democrat Congress. This reporter assures the readers that should the Senate fail to pass such workable bill, there will be no, repeat no, CIR legislation enacted this year and in the next few years.
Please copy and send this message to any one or any organizations via email or web posting or fax as quickly as possible!
more...
psgprasad
02-22 10:32 AM
I had the same problem last year.
1. Attorney Aron Finkelstein in Sheila murthy office helped me out.
This is what we did, We filed an MTR to consider my case in Eb3, with it we also attached a new application for Eb3 and specified in Mtr, to consider our new application if they fail to accept my MTR. My new application for Eb3 was approved.
I cant help you on your EAd and stuff ,as I know your EAD becomes invalid immediately once your 485 is denied, which will be denied if your underlying 140 application is denied.
I would suggest, you contact a attorney soon.
My suggestions are my experience and stuff, I am not an attorney to give you legal advise.
1. Attorney Aron Finkelstein in Sheila murthy office helped me out.
This is what we did, We filed an MTR to consider my case in Eb3, with it we also attached a new application for Eb3 and specified in Mtr, to consider our new application if they fail to accept my MTR. My new application for Eb3 was approved.
I cant help you on your EAd and stuff ,as I know your EAD becomes invalid immediately once your 485 is denied, which will be denied if your underlying 140 application is denied.
I would suggest, you contact a attorney soon.
My suggestions are my experience and stuff, I am not an attorney to give you legal advise.
milind70
11-06 12:49 PM
I have filed for 140/485 EB3 on July 2nd. I am planning to start a EB2 process and carry over the EB3 Priority date to the new application. I have a few questions
1. My thinking is the process works something like this. I start a new PERM for EB2 while my EB3 140 is pending. After both the EB3 I140 and EB2 PERM are approved, I file for EB2 140 putting in a request to carry my old PD over. Is this correct?
2. Do I need to be with my GC sponsoring company until both EB3 140 and EB2 PERM are approved? If I use AC21 (after EB3 140 approval), will I still be able to interfile?
Thanks in advance
You cant use to port date after using AC21 ,your job responsiblities need to be same or of smiliar nature so u cant interfile as EB2 job responsiblities will differ. Porting of dates always carries risks more checks more documentations.
1. My thinking is the process works something like this. I start a new PERM for EB2 while my EB3 140 is pending. After both the EB3 I140 and EB2 PERM are approved, I file for EB2 140 putting in a request to carry my old PD over. Is this correct?
2. Do I need to be with my GC sponsoring company until both EB3 140 and EB2 PERM are approved? If I use AC21 (after EB3 140 approval), will I still be able to interfile?
Thanks in advance
You cant use to port date after using AC21 ,your job responsiblities need to be same or of smiliar nature so u cant interfile as EB2 job responsiblities will differ. Porting of dates always carries risks more checks more documentations.
more...
sparklinks
07-24 09:21 AM
can one ask NSC and see if they have cashed check > they should be able to tell us by our last , frist name, social security etc ?
Where is the link of USCIS memo which talks about following
"There was a memo from USCIS for in-time receipt compliance for I-485 ( along with other forms) for 8/1 supposedly for June filers."
I have called CIS 2 times, they told me to wait until Aug 2nd week.
Where is the link of USCIS memo which talks about following
"There was a memo from USCIS for in-time receipt compliance for I-485 ( along with other forms) for 8/1 supposedly for June filers."
I have called CIS 2 times, they told me to wait until Aug 2nd week.
chanduv23
03-28 12:42 PM
If you filed it in January you should have a reciept document which should be a date before your old H1-B of 5th feb expires, if you have this you are not considered out of status.
As someone sujested there may be a typo or the I-129 was filed incorrectly or these USCIS people did not really look into the case properly.
Your lawyer can follow up with that reciept notice and H1-B approval and correct the error.
Dont' Worry, you are safe. Yell at your lawyer if it is his mistake. These lawyers are so untrust worthy these days, they are becomming more money minded.
Issues have happened with many of my friends.
It is perfectly fine and no mistakes here.
As someone sujested there may be a typo or the I-129 was filed incorrectly or these USCIS people did not really look into the case properly.
Your lawyer can follow up with that reciept notice and H1-B approval and correct the error.
Dont' Worry, you are safe. Yell at your lawyer if it is his mistake. These lawyers are so untrust worthy these days, they are becomming more money minded.
Issues have happened with many of my friends.
It is perfectly fine and no mistakes here.
more...
sheshadripv
12-13 11:50 AM
Hi,
I'm in the US working on L1 visa, though I have an expired visa, I have I94 valid until Jun 2008 which makes me legal to work here until Jun 2008. Now, I'm planning to travel to India, Do I need transit visa in France if I travel via france.
Thanks in advance,
Sheshadri
I'm in the US working on L1 visa, though I have an expired visa, I have I94 valid until Jun 2008 which makes me legal to work here until Jun 2008. Now, I'm planning to travel to India, Do I need transit visa in France if I travel via france.
Thanks in advance,
Sheshadri
samcam
10-24 01:59 PM
Thanks Chanduv23! Hopefully it will be a RFE :)
more...
PDOCT05
10-29 11:35 AM
Did you get the receipt for your dependent's 485 application or was it rejected before they issued a receipt?
They issued receipt(starting with LIN 08XXXXXXX) and it came with the status as rejected. And infact they returned complete application.They asked me to correct and re-send the application to different P.O.Box after correcting.
They issued receipt(starting with LIN 08XXXXXXX) and it came with the status as rejected. And infact they returned complete application.They asked me to correct and re-send the application to different P.O.Box after correcting.
dan19
11-07 02:13 PM
Thanks Chandu...
Never knew somebody had compiled such a large list!!!
look at www.h1bmates.com
Never knew somebody had compiled such a large list!!!
look at www.h1bmates.com
more...
rani77
02-06 12:03 PM
Hi Friends - I work at a university and have been with them for 4 years. My boss plans on giving my a 10-12% mid-year pay increase. But our HR says that H1 workers are not eligible for mid-year pay hikes..?? IS THAT TRUE.?
Is there a INS rule that somebody can point me to which i can forward to my boss/HR which mentions that there is no pay increase issue with H1 visa holders..I searched on USCIS, DOL, etc..cannot find anything.
Can somebody please help!
Thanks in advace.!
What your HR seems to suggest it is not logical,USCIS erstwhile INS do not dicate HR polices.This seems more like your univertisty's supposed HR policy or HR peron not literate about the immgration rules and regulation. As many have suggested i have not come across any instance what you mentioned. My spouse is on h1 with a very big company and he has been getting hikes every year in acceptable ranges what was menioned in his offer letter. Some are in mid year based on performance of the tasks he carried out succesfully.
Is there a INS rule that somebody can point me to which i can forward to my boss/HR which mentions that there is no pay increase issue with H1 visa holders..I searched on USCIS, DOL, etc..cannot find anything.
Can somebody please help!
Thanks in advace.!
What your HR seems to suggest it is not logical,USCIS erstwhile INS do not dicate HR polices.This seems more like your univertisty's supposed HR policy or HR peron not literate about the immgration rules and regulation. As many have suggested i have not come across any instance what you mentioned. My spouse is on h1 with a very big company and he has been getting hikes every year in acceptable ranges what was menioned in his offer letter. Some are in mid year based on performance of the tasks he carried out succesfully.
paskal
12-05 04:12 PM
Thanks but I'm not moving in that area.
he's moving exactly where we need him :-)
good desicion!
we are going to steal all the superwomen too from texas....need(s-no)help! when does that new job/move plan kick in? c'mon now we need you in some state with a dead chapter! Tx has too many riches...let's do some affirmative action...diversity...country quota...whatever...!
he's moving exactly where we need him :-)
good desicion!
we are going to steal all the superwomen too from texas....need(s-no)help! when does that new job/move plan kick in? c'mon now we need you in some state with a dead chapter! Tx has too many riches...let's do some affirmative action...diversity...country quota...whatever...!
pcs
11-11 08:59 AM
Great job Bud.... Use local forums to spread the message...
Ennada
01-29 11:05 PM
Legalizing unauthorized immigrants would help economy, study says - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/07/immigration.economy/index.html#cnnSTCText)
Washington (CNN) -- Legalization of the more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs and generate more tax revenue, two policy institutes say in a joint report Thursday.
The report by the Center for American Progress and the American Immigration Council estimates that "comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes currently unauthorized immigrants and creates flexible legal limits on future immigration" would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over a 10-year period.
"This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current 'vicious cycle' where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on already low wages, and toward a 'virtuous cycle' of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on wages," study author Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
The study looks at three scenarios: deportation of undocumented workers, temporary worker programs and legalization of the current undocumented population. Deportation would lead to a loss of $2.6 trillion in gross domestic product over 10 years, the report says, while a worker program would lead to a gain of $792 billion. Full legalization would lead to the best economic results, the study says.
Other groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, say that unfettered immigration harms the United States and that entry into the nation must remain limited.
When running for president in 2008, Barack Obama said that comprehensive immigration reform would be a priority in his administration, but the issue has been sidelined by health care reform efforts in Congress, the weak economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are indications, however, that the Obama administration aims to revive immigration reform efforts in Congress this year.
The study bases many of its conclusions on an examination of what happened after passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted legal status to 3 million unauthorized immigrants.
A 2006 Pew Hispanic Center report found that 56 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States in 2005 were from Mexico, a total of about 6.2 million unauthorized immigrants.
About 2.5 million unauthorized migrants, or 22 percent of the total, came from the rest of Latin America, primarily from Central America, the Pew Hispanic Center study found.
Of the remaining illegal immigrants, about 13 percent were from Asia, and 3 percent were from Canada and Europe, the Pew study said.
The report released Thursday says U.S. enforcement efforts -- mainly along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico -- are costly and ineffective.
"The number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically since the early 1990s despite equally dramatic increases in the amount of money the federal government spends on immigration enforcement," study author Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
According to the report, the U.S. Border Patrol says its annual budget has increased by 714 percent since 1992, from $326.2 million in fiscal year 1992 to $2.7 billion in fiscal 2009. And the cost ratio of Border Patrol expenditures to apprehensions has increased by 1,041 percent, from $272 per apprehension in 1992 to $3,102 in 2008.
Similarly, the Border Patrol says the number of agents along the border with Mexico has grown by 390 percent, from 3,555 in fiscal 1992 to 17,415 in 2009.
"Yet the unauthorized immigrant population of the United States has roughly tripled in size over the past two decades, from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to 11.9 million in 2008," the report says, noting that illegal immigration appears to have declined slightly since 2007 as a result of the global recession.
The report points out that a long-term study conducted by the University of California, San Diego, found that 92 to 98 percent of unauthorized immigrants keep trying to cross the border until they succeed.
Increased enforcement has several unintended consequences, such as making the Southwestern border more lethal by channeling migrants through remote and rugged mountain and desert areas, the study found. The number of border-crossing deaths doubled in the decade after increased border enforcement started, a 2006 Government Accountability Office report said.
An October 2009 report by the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and Mexico's National Commission of Human Rights estimates that 5,607 migrants died while crossing the border between 1994 and 2008.
Tightened borders also have created new opportunities for people smugglers, who charged an average $2,000 to $3,000 per person in 2006, the study said. Ninety percent of illegal immigrants now hire smugglers, according to the report.
An examination of trends after the 1986 immigration reform law shows that legalization of unauthorized immigrants has benefits, the report says. Legalized workers earned more, moved on to better jobs and invested more in their education so they could get higher pay and better jobs.
A previous study found that "the wages of unauthorized workers are generally unrelated to their actual skill level," Thursday's report said.
"Unauthorized workers tend to be concentrated in the lowest-wage occupations; they try to minimize the risk of deportation even if this means working for lower wages; and they are especially vulnerable to outright exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Once unauthorized workers are legalized, however, these artificial barriers to upward socioeconomic mobility disappear."
Study author Hinojosa-Ojeda is founding director of the North American Integration and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The self-described progressive Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational think tank headed by John Podesta, who was chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.
The Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003, also is a nonpartisan institute.
The report, titled "Raising the Floor for American Workers, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform," can be found on the Web.
Washington (CNN) -- Legalization of the more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs and generate more tax revenue, two policy institutes say in a joint report Thursday.
The report by the Center for American Progress and the American Immigration Council estimates that "comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes currently unauthorized immigrants and creates flexible legal limits on future immigration" would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over a 10-year period.
"This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current 'vicious cycle' where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on already low wages, and toward a 'virtuous cycle' of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on wages," study author Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
The study looks at three scenarios: deportation of undocumented workers, temporary worker programs and legalization of the current undocumented population. Deportation would lead to a loss of $2.6 trillion in gross domestic product over 10 years, the report says, while a worker program would lead to a gain of $792 billion. Full legalization would lead to the best economic results, the study says.
Other groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, say that unfettered immigration harms the United States and that entry into the nation must remain limited.
When running for president in 2008, Barack Obama said that comprehensive immigration reform would be a priority in his administration, but the issue has been sidelined by health care reform efforts in Congress, the weak economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are indications, however, that the Obama administration aims to revive immigration reform efforts in Congress this year.
The study bases many of its conclusions on an examination of what happened after passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted legal status to 3 million unauthorized immigrants.
A 2006 Pew Hispanic Center report found that 56 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States in 2005 were from Mexico, a total of about 6.2 million unauthorized immigrants.
About 2.5 million unauthorized migrants, or 22 percent of the total, came from the rest of Latin America, primarily from Central America, the Pew Hispanic Center study found.
Of the remaining illegal immigrants, about 13 percent were from Asia, and 3 percent were from Canada and Europe, the Pew study said.
The report released Thursday says U.S. enforcement efforts -- mainly along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico -- are costly and ineffective.
"The number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically since the early 1990s despite equally dramatic increases in the amount of money the federal government spends on immigration enforcement," study author Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
According to the report, the U.S. Border Patrol says its annual budget has increased by 714 percent since 1992, from $326.2 million in fiscal year 1992 to $2.7 billion in fiscal 2009. And the cost ratio of Border Patrol expenditures to apprehensions has increased by 1,041 percent, from $272 per apprehension in 1992 to $3,102 in 2008.
Similarly, the Border Patrol says the number of agents along the border with Mexico has grown by 390 percent, from 3,555 in fiscal 1992 to 17,415 in 2009.
"Yet the unauthorized immigrant population of the United States has roughly tripled in size over the past two decades, from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to 11.9 million in 2008," the report says, noting that illegal immigration appears to have declined slightly since 2007 as a result of the global recession.
The report points out that a long-term study conducted by the University of California, San Diego, found that 92 to 98 percent of unauthorized immigrants keep trying to cross the border until they succeed.
Increased enforcement has several unintended consequences, such as making the Southwestern border more lethal by channeling migrants through remote and rugged mountain and desert areas, the study found. The number of border-crossing deaths doubled in the decade after increased border enforcement started, a 2006 Government Accountability Office report said.
An October 2009 report by the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and Mexico's National Commission of Human Rights estimates that 5,607 migrants died while crossing the border between 1994 and 2008.
Tightened borders also have created new opportunities for people smugglers, who charged an average $2,000 to $3,000 per person in 2006, the study said. Ninety percent of illegal immigrants now hire smugglers, according to the report.
An examination of trends after the 1986 immigration reform law shows that legalization of unauthorized immigrants has benefits, the report says. Legalized workers earned more, moved on to better jobs and invested more in their education so they could get higher pay and better jobs.
A previous study found that "the wages of unauthorized workers are generally unrelated to their actual skill level," Thursday's report said.
"Unauthorized workers tend to be concentrated in the lowest-wage occupations; they try to minimize the risk of deportation even if this means working for lower wages; and they are especially vulnerable to outright exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Once unauthorized workers are legalized, however, these artificial barriers to upward socioeconomic mobility disappear."
Study author Hinojosa-Ojeda is founding director of the North American Integration and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The self-described progressive Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational think tank headed by John Podesta, who was chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.
The Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003, also is a nonpartisan institute.
The report, titled "Raising the Floor for American Workers, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform," can be found on the Web.
sumansk
11-29 11:22 AM
How do you prove to USCIS that your notice date is Aug 3 bcos I suppose in yr receipt notice, the date mentioned is of august.
Thanks
Thanks
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario