govindk
10-25 11:15 AM
I filed my application on July27th. Completed FP on 10th Oct. I have not received EAD yet. When i called USCIS, I got response to wait 90days from the receipt date.
wallpaper hairstyles wallpapers hd
delhirocks
12-18 06:45 PM
When I took a cruise last year (Carnival) one of my stops was Cozumel. We were there for around 12 hours. We did not have a mexican visa, did not have to go through Mexican immigration.
I spoke to Mexican consulate official, and he conforimed that I do not need a Mexican visa (as long as I have a valid American non-b1/b2 visa) if I am staying in Mexico for less than 72 hours. Carnival also did not require a visa.
They do that for some other stops.
I spoke to Mexican consulate official, and he conforimed that I do not need a Mexican visa (as long as I have a valid American non-b1/b2 visa) if I am staying in Mexico for less than 72 hours. Carnival also did not require a visa.
They do that for some other stops.
girish989
05-11 01:26 PM
That is the response that this guy gave when the senetor asked what to do to reduce the backlogs and he is the head of USCIS ..... :(
2011 wallpapers hd 3d_8928.
green_card_curious
03-08 10:17 AM
This is EXACTLY the confusion. My case is explained below:
1. I am on H1-B - havent used my EAD yet
2. My wife has and is currently using her EAD though
3. We filed I-140 (NIW) and I-485, concurrently for both of us in July 2007.
So what happens to our I-485's and her EAD? My attorney says she should be alright (legally and work eligibility wise) till we appeal and get the final decision. But we are hearing different things at these forums. So really not sure...
Ideas? Suggestions? Examples?
Thanks,
1. I am on H1-B - havent used my EAD yet
2. My wife has and is currently using her EAD though
3. We filed I-140 (NIW) and I-485, concurrently for both of us in July 2007.
So what happens to our I-485's and her EAD? My attorney says she should be alright (legally and work eligibility wise) till we appeal and get the final decision. But we are hearing different things at these forums. So really not sure...
Ideas? Suggestions? Examples?
Thanks,
more...
Libra
08-15 01:26 PM
Thank you nrakkati, i hope your signature and your no. of posts inspire many in this organization.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
deecha
07-16 03:02 PM
Thanks deecha.. I will keep the gang in loop... The future role will be of a chief architect. So I believe it is aligned with my current labor application. But can I even move using an EAD (hence dropping my H1) and then file my EB2 in the new company? The reason I am confused is, we used an H1 b visa to file the labor, not sure if a labor can be filed using an EAD.
I don't believe H1B has anything to do with filing a Labor Certification for a EB Green card. An employer can file LC for a position even when a candidate is outside the country. they are two separate tracks.
What you may be thinking is the answer to the question about a candidate's status. In your case it's simply AOS (Adjustment of Status). You will definitely have to consult a good lawyer.
I don't believe H1B has anything to do with filing a Labor Certification for a EB Green card. An employer can file LC for a position even when a candidate is outside the country. they are two separate tracks.
What you may be thinking is the answer to the question about a candidate's status. In your case it's simply AOS (Adjustment of Status). You will definitely have to consult a good lawyer.
more...
like_watching_paint_dry
02-27 01:51 PM
I don't have any examples of a NOIR based on EB green card holder changing jobs too soon after 485 approval. I however have seen counter examples where a person changed jobs within a month of 485 approval and never had any problems at N-400 as long as they have maintained a good employment history, paid taxes, not committed any crime etc.
This is not to say that you or I or some other Joe wont have any issues, but is a hopeful indicator. It is however best to play it safe unless there's a pretty darn good reason to take up a job change soon after 485 approval.
This is not to say that you or I or some other Joe wont have any issues, but is a hopeful indicator. It is however best to play it safe unless there's a pretty darn good reason to take up a job change soon after 485 approval.
2010 wallpapers hd 3d_8928.
felix31
02-12 04:59 PM
Folks,
employer's attorney claims that there is no such thing as H4 premium processing.
Can anyone point me to the correct memo where Premium filing was made available for I-539 applications?
I searched all Mathew-Oh updates dated one year ago and can't locate it.
I need to get that h4 under premium ASAP so that I can transfer to H1 in April.
Can anyone please help?
employer's attorney claims that there is no such thing as H4 premium processing.
Can anyone point me to the correct memo where Premium filing was made available for I-539 applications?
I searched all Mathew-Oh updates dated one year ago and can't locate it.
I need to get that h4 under premium ASAP so that I can transfer to H1 in April.
Can anyone please help?
more...
lazycis
12-11 09:19 AM
6 months according to the USCIS website
hair girlfriend wallpapers hd
rsayed
04-16 08:13 PM
My H-1 started in Oct'03 and is supposed to complete it's 6 yr term on Oct'09. But, my current H-1 (with my current employer) shows an expiry date of Apr'09 (same with the stamped visa on passport) - I don't know the reason for this.
My labor (EB2-PERM) and I-140 has been cleared/approved; Priority date is July 2006.
I'm being offered a F/T position in one of the Big 5 consulting firms - nice offer. But, they categorically state that "there is no guarantee of GC, upon completion of one/two year". I've been told that this is standard practice for them to say this, and they normally start your GC after one year if you have less than 2 yrs, left. Even, the HR rep. told me the same thing - just that they don't offer a commitment, due to changing market conditions.
My question - Is it advisable to change? Any ideas/thoughts on any chances whatsoever of "Immigration Reform" happening this year?
Should I just stay put (with my approved I-140), or should I change (which seems risky)?
Also, this "Big 5" firm processes GC in the EB-3 category - I know this for a fact (unless the position offered is of a "Manager", which is not the case with me).
Pl. advise. Thanks.
My labor (EB2-PERM) and I-140 has been cleared/approved; Priority date is July 2006.
I'm being offered a F/T position in one of the Big 5 consulting firms - nice offer. But, they categorically state that "there is no guarantee of GC, upon completion of one/two year". I've been told that this is standard practice for them to say this, and they normally start your GC after one year if you have less than 2 yrs, left. Even, the HR rep. told me the same thing - just that they don't offer a commitment, due to changing market conditions.
My question - Is it advisable to change? Any ideas/thoughts on any chances whatsoever of "Immigration Reform" happening this year?
Should I just stay put (with my approved I-140), or should I change (which seems risky)?
Also, this "Big 5" firm processes GC in the EB-3 category - I know this for a fact (unless the position offered is of a "Manager", which is not the case with me).
Pl. advise. Thanks.
more...
sweet23guyin
02-13 12:47 PM
Don't be LAZZY...activity on IV is easy
hot girlfriend wallpapers hd
virtual55
05-06 10:55 AM
http://www.usabal.com/seminars/#a2
Michael Aytes, is one of the speaker in this conference
Michael Aytes, is one of the speaker in this conference
more...
house wallpapers hd 3d_8928.
pune_guy
02-19 05:20 PM
I would suggest that you follow the option of joining some other company, if that is possible. You would be joining with enough experience so as to qualify for a new EB2 application. You can retain your EB3 application and priority date if 180 days have passed since filing 485, which in your case has happened so you are OK.
Trying to file an EB2 application through the same employer might be tricky because you cannot count the experience that you have gained with the employer. Even though a case could be made that you have a masters degree in business but I suspect that that may not be enough as, if I understand you correctly, you have no "business development" experience from your previous employment. Thus you would be a candidate with a degree but no experience.
Just my two cents.
Trying to file an EB2 application through the same employer might be tricky because you cannot count the experience that you have gained with the employer. Even though a case could be made that you have a masters degree in business but I suspect that that may not be enough as, if I understand you correctly, you have no "business development" experience from your previous employment. Thus you would be a candidate with a degree but no experience.
Just my two cents.
tattoo wallpapers hd 3d_8928.
Apollon
06-30 08:55 PM
thank you very much
more...
pictures wallpapers hd 3d_8928.
ashwinicool67
04-29 10:44 AM
Thanks kaisersose.
Anyone else have any inputs. I need to make this decision soon and would appreciate as many inputs as possible.
Thanks.
Anyone else have any inputs. I need to make this decision soon and would appreciate as many inputs as possible.
Thanks.
dresses dresses wallpapers hd 3d_8928.
thomachan72
09-07 09:59 AM
you also should note that the writer does not talk about NRE / FCNR accounts at all. The interest income from these accounts has been declared completely exempt (no matter how much) from income tax. So on one hand you have accounts which are completely exempt and on the other (NRO) you are going to tax more???
more...
makeup wallpapers hd 3d_8928.
invincibleasian
03-27 02:03 PM
I received my Labor Certificate with PERM process. Right now, I can't continue the process for I-140 and I-485. My lawyer just found out that my degree is Master of Business Administration, while the Labor Certificate is based on Master of Science. My current position is Software Engineer.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
Amend the LC!
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
Amend the LC!
girlfriend tattoo wallpapers hd 3d_8928
mps
08-15 05:00 PM
:p You just killed spirit of "AC21"
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
hairstyles wallpapers hd 3d_8928.
yibornindia
12-19 03:36 PM
AC21: if my new employer is open to do either EAD or H1, what should I prefer? I want to take the least risky route.
hyderabad123
01-04 01:51 PM
Hi Chris,
I expedite my petion by calling to customercare. I recieved a letter from USCIS, saying that, your file assigned to adjudicating office. Can you please share your experience and if you get any update please do share with me.
Thanks in advance
I expedite my petion by calling to customercare. I recieved a letter from USCIS, saying that, your file assigned to adjudicating office. Can you please share your experience and if you get any update please do share with me.
Thanks in advance
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Did you know that you can generate cash by locking premium pages of your blog / site?
ReplyDeleteSimply open an account on Mgcash and use their Content Locking tool.