USDream2Dust
06-14 09:52 AM
I am planning on buying a house in 30 days. My company would be paying me about 2500$ rent for renting out a part of my house. This is what made me think that I would actually be able to afford house in NJ.
How would that work out? Does 2500/month become additional taxable income? My mortgage payments would be about 3500/month. If it becomes a taxable income we would be screwed big time as we would cross all limits to low tax brackets :(
Also I am a july 07 filer with PD sept 2006 and would have few years before I can get GC. So would my chances of getting a mortgage like 450k are less as I am not permanent resident?
did you guys specified non resident alien in your mortgage application and did it have any affect on rates?
Thanks in advance,
USDream2Dust
How would that work out? Does 2500/month become additional taxable income? My mortgage payments would be about 3500/month. If it becomes a taxable income we would be screwed big time as we would cross all limits to low tax brackets :(
Also I am a july 07 filer with PD sept 2006 and would have few years before I can get GC. So would my chances of getting a mortgage like 450k are less as I am not permanent resident?
did you guys specified non resident alien in your mortgage application and did it have any affect on rates?
Thanks in advance,
USDream2Dust
WaitingYaar
06-27 01:03 PM
I-140 approval with 6/06 as PD for EB2. But the notice says that the information submitted with the petition shows that the individual may not be be eligible to file for AOS at this time. Additional information about eligibility may be obtained from local INS office?? Is this how the approval should state
hpandey
03-12 10:18 AM
Interesting. I never received the 1099-INT. Will talk to my bank.
You would receive the 1099-INT form only if your interest income is above 10 $ . If it is less than that you won't get it . That's why probably you did not receive it if you had negligible interest.
You would receive the 1099-INT form only if your interest income is above 10 $ . If it is less than that you won't get it . That's why probably you did not receive it if you had negligible interest.
amitkhare77
09-30 09:02 PM
my wife's case was little different, Most of the time they(SSN office staff) don't know the procedure. It happned to my wife who entered US on H1B and we went to SSN office 3rd day after her arrival. The representative told us to wait 2 weeks and then apply as shw can't pull the data, we went very next day and told that we have called the office and they said there is no such rule to wait, the representative should accept your application immidiately. the lady took our application and guess what - less than 2 weeks we received SSN card for my wife.
My wife's H1 got approved & it is valid from October Ist. When she went to Social Security Office today 9/30 - they denied saying they can't pull up her information in their system (from INS) & hence they can't issue the SSN.
She was carrying her I-797 approval (along with I-94).
Anyone else faced a similar situation ? Any suggestions.
My wife's H1 got approved & it is valid from October Ist. When she went to Social Security Office today 9/30 - they denied saying they can't pull up her information in their system (from INS) & hence they can't issue the SSN.
She was carrying her I-797 approval (along with I-94).
Anyone else faced a similar situation ? Any suggestions.
more...
Porch
08-28 02:29 PM
DO we need the latest pay stubs to extend the h1b from company A? Since I'm working for company B now, I'm little confused.
sam_hoosier
11-27 10:03 AM
My lawyer has told me that the 180 days is from the receipt date i.e. August 3rd in your case.
more...
Administrator2
05-08 04:59 PM
Juliana Barbassa from Associated Press reporter is writing a story about legal immigrants with ITIN holders being denied economic stimulus checks. Please contact Ms. Barbassa to speak-up about this extremely important issue. Here is a message from her requesting members of Immigration Voice to contact her for in interview.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi --
I am an immigration reporter for the Associated Press, and am currently reporting an article about the economic stimulus checks that will be going out soon. I'm writing about how a lot of people won't get them because their spouse doesn't have a social security number _ chief among them green card holders with spouses who are stuck in the backlog, and haven't been able to get a social security number.
I'd love to talk to people in this situation all over the country -- and at least one person, ideally, in the San Francisco Bay Area/Silicon Valley, so we can also have a picture taken. I hope to reach folks today, Thursday, because the article has to be done by Friday.
I can be reached at this email address: immigrationreporter@hotmail.com
Thanks much for your help,
Juliana Barbassa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi --
I am an immigration reporter for the Associated Press, and am currently reporting an article about the economic stimulus checks that will be going out soon. I'm writing about how a lot of people won't get them because their spouse doesn't have a social security number _ chief among them green card holders with spouses who are stuck in the backlog, and haven't been able to get a social security number.
I'd love to talk to people in this situation all over the country -- and at least one person, ideally, in the San Francisco Bay Area/Silicon Valley, so we can also have a picture taken. I hope to reach folks today, Thursday, because the article has to be done by Friday.
I can be reached at this email address: immigrationreporter@hotmail.com
Thanks much for your help,
Juliana Barbassa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
lonedesi
04-04 10:08 PM
A friend of mine who has a bachelor's degree from India applied for her labor through PERM under EB2 category, which was approved. This was done based on the attorney's advice. Later, when the I-140 was to be submitted, the attorney advised that they should file I-140 under EB3 as the employee just had a bachelor's degree and he thought that they would get an RFE or will not probably be able to justify her qualifications for an EB2 category. At that time he also mentioned that, once the I-140 was approved, they could go ahead and submit I-485 application as though it was an EB2 case based on the approved labor. Now that I-140 is approved under EB3 category, he is going back on his words and telling that since I-140 was approved under EB3 category, they should file I-485 as though it is an EB3 application. There is a vast difference in priority dates between EB2 & EB3 categories and this is not helping the problem. Would it be okay to apply I-485 under EB2 category based on the approved labor (EB2) or should one apply I-485 under EB3 based on the approved I-140 (EB3)? Anyone who has had any experience or has any information in this regard, please advise. Or did the attorney mess up first time and he is finding an easy way to fix the problem by going the EB3 route? I sometimes wonder if these attornies really know what they are talking about or they just out there to make money at the expense of innocent people like us.
more...
paskal
08-22 07:02 PM
I have your request to join, we are indeed very active.
My sincere apologies at not getting back to you so far- will redress that asap!
Welcome...we are delighted to have you with us.....:)
My sincere apologies at not getting back to you so far- will redress that asap!
Welcome...we are delighted to have you with us.....:)
sukant71
02-12 08:15 PM
Is not weired funny dicriminatvie while 2003/2004 already gor GC while April2001 are waiting for approval.
You do not think there should be once a year declaration for clared date upto so n so not a single file is pending.
Why April2001 has to wait for 8(eight!) years
You do not think there should be once a year declaration for clared date upto so n so not a single file is pending.
Why April2001 has to wait for 8(eight!) years
more...
PD_Dec2002
06-12 07:56 PM
evl is employment veriication letter
My new employer does not do any type of sponsorship and I was going to go to the previous employer, but they are not doing very good now:(
So if I understand you correctly, you filed your I-485 while you were working for the new employer, but got your old employer to give you the evl so it would appear as if you are still with the old employer?
Thanks,
Jayant
My new employer does not do any type of sponsorship and I was going to go to the previous employer, but they are not doing very good now:(
So if I understand you correctly, you filed your I-485 while you were working for the new employer, but got your old employer to give you the evl so it would appear as if you are still with the old employer?
Thanks,
Jayant
hotshots
06-04 10:37 AM
From Rajiv Khanna's site... http://www.immigration.com/faq/370/unreasonable-h-1-requests-cis
Unreasonable H-1 requests from CIS
USCIS now wants consulting companies to provide tax information on their clients. This is gross over-reaching in my view. Here is an excerpt from an RFE we received last week:
Quote:
Submit evidence that clearly substantiates that the petitioner or petitioner's client's are legitimate business entities and employers. Evidence should include copies of the client�s most recent signed Federal Tax Return and quarterly wage reports for the last quarter. If the clients are publicly traded companies, provide a copy of their most recent annual report and a letter from the president of the company explaining what business they have with the petitioner. If the client is a government agency, provide the contract number and the name of the company that has the primary contract.
As with most things dished out by USCIS, we are dealing with it.
Unreasonable H-1 requests from CIS
USCIS now wants consulting companies to provide tax information on their clients. This is gross over-reaching in my view. Here is an excerpt from an RFE we received last week:
Quote:
Submit evidence that clearly substantiates that the petitioner or petitioner's client's are legitimate business entities and employers. Evidence should include copies of the client�s most recent signed Federal Tax Return and quarterly wage reports for the last quarter. If the clients are publicly traded companies, provide a copy of their most recent annual report and a letter from the president of the company explaining what business they have with the petitioner. If the client is a government agency, provide the contract number and the name of the company that has the primary contract.
As with most things dished out by USCIS, we are dealing with it.
more...
matreen
10-07 03:59 PM
i am going to do almost exactly what you are thinking in a matter of few days. i spoke to two lawyers. essentially, ac21 allows this and there is nothing that you have to really do. Of course, i am assuming that you are moving into a job that has the similar job duties as specified in your labor application. what you need to do is make 100% sure that you have documentation to prove this job duties similarity. if you are going to get an SOW from your client, make sure that the SOW is similar to your labor. if you can, do get a letter from your client (where you will do your actual work) stating your job responsibilities, work content etc. you will also need to document/prove actual existence of your business by showing your tax transactions, invoices/receipts etc. also, make sure that you are spending 40 hours (or whatever is the equivalent of a full time job) doing your labor certified job... all this will be required only if USCIS sends you an RFE or calls you for an interview.
wish you luck
Don't you think if you're changing jobs and new job has to be fulltime with new employer? not contract?
Can we invoke AC21 on temp contracting job?
As you said if you go with contracing job where you will be running your payroll? Is it on your new owned company on your name? Or it has to be someone else name like spouse or friend?
Thanks,
Matt
wish you luck
Don't you think if you're changing jobs and new job has to be fulltime with new employer? not contract?
Can we invoke AC21 on temp contracting job?
As you said if you go with contracing job where you will be running your payroll? Is it on your new owned company on your name? Or it has to be someone else name like spouse or friend?
Thanks,
Matt
glus
02-16 08:56 AM
hello,
I had a very similar situation when i applied for a load a year ago. The loan officer was puzzled with my immigration status. He initially pre-approved the load and then he called and said that the bank can't approved due to my immigration status. However, the deny letter did not say that and said that the reason for denial was a completely different one. I spoke to a lawyer regarding this and he said that as long as I don't have immigration status / or origin of mine as the reason of denial in writing, I don't have a case. And, he said, immigration status can be taken into consideration when applying for a loan. As such, I re-aplied in a different bank and had no issues whatsoever.
I had a very similar situation when i applied for a load a year ago. The loan officer was puzzled with my immigration status. He initially pre-approved the load and then he called and said that the bank can't approved due to my immigration status. However, the deny letter did not say that and said that the reason for denial was a completely different one. I spoke to a lawyer regarding this and he said that as long as I don't have immigration status / or origin of mine as the reason of denial in writing, I don't have a case. And, he said, immigration status can be taken into consideration when applying for a loan. As such, I re-aplied in a different bank and had no issues whatsoever.
more...
vban2007
06-07 02:09 PM
is there nobody with info/experience on this????
I am in the same situation...
I am in the same situation...
eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
04-30 01:26 PM
So, does that mean i can use AC 21 ? What problems if any should i expect in ac21 transfer ?
more...
Browndog
February 20th, 2005, 07:43 AM
if it's any help i have a 2nd hand Sigma APO macro 70-300mm. like NikNikon i found the D70 kit lens much sharper generally, but the sigma when stopped sown to f8 or f9 at 300mm seems to be sufficiently clear enough and really helps for picking out faces in crowds etc. i recently went to a chinease new year festival and the extra reach of the lens blew me away. i could get full frame shots of the dragon mask even though i was stood further back in the crowd. being stopped down thoough i find if the light is less than ideal i need a very fast ISO to keep the shutter speed up. hope that helps :-)
soarin3655
04-08 02:41 PM
US taxman gets after Indian-Americans - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/news/US-taxman-gets-after-Indian-Americans/articleshow/7915510.cms)
US taxman gets after Indian-Americans
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN | Apr 8, 2011, 09.40pm IST
On Thursday, the US govt filed a petition with the court to allow the IRS to serve what is known as a "John Doe" summons on HSBC Bank.
WASHINGTON: When you do a good deed, get a receipt, just in case heaven is like the IRS, goes the sagely tax advice in America. Some 9000 Indian-Americans are about to discover that tales of the dreaded Internal Revenue Service's omnipresence are not entirely exaggerated.
While millions of Americans are sweating it out to file their tax returns before the April 15 deadline, Uncle Sam's taxman has zeroed in wealthy Indian-Americans suspected of using their native land to stash away undeclared money and evade taxes. Yes; while India has long believed its wealthy has stashed away money abroad, the wheel has turned a full circle. The US now says its Indian-American citizens are using India as a tax haven.
In a surprising move that takes the American hunt for hidden money beyond the usual Swiss and Caribbean tax havens, the US Justice Department's civil tax division on Thursday asked a Federal Court's permission to force the London-based HSBC Bank to disclose names of thousands of wealthy Indian-American clients who it says maintain accounts with more than $ 100,000 in the bank's India branches -- ostensibly to hide it from the IRS taxman.
In a 47-page statement filed before a San Francisco court, the IRS said there were 9,000 US residents of Indian-origin who had $100,000-minimum-balance accounts at HSBC India but that fewer than 1,400 had disclosed existence of their accounts. US laws require citizens to disclose any foreign account containing $10,000 or more.
The US hunt for Indian-American tax evaders follows a case early this year when federal prosecutors nailed Vaibhav Dahake, a US citizen and an HSBC client for tax evasion by stashing money in India. According to documents filed with the government's petition, on Jan. 26, 2011, a grand jury in Newark, New Jersey, indicted Dahake, charging him with conspiracy to defraud the United States by using undeclared accounts in the British Virgin Islands and at HSBC India.
According to those documents, employees of HSBC Holdings plc and its affiliates operating in the United States assured Dahake that accounts maintained in India would not be reported to the IRS.
US authorities, attributing the information to HSBC's website, say that in 2002 HSBC India opened a "representative office" at an HSBC USA office in New York City to enable ''Non-Resident Indians'' (NRIs) living in the United States to open accounts in India. In 2007, HSBC India allegedly opened a second representative office at an HSBC USA office in Fremont, Calif., purportedly "to make banking transactions more convenient for the NRI community based in California." Although HSBC India closed those offices in June 2010, the government alleges that NRI clients may still access their accounts at HSBC India from the United States.
According to the petition documents, NRI clients have told IRS investigators that HSBC's NRI representatives in the United States assured them that they could invest in accounts at HSBC India without paying US income tax on interest earned on the accounts and that HSBC would not report the income earned on the HSBC India accounts to the IRS.
"The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that all US taxpayers meet their obligations to declare and pay taxes on foreign bank accounts," John A. DiCicco, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Tax Division, said in a statement. "The ability to hide accounts in foreign countries is rapidly dwindling. We will continue working hand-in-hand with the IRS to enforce the tax laws against those who are using offshore accounts � wherever they are located � to evade taxes."
The IRS focus on India and Indian-Americans follows a campaign against undeclared offshore accounts held by US taxpayers, primarily in tax havens such as Switzerland and the Caribbean. In a landmark case in 2009, the IRS went after UBS AG for allowing U.S citizens hide their assets and evade taxes. UBS coughed up $780 million in fines, and more importantly, turned over some 4000 names in a precedent-setting case.
"The IRS continues to focus its attention on international tax evasion," IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said on Thrusday about the HSBC India case. ''This summons request is focused on obtaining more information to help us determine if additional actions are needed. As I've said all along, our international efforts are not about just one country or one bank � it's about our wider effort to ensure compliance with the nation's tax laws."
Meanwhile, an HSBC spokesperson in New York told wire services that the bank has been engaged in a "constructive dialogue" with US authorities and hoped the issue can be resolved expeditiously. "HSBC does not condone tax evasion and fully supports the US efforts to promote appropriate payment of taxes by US taxpayers," spokeswoman Juanita Gutierrez said, adding that the bank complies with the law in all the jurisdictions and cooperates with requests from US authorities.
US taxman gets after Indian-Americans
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN | Apr 8, 2011, 09.40pm IST
On Thursday, the US govt filed a petition with the court to allow the IRS to serve what is known as a "John Doe" summons on HSBC Bank.
WASHINGTON: When you do a good deed, get a receipt, just in case heaven is like the IRS, goes the sagely tax advice in America. Some 9000 Indian-Americans are about to discover that tales of the dreaded Internal Revenue Service's omnipresence are not entirely exaggerated.
While millions of Americans are sweating it out to file their tax returns before the April 15 deadline, Uncle Sam's taxman has zeroed in wealthy Indian-Americans suspected of using their native land to stash away undeclared money and evade taxes. Yes; while India has long believed its wealthy has stashed away money abroad, the wheel has turned a full circle. The US now says its Indian-American citizens are using India as a tax haven.
In a surprising move that takes the American hunt for hidden money beyond the usual Swiss and Caribbean tax havens, the US Justice Department's civil tax division on Thursday asked a Federal Court's permission to force the London-based HSBC Bank to disclose names of thousands of wealthy Indian-American clients who it says maintain accounts with more than $ 100,000 in the bank's India branches -- ostensibly to hide it from the IRS taxman.
In a 47-page statement filed before a San Francisco court, the IRS said there were 9,000 US residents of Indian-origin who had $100,000-minimum-balance accounts at HSBC India but that fewer than 1,400 had disclosed existence of their accounts. US laws require citizens to disclose any foreign account containing $10,000 or more.
The US hunt for Indian-American tax evaders follows a case early this year when federal prosecutors nailed Vaibhav Dahake, a US citizen and an HSBC client for tax evasion by stashing money in India. According to documents filed with the government's petition, on Jan. 26, 2011, a grand jury in Newark, New Jersey, indicted Dahake, charging him with conspiracy to defraud the United States by using undeclared accounts in the British Virgin Islands and at HSBC India.
According to those documents, employees of HSBC Holdings plc and its affiliates operating in the United States assured Dahake that accounts maintained in India would not be reported to the IRS.
US authorities, attributing the information to HSBC's website, say that in 2002 HSBC India opened a "representative office" at an HSBC USA office in New York City to enable ''Non-Resident Indians'' (NRIs) living in the United States to open accounts in India. In 2007, HSBC India allegedly opened a second representative office at an HSBC USA office in Fremont, Calif., purportedly "to make banking transactions more convenient for the NRI community based in California." Although HSBC India closed those offices in June 2010, the government alleges that NRI clients may still access their accounts at HSBC India from the United States.
According to the petition documents, NRI clients have told IRS investigators that HSBC's NRI representatives in the United States assured them that they could invest in accounts at HSBC India without paying US income tax on interest earned on the accounts and that HSBC would not report the income earned on the HSBC India accounts to the IRS.
"The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that all US taxpayers meet their obligations to declare and pay taxes on foreign bank accounts," John A. DiCicco, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Tax Division, said in a statement. "The ability to hide accounts in foreign countries is rapidly dwindling. We will continue working hand-in-hand with the IRS to enforce the tax laws against those who are using offshore accounts � wherever they are located � to evade taxes."
The IRS focus on India and Indian-Americans follows a campaign against undeclared offshore accounts held by US taxpayers, primarily in tax havens such as Switzerland and the Caribbean. In a landmark case in 2009, the IRS went after UBS AG for allowing U.S citizens hide their assets and evade taxes. UBS coughed up $780 million in fines, and more importantly, turned over some 4000 names in a precedent-setting case.
"The IRS continues to focus its attention on international tax evasion," IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said on Thrusday about the HSBC India case. ''This summons request is focused on obtaining more information to help us determine if additional actions are needed. As I've said all along, our international efforts are not about just one country or one bank � it's about our wider effort to ensure compliance with the nation's tax laws."
Meanwhile, an HSBC spokesperson in New York told wire services that the bank has been engaged in a "constructive dialogue" with US authorities and hoped the issue can be resolved expeditiously. "HSBC does not condone tax evasion and fully supports the US efforts to promote appropriate payment of taxes by US taxpayers," spokeswoman Juanita Gutierrez said, adding that the bank complies with the law in all the jurisdictions and cooperates with requests from US authorities.
wandmaker
10-27 05:04 PM
Most of the corporate companies wont ask until you get through the interview. It is ideal to have it on hand so that If they ask you, you should be in a position to provide them.
If you apply for SSN with EAD card, you will receive the SSN card in a week time. In case of H1B, it takes about 4-8 weeks to receive the SSN card on hand.
hi !
Thank you gurus for your quick response .... have one more question in mind ...
Is it a pre-requisite to have SSN before applying for a job ?
thanks
Vinki
If you apply for SSN with EAD card, you will receive the SSN card in a week time. In case of H1B, it takes about 4-8 weeks to receive the SSN card on hand.
hi !
Thank you gurus for your quick response .... have one more question in mind ...
Is it a pre-requisite to have SSN before applying for a job ?
thanks
Vinki
eb3India
09-25 10:19 AM
Here is the mail from AILA,
September 25, 2006
Dear Immigration Advocates-
Your help is STILL needed TODAY! Senate Appropriators will meet late THIS AFTERNOON to decide if enforcement-only bills will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's appropriations package. Urge your Senators to oppose efforts to attach anti-immigration measures to this must-pass bill. Call or email your Senators TODAY - encourage them to weigh-in with Senate Appropriators about this urgent matter.
You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
Email your Senators through Contact Congress on AILA's website. We've already created a sample letter for you to send. All you need to do is enter your zip code, hit send, and your voice will be heard in Congress.
Call your Senators, you can find their telephone numbers in our Congressional Directory and you can use these talking points to help you when you call:
� Congress should stop playing politics with immigration and pass comprehensive immigration reform. These enforcement-only bills will do nothing to enhance border security and will not move us one inch closer to fixing our broken immigration system.
� Attaching these bills to DHS appropriations circumvents the legislative process on an issue of critical national importance; it undermines the intense and unflagging efforts of the Senate to solve this crisis; and it rewards the House for spending the summer attacking the Senate while abdicating its responsibility to the American people.
� Senators should forcefully oppose this effort by the House to nullify the Senate's bi-partison solution. If the Senate acquiesces on these provisions, the House will only be emboldened and will never return to debate comprehensive reform. This will not be "enforcement-first", it will be "enforcement-only."
� For laws to work, they must be realistic and fair. Our current immigration laws are neither: proposals like these that ignore the reality that immigrants come here to work and to be with their families are destined to fail.
� Giving the government unchecked powers to punish immigrants, and making local police chase after immigrants, will only drive undocumented immigrants further underground. It will not fix the problem; it will make matters worse.
We called you to action last week to alert you to an underhanded political strategy from immigration restrictionists to attach three enforcement-only bills to the DHS appropriations bill, a bill that must pass this year. You and your colleagues sent close to 2,000 letters to Congress, but we'll need more letters and phone calls in order to ensure that Senate Appropriators exclude these measures from the bill.
Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives are working behind closed doors and using procedural mechanisms to attach enforcement-only provisions contained in three bills (H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095, and H.R. 4830) to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, a piece of legislation that must pass this year. Although House leaders label these bills "border security" legislation, they are in fact harsh enforcement measures lifted from Rep. Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4437 that endanger due process rights and do little to make our borders more secure. You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
If these provisions are attached to the must-pass DHS bill, it will be nearly impossible to defeat them. Our best defense against this backdoor strategy is to put pressure on each U.S. Senator and encourage them to oppose any attempt to attach, or further these three enforcement-only bills. We're working hard in Washington to derail these political machinations, but we can't do it alone. We need your help. Please email or call both of your Senators today.
Over the summer House leadership used dozens of faux hearings to stage public displays of aversion to immigration reform. While they kept the media busy and their restrictionist base roiled, they failed to change the minds of the majority of Americans who support a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system. Nor did they succeed in backing down the U.S. Senators who supported S. 2611, a strong step towards comprehensive immigration reform. Now that House leaders know that the full Senate won't pass their enforcement-only agenda, they have resorted to closed-door politicking. We must fight to prevent the breach of justice that would result from attaching these enforcement-only bills to must-pass legislation.
Please call and email your Senators today. Now is the time for action.
Sincerely,
Marshall
Marshall Fitz
Director of Advocacy, AILA
Email Marshall
The enforcement-only provisions are:
� Sections 101 and 102 of the Dangerous Alien Detention Act contained in H.R. 6094, which seek to legitimize the practice of indefinite detention of aliens awaiting removal, despite Supreme Court decisions requiring elimination of this practice;
� Section 201 of the Criminal Alien Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would expand the use of expedited removal proceedings to individuals already in the United States - even individuals who have resided here for years - in ways that would significantly increase the risk of deporting innocent people;
� Sections 301-303 of the Alien Gang Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would grant unfettered discretion to the executive branch to designate "criminal street gangs" and then strip members of such gangs of virtually all rights;
� Section 101 of H.R. 6095, which gives state and local police authority to investigate, arrest, and detain noncitizens for civil violations of immigration status;
� Sections 301 and 302 of the Ending Catch and Release Act contained in H.R. 6095, which would limit the power of federal courts to grant injunctive relief in civil immigration proceedings, despite acknowledgement by DOJ that such relief does not interfere with efforts to end the practice of catch-and-release.
September 25, 2006
Dear Immigration Advocates-
Your help is STILL needed TODAY! Senate Appropriators will meet late THIS AFTERNOON to decide if enforcement-only bills will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's appropriations package. Urge your Senators to oppose efforts to attach anti-immigration measures to this must-pass bill. Call or email your Senators TODAY - encourage them to weigh-in with Senate Appropriators about this urgent matter.
You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
Email your Senators through Contact Congress on AILA's website. We've already created a sample letter for you to send. All you need to do is enter your zip code, hit send, and your voice will be heard in Congress.
Call your Senators, you can find their telephone numbers in our Congressional Directory and you can use these talking points to help you when you call:
� Congress should stop playing politics with immigration and pass comprehensive immigration reform. These enforcement-only bills will do nothing to enhance border security and will not move us one inch closer to fixing our broken immigration system.
� Attaching these bills to DHS appropriations circumvents the legislative process on an issue of critical national importance; it undermines the intense and unflagging efforts of the Senate to solve this crisis; and it rewards the House for spending the summer attacking the Senate while abdicating its responsibility to the American people.
� Senators should forcefully oppose this effort by the House to nullify the Senate's bi-partison solution. If the Senate acquiesces on these provisions, the House will only be emboldened and will never return to debate comprehensive reform. This will not be "enforcement-first", it will be "enforcement-only."
� For laws to work, they must be realistic and fair. Our current immigration laws are neither: proposals like these that ignore the reality that immigrants come here to work and to be with their families are destined to fail.
� Giving the government unchecked powers to punish immigrants, and making local police chase after immigrants, will only drive undocumented immigrants further underground. It will not fix the problem; it will make matters worse.
We called you to action last week to alert you to an underhanded political strategy from immigration restrictionists to attach three enforcement-only bills to the DHS appropriations bill, a bill that must pass this year. You and your colleagues sent close to 2,000 letters to Congress, but we'll need more letters and phone calls in order to ensure that Senate Appropriators exclude these measures from the bill.
Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives are working behind closed doors and using procedural mechanisms to attach enforcement-only provisions contained in three bills (H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095, and H.R. 4830) to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, a piece of legislation that must pass this year. Although House leaders label these bills "border security" legislation, they are in fact harsh enforcement measures lifted from Rep. Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4437 that endanger due process rights and do little to make our borders more secure. You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
If these provisions are attached to the must-pass DHS bill, it will be nearly impossible to defeat them. Our best defense against this backdoor strategy is to put pressure on each U.S. Senator and encourage them to oppose any attempt to attach, or further these three enforcement-only bills. We're working hard in Washington to derail these political machinations, but we can't do it alone. We need your help. Please email or call both of your Senators today.
Over the summer House leadership used dozens of faux hearings to stage public displays of aversion to immigration reform. While they kept the media busy and their restrictionist base roiled, they failed to change the minds of the majority of Americans who support a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system. Nor did they succeed in backing down the U.S. Senators who supported S. 2611, a strong step towards comprehensive immigration reform. Now that House leaders know that the full Senate won't pass their enforcement-only agenda, they have resorted to closed-door politicking. We must fight to prevent the breach of justice that would result from attaching these enforcement-only bills to must-pass legislation.
Please call and email your Senators today. Now is the time for action.
Sincerely,
Marshall
Marshall Fitz
Director of Advocacy, AILA
Email Marshall
The enforcement-only provisions are:
� Sections 101 and 102 of the Dangerous Alien Detention Act contained in H.R. 6094, which seek to legitimize the practice of indefinite detention of aliens awaiting removal, despite Supreme Court decisions requiring elimination of this practice;
� Section 201 of the Criminal Alien Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would expand the use of expedited removal proceedings to individuals already in the United States - even individuals who have resided here for years - in ways that would significantly increase the risk of deporting innocent people;
� Sections 301-303 of the Alien Gang Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would grant unfettered discretion to the executive branch to designate "criminal street gangs" and then strip members of such gangs of virtually all rights;
� Section 101 of H.R. 6095, which gives state and local police authority to investigate, arrest, and detain noncitizens for civil violations of immigration status;
� Sections 301 and 302 of the Ending Catch and Release Act contained in H.R. 6095, which would limit the power of federal courts to grant injunctive relief in civil immigration proceedings, despite acknowledgement by DOJ that such relief does not interfere with efforts to end the practice of catch-and-release.
EBGreenCard
07-16 12:01 PM
I personally think it�s true specially for FB AOS applicants where no intermediate step like EAD and AP between visitor�s visa and final approval. It may also be true for EB AOS applicants where EAD hasn�t been issued and H1 extension hasn�t filled.
No comments:
Post a Comment