Can We settle on These Bases?

Originally posted by shsa
Rajeev,

When Edison(who is now approved), kashmir and other suggested the idea of lawsuit for the backlog in 485 processing -- their/our concept was the lawsuit for the backlog and not for interim GC and other points you have mentioned.

The idea was, as USCIS is moving the resources to other tasks we need a lawsuit to get their attention and push them hard to put the resources back in the 485 pool. Till now even the AC21 is not finalised by the USCIS after 2 years, what do you think how long will they take to finalize the interim GC (if accepted) may be 2 or 3 years, by that time we won't even need it because they are promising 6 month by the end of October 2006. What we need is an immediate relief for all of us......


My suggestion is one point for the USCIS.

1. Adjucate the cases of all the 485 (Employment based) pending for more then one year --- in the next 2 months, because in this economy it is difficult for us to maintain the same or similar job and it will also reduce the backlog for the new filers


(Even if they accepted the 8 points -- it will take them more than 2 years(as per our observation with AC21 regulation) to implement them -- by that time we won't even need it)

Thank you Rajeev for letting us speak on your 8 suggestions......
Click to expand...


Read the whole thread. I think this is our best option.
 
Dear Rajiv,

I agree to some of the ideas. The key point on us is how to urge CIS to accept some points like #4 AND ask them to promise us when to implement them. I think at most half a year taht we can accept. If it is even too long to put conditional GC into action, that's meaningless.

Ragiv, do you have a plan how long to put it into action if they accept it?

Correct me if wrong.

Thanks.
 
Originally posted by 140_takes_4ever
Personally speaking, I am more inclined towards this too, but I think Rajiv has been asked by the government lawyers to give written proposals to mitigate the current conditions. And hence the "tGC" idea being pushed into the spot light.

Offcourse implementation of these interim solutions are not the final solution, which would be Permanant Green cards.

Rajiv,

If/When you have a face to face with the government lawyers or speak with them, would you think it wise to mention that our proposals could be implemented as an interim measure until INS implements the Congress mandate of processing times to be reduced to 6 months? Do you think mentioning that would make a difference to acceptance of this bitter pill that you are forcing down their throats!

Realistically speaking I am sure that INS will try to negotiate most of the points you have put forth, and there will be some give and take, but your solution might be more palatable if you ask them to implement this in the short term, since if Congress passes any more laws on this, our lawsuit will be moot!
Click to expand...


Naah. Let us not do that. We present our settlement position. It is reasonable. If they give us a counterproposal that is reasonable, we will listen. Otherwise, we go on with the lawsuit. Why waste time.
 
Originally posted by ca-to-wa
Temporary vs. Permanent Green Card:
As far as I can see, for all practical purposes, there is no difference between the temporary green card that we are discussing in this forum and the permanent one that INS currently provides after adjudicating I485s.

1. You are eligible for citizenship with both.
2. You are free to change jobs, start a business, or sit at home (if your rear end pleases to do so).
3. You can travel freely.

In the worst case, people will go from temporary green card status to citizenship bypassing the permanent green card.

Those who may want to keep their original citizenship can keep on renewing their temporary green card every 2 to 5 years (on a walk in basis).

So, I am sure that you would agree, that for all earthly reasons there is no difference between temporary and permanent greeen card.

I don't see how Item 4 is weakening our case. At best it is weakening the status of permanent green card. And rightly so, since INS is taking its own sweet time to adjudicate 485 cases.

My personal opinion is that its going to take INS longer to fix its processes, hire people and train them to adjudicate real green cards. Until then your permanent green card will remain un-adjudicated.

Event if we win the lawsuite, INS may take 1 year or more to train, hire, and start to speed up processing of 485s. There will be lot of beauracratic inertia to overcome.

On the otherhand, I don't see any beauracratic intertia involved in case of temporary green card (which is pretty much the same as the permanent green card for all earthly reasons).

About affirmative action on green cards: Just becuase INS settles on affirmative action for green card now, doesn't mean they will continue to do so in future also. However, it is quite reasonable to expect that temporary green card will continue to be available in future thereby benifiting all current and future applicants.

A temporary card is more concrete than an abstract "affirmative action"
Click to expand...

Agreed! Understand how antsy people with their cases pending for a long time are getting, but Mr Khanna came up with this list based on the extensive discussion that had happened in this forum for the past couple of weeks. It does reflect what the majority of us want, so if it cannot accomodate everyone's every single need, we just have to comprise a little bit. If you think about it, any solution other than a "walk-in" cannot solve the current backlog problem. As long as it requires people handle paper, send RFE, order card etc, it'd take longer than you can bear.
 
Thursday

Hello guys,

I think we should ask something for the people who have been waiting for a long time..years. I do not see that. The only thing that makes sense is the clock for Citizenship. If married people only need three years and a soldier who bought a fake green card and then joined the army became a Citizen, then there should be an easy way for us also. Just go and see how easy it was for the President and Congress to facilitate the law for the people in the Armed forces. Well, we have been helping this country also. So, it does not hurt if we ask. Besides, Citizenship affairs took most of US CIS resources with new office for Citizenship, new proposed Oath, Conferences for Citizenship, Adopted Children backlogs for Citizens and efforts to solve the Citizenship backlog problem. Since Citizenship matters for them, let us try be part of it. The LC, I-140 and I-485 should not have taken more than a year and it takes 5-6. This is an exclusionary policy, discriminatory...
The current form of demands (I think) states that the date of Conditional or Interim GC is the start of the clock. I do not think that is enough for people who have been waiting..
 
yes, this temporary GC will give give us the necessary "immediate relief"...

even if INS agrees to process cases expeditiously for 485's it will be atleast 6 months to 1 year before they come until sep'2003 (say). so it won't provide "immediate relief". on the other hand the temporary GC can be implemented in as little as 15 days to 1 month (it just requires an order or something to be circulated to all the application support centers) and probably we can go on a voluntary basis to get stamping. so, unless INS says they can clear the entire backlog in 2 months, this temporary GC is the only solution. we need relief fast - "justice delayed is justice denied".
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am saying the same thing

Originally posted by hidden_dragon
This issue, portability after temporal GC, is perfectly tied to the lawsuit. I am sure some of us has plan to change jobs. If you filed 485 in a year or so, you can do it now without a problem (assuming you fit in with AC21), since you have at least a year to go. If we do get the temporal GC in 6 months, this immediately become a problem! At least we need to know for sure to plan our career.
Click to expand...

Portability, AC-21, "dual intent", "permanent position - LC" and Citizenship are all issues tied to the Lausuit as the Backlogs have changed the playing field...
 
Suggestions..

Preferences should be given and their cases should be expedited based on the following evidences:
- Age factor of the beneficiary (in 40s or over)
- Age factor of dependent children crossing/getting 18 years old
- Number of family members more than 4
- Exceptional incidents like death of parent/s, brother, sister etc.
- Continuouse stay over 5 years in US
- Labor Certification approval took more than 2 years
- Victom of any incident in US
- Exploited by employers
 
Dear Rajiv,

All 8 points mentioned are excellent!!!!

Wish you (and all immigration.com community) success in this settlement.
 
Re: Thursday

Honestly speaking, this Citizenship Clock issue is one of the most important issues for me,
but I am not sure how we can bring it to this litigation and its settlement
nor if it is possible without amendment of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Of course, I believe Rajiv will do his best also on this issue,
but this litigation and its settlement cannot solve everything,
and at least we have to write what exactly we request to DHS/USCIS.

Concurrently, we should push this issue strongly to Congress in this election year.
This litigation may help us, but we have to act by ourselves.
Originally posted by cinta
Hello guys,
I think we should ask something for the people who have been waiting for a long time..years. I do not see that. The only thing that makes sense is the clock for Citizenship. If married people only need three years and a soldier who bought a fake green card and then joined the army became a Citizen, then there should be an easy way for us also. Just go and see how easy it was for the President and Congress to facilitate the law for the people in the Armed forces. Well, we have been helping this country also. So, it does not hurt if we ask. Besides, Citizenship affairs took most of US CIS resources with new office for Citizenship, new proposed Oath, Conferences for Citizenship, Adopted Children backlogs for Citizens and efforts to solve the Citizenship backlog problem. Since Citizenship matters for them, let us try be part of it. The LC, I-140 and I-485 should not have taken more than a year and it takes 5-6. This is an exclusionary policy, discriminatory...
The current form of demands (I think) states that the date of Conditional or Interim GC is the start of the clock. I do not think that is enough for people who have been waiting..
Click to expand...
 
Re: yes, this temporary GC will give give us the necessary "immediate relief"...

How long are we guessing it takes to reach the "temporal" relief even the court favors us? including the negotiation, court time, appeal, final implementation... I am not sure we can have any immediate relief. If that's the case, why should we ask for anything "temporal"? Why shouldn't we focus on long run? I completely agree to separate security check from 485. But I would rather to settle for the plastic card, and let them keeping checking all the PRs untill citizenship or for ever, as they wish.


Originally posted by tmc
even if INS agrees to process cases expeditiously for 485's it will be atleast 6 months to 1 year before they come until sep'2003 (say). so it won't provide "immediate relief". on the other hand the temporary GC can be implemented in as little as 15 days to 1 month (it just requires an order or something to be circulated to all the application support centers) and probably we can go on a voluntary basis to get stamping. so, unless INS says they can clear the entire backlog in 2 months, this temporary GC is the only solution. we need relief fast - "justice delayed is justice denied".
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: yes, this temporary GC will give give us the necessary "immediate relief"...

Originally posted by hidden_dragon
How long are we guessing it takes to reach the "temporal" relief even the court favors us? including the negotiation, court time, appeal, final implementation... I am not sure we can have any immediate relief. If that's the case, why should we ask for anything "temporal"? Why shouldn't we focus on long run? I completely agree to separate security check from 485. But I would rather to settle for the plastic card, and let them keeping checking all the PRs untill citizenship or for ever, as they wish.
Click to expand...
Don't mean to be rude, but if we REALLY "focus on the long run", we should probably drop the lawsuit. Instead, write to your senetors and do other campains, just to make sure by the end of Sep 2006, 6 month processing is realized. That's not too long is it? I hope everyone can see that it's a good thing if we can get some kind of settlement, which does not necessrily address every concern but effectively provide some kind of "temporary relief". Even if we have to go to court eventually, I am still hoping they would give in at some point during the process. So I think our offer should be aggressive enough so we have room to comprimise but not too so and make them think they are better off bringing it to the court. - My 2c
 
These are good bases to come to an agreement as they not only address the primary objectives but also provide relief in the by-product issues such as FP, EAD, AP etc that continue to remain roadblocks and serve no other purpose other than to shield the backlog in I-140 and I-485 adjudications.

Mr Khanna, you have our sincere gratitude in bringing these issues to the forefront. I for one fully support and applaud your efforts.
 
Re: Re: Thursday

Originally posted by kashmir
Honestly speaking, this Citizenship Clock issue is one of the most important issues for me,
but I am not sure how we can bring it to this litigation and its settlement
nor if it is possible without amendment of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Of course, I believe Rajiv will do his best also on this issue,
but this litigation and its settlement cannot solve everything,
and at least we have to write what exactly we request to DHS/USCIS.

Concurrently, we should push this issue strongly to Congress in this election year.
This litigation may help us, but we have to act by ourselves.
Click to expand...
I my opinion, Citizenship issue should be kept in separate thread because it only effects "Right of Vote" while I140 and I485 direcly and adversely effecting the life of a beneficiary and it became hard to get food for himself/herself and for their dependent family members. The initial step to get GC is important for freedom of basic rights and survival, seondary issue is of Citizenship which is a personal participation in the stream of political system. If you cast it is OK if you do not it does not impact on your life or dependents. I140 and I485 backlog and delay is dangrously effecting the productivity and activities of the daily life and a indication of the failure of future successes, for sure.
I would request the real data should collected to streghten the case and importatn factors. I am sure policy related issue can not be resolved in personal meetings and only be dealt in Conresse which is beyond this forum's boudaries.
Should we emphasize on and only I140 and I1485 Issues/Backlogs/Delays here.
 
Re: Re: Re: yes, this temporary GC will give give us the necessary "immediate relief"...

Please be rude. I don't care. I am 100% supportting the lawsuit. I am just proposing to ask for expeditionof the permanent card now since the process may take a while. Otherwise if in fact we can have an immediate relief, say in 3 ~ 6 months, I have no objection to a "temporal" relief. Actually I would liek to see some assessment from Rajiv of the possibility of acceptance of different proposals.

BTW I did write to my senator and congressman, and got reply from them even though useless. I am sure, or I hope, you have done the same.

Originally posted by PhillyJulyLC
Don't mean to be rude, but if we REALLY "focus on the long run", we should probably drop the lawsuit. Instead, write to your senetors and do other campains, just to make sure by the end of Sep 2006, 6 month processing is realized. That's not too long is it? I hope everyone can see that it's a good thing if we can get some kind of settlement, which does not necessrily address every concern but effectively provide some kind of "temporary relief". Even if we have to go to court eventually, I am still hoping they would give in at some point during the process. So I think our offer should be aggressive enough so we have room to comprimise but not too so and make them think they are better off bringing it to the court. - My 2c
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Suggestion....

Originally posted by operations
If they can give what we are asking, the bottlenecks are no longer a problem. They can address them in their own sweet time. I think, this is the best possible compromise. If we can get this, I would want all of us to get together in Arlington, VA for a big party. Your treat. :)
Click to expand...

Your words, the amount of time you are spending on this issue, the optimism sorrounding the whole thing is giving us so much hope(which, by the way, we are not used to) that its almost becoming scary. Regardless of the result, this fight will give us the satisfaction of atleast making an attempt.

God bless you and everyone fighting for this common cause.
 
Re: Re: Re: Thursday

Originally posted by assur
I my opinion, Citizenship issue should be kept in separate thread because it only effects "Right of Vote" while I140 and I485 direcly and adversely effecting the life of a beneficiary and it became hard to get food for himself/herself and for their dependent family members. The initial step to get GC is important for freedom of basic rights and survival, seondary issue is of Citizenship which is a personal participation in the stream of political system. If you cast it is OK if you do not it does not impact on your life or dependents. I140 and I485 backlog and delay is dangrously effecting the productivity and activities of the daily life and a indication of the failure of future successes, for sure.
I would request the real data should collected to streghten the case and importatn factors. I am sure policy related issue can not be resolved in personal meetings and only be dealt in Conresse which is beyond this forum's boudaries.
Should we emphasize on and only I140 and I1485 Issues/Backlogs/Delays here.
Click to expand...

assur,

1:I posted in this thread ten reasons for Citizenship, of whom only one is VOTING, which by itself is big. (www.ilw.com)
2: Some of the so called eight points or modifications, like AC-21, or even a backlog reduction plan will have to go through Congress. That is why the lawsuit was already distributed to some..Can we know which? So given the fact that Congress will be involved in one way or another, sooner or later, let us give them the whole picture..
3: As I mentioned earlier, we should address some remedy for past and current victims, not only future reforms.
 
Originally posted by lbonneau
The question for the transit visa in Switzerland is a good one, but I'd rather have the temporary stamp and ask for a visa if I ever need it, than keep waiting for the GC forever. Anyhow, if you get approved tomorrow and get the existing stamp, you have the same problem, so I think we shouldn't change our #4 proposal based on this.
Click to expand...
The problem about applying for a visa after stamping is, the ambiguity over your status. Assuming the tGC stamp goes into effect. You are no longer an adjustee so have access to AP/H1/etc. (the normal accepted travel documents), neither do you have the plastic card, so what that means is in the eyes of the countries you wish to travel too, you have no document that allows you re-entry into the US. Which means it is very difficult for them to actually give you a visa. The precondition for every visa is ability to return to the country you started the journey in.

As far as Rajiv's new modification of point 4, it totally solves the problem as I see it. And at the same time I don't see how it affects any thing else. Generation of the card (if they go that way) is really not that difficult. They do the same thing with iEAD's all the time. Just a matter of wording on the card.

As far as trying to keep things simple, I don't see why you shouldn't ask for as many things as possible when you are given the opportunity. You don't know what they will or won't give you. What Rajiv is doing is putting forth a set of proposals. INS will then give back a set of counter-proposals. And based upon if that is acceptable or not, will we move forward.

So bottom line:
1. No harm in asking.
2. I don't see any reason why I should limit my life due to INS's inadequacies.
3. If they grant the proposals, then it is simply awesome.
4. If they grant the one but not the other, then we suck it up and move on with life.
5. INS has a mandate from Congress to reduce backlogs to 6 months by 2006. So either ways you hopefully won't have to wait for ever! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top