Can We settle on These Bases?

These threads are confusing, at least for a novice like me, but I remember there was once a thread for collecting donations for lobbying efforts. I'd be glad if someone sends me a link.

The reason for the above request is that, to gain visibility, we DO need some serious lobbying, hence the need to raise some money.

I hate sounding pedantic, but a reality check and a dose of the good old street smarts is in order for many a enthusiastic member posting suggestions on this forum.

Myth 1) "Illegal immigrants get gravy train while legal ones suffer": Check out the average illegal worker from whichever country. The fellow has little resources to organize and lobby successfully. The lobbying, if any, has little to do with the immigrant per se. There has been NO mass legalization since 1985 (even that one cannot exactly be termed an 'amnesty' if you check the fine print). The current proposed legislation, though apparently for the Latino vote, is not the work of the 'Latino lobby'. (When was the last time anyone heard of a Latino politician of any consequence?) The real 'movers and shakers' behind this and most other immigration laws are the business community. (The highly visible efforts of the leftist community regarding illegal immigrants is muddled at best, with a confused mix of protectionism and brotherly love, and largly irrelevant in the larger context).
I'm no leftist bleeding heart, and in a way, I can empathise with the employers' logic: Legalizing the illegal immigrants gets rid of a huge legal and business headache. As far as legal immigrants are concerned, a green card has little additional benifit to the employers (an H1B does just fine, thank you).
The point is, self-righteous indignation alone gets one nowhere. There has to be a coherent message, about the hardships faced by a legal immigrant, which can be communicated effectively to the powers that be.

I thank Mr. Khanna for the immense effort he has been doing for our lot, but it does behoove the rest to do more than merely dole out sugestions which are dime a dozen.
 
Originally posted by Pineapple
(When was the last time anyone heard of a Latino politician of any consequence?)
Click to expand...

Obviously you haven't been to California or Washington state. Former Lt. Gov. Bustamante ran against Arnold in the recall. Washington passed a law allowing in-state tuition for illegals but excluding non-immigrants because of Mexican lobbying. The Governor of Washington even issued a statement alongwith the Consul of Mexico when state legislators tried to block this bill.

Although the illegals may not have a gravy train, they sure get all the attention and a lot of benefits.
 
#4 is the most important

I can't understand why the biggest problem is I140 delay???? Please be realistic and do NOT be selfish yourself. I485 is far more important than I140. Unless you don't have a I140 pending like I do, you can't say anyone selfish. If you do NOT have a I140 pending, I apologize!

I don't see any mention of I140 delays at all in the complaint filed. For me, the 1 years 140 processing time is painful. But it is not as bad as I485, which takes 2-3 years at TSC! I think #4 solves most of our problems.

I think change #4 to be #1 is a good idea. This shows this is the most important item for us. I like other members' idea -- LET'S VOTE. I wonder how many people are wiling to settle if USCIS accepts #4 but rejects all (or most of the) other items. It's not likely to happen. But it will show us what the bottom line is for us.
 
Mr. Swarzenneger, a Hollywood icon with no political experience wa chosen by 59.9 % of the voters, getting over 1.2 million votes. Schwarzenegger's nearest opponent was Lt. Gov. Bustamante with 739,367 votes. Mr. Swarzenneger got around 40 % of the Latino vote. Mr Bustamante got around 52 %, much less than the 70 % he had expected.

Mr. Swarzenneger Won, Bustamante lost.

I know my statistics.
 
The Governor of Washington even issued a statement alongwith the Consul of Mexico when state legislators tried to block this bill.
------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you, though on this fact.

However, Mr. Vincent Fox's concern over the status Mexicans in USA was one of his main election planks. The same cannot be said of the presidents/prime-ministers of the countries with legal immigrants in USA.

All the same, overall, there has'nt been much of a difference in the general lives of illegals. (Ask Mr. Fox, who hasn't recently included Mr. Bush in his list of favourite people).

Obvious discrimination as above, as you have correctly pointed out, survives simply because there is no one to challenge it.
 
Comments on Settlement Draft

Hello Rajiv,



…..With immediate effect, once the I-485 has been pending for …XYZ days , the applicants should receive a conditional approval of the green card - there being no further evidence of employment required. ………. all rights and privileges of Lawful Permanent Residence (green card)….

What we are asking is the creation of a new breed of aliens, a group that is between nonresident aliens but not quite permanent residents. Of all the 8 negotiation points I think this is the most contentious one due to several factors.

a. This requires USCIS to institute a new ‘Conditional’ GC procedure, for which they have do not have a precedent to follow.

b. In addition to draining the existing resources, such a program would also give excuses for further increase in (non-conditional) I-485 backlogs.

c. Since this is a policy change instead of a procedure change, it may require the involvement of lawmakers to draft new laws and policies.
d. Even if USCIS is willing to accept this settlement point in its entirety, they may be unable to do so (in the time frame) due to these new policies that need to be approved.

e. Even if this is taken to the court, I can foresee USCIS putting up several reasons, including but not limited, to national security; i.e. providing “all rights and privileges of Lawful Permanent Residence (green card)…” without completing the required background checks and other due processes.

f. Finally, a conditional GC will never be equivalent to the original one. It just extends the pain for a longer period of time.

I understand from a negotiation standpoint why you want to keep point #4 in the settlement, but at the same time, why cannot we propose a Premium Processing for I-485 as well, with its proceeds solely used for 485 processing. This would provide a fall back plan to alleviate the 485 backlog, should USCIS is unable/unwilling to implement #4.

To my understanding, the FBI background check should take about 3 weeks the (arrest/criminal/rap-sheet records from CJIS, FBI), hence the 485 backlog could be primarily due to lack of prioritization and/or insufficient resources. This lawsuit may have given an impetus to prioritization and premium-processing fees can provide the necessary resources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: No Settlement Without 4th Item

Originally posted by kashmir
In my understanding,
there is no room to settle with USCIS
unless USCIS agrees to implement 4th item or its minor amendement immediately.
Click to expand...

Correct. I will listen to alternatives they have and bring them back to you, but I will not settle for you on lesser terms.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Attached is a alghtly modified settlement

Originally posted by Jharkhandi
Rajiv,

Great job. You deserve sweets from OakTree Road in NJ. I will get some for you when I visit VA and if your staff allows me to meet you.

Indeed it is important to make it clear that there is no U-turn on this highway.
Click to expand...

No one in our office will stop you if you come with sweets. Our gang has the biggest sweet tooth on this continent.
 
Re: Great job Rajiv

Originally posted by gambler
One small doubt to be included in the points:

What happens to the dependants if the primary applicant is no longer there at the time of approval in the amended proposal ?
For example both the primary and dependant get conditional GC's, what would happen if they got divorced or the primary is dead or unable to be in the country?

How would this be covered ?
Click to expand...


I have looked at the law. There is no way to cover it without changing the law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can help

Originally posted by hrithikroshan11
Major points are covered in petition. Dream On is correct, let's get this settled soon.

Mr Khanna, if the forum community can help in any way, please let us know.
Click to expand...


Spread the word in other discussion groups, community, friends so they can review the proposal and send me their input. I do not want us to miss any point of view.
 
Originally posted by Pineapple
.......
I thank Mr. Khanna for the immense effort he has been doing for our lot, but it does behoove the rest to do more than merely dole out sugestions which are dime a dozen.
Click to expand...


Well put.

But everyone has an angle. I truly enjoy this effort. So there are no favors here. Everyone must contribute their efforts in the same spirit as I would like to believe I aim for: freely, joyously and with focused intent.

So do not berate youselves for not doing enough. Do it in the right spirit. I want or need nothing more.
 
Originally posted by swingall
Hi Rajiv,

PhillyJulyLC's idea is interesting. Can we make the #4 item to be the 1st one instead?

Thanks.
Click to expand...


Naah. Let it be where it is. We are all used to saying #4 by now.
 
Re: Comments on Settlement Draft

Originally posted by vu2vut
Hello Rajiv,



…..With immediate effect, once the I-485 has been pending for …XYZ days , the applicants should receive a conditional approval of the green card - there being no further evidence of employment required. ………. all rights and privileges of Lawful Permanent Residence (green card)….

What we are asking is the creation of a new breed of aliens, a group that is between nonresident aliens but not quite permanent residents. Of all the 8 negotiation points I think this is the most contentious one due to several factors.

a. This requires USCIS to institute a new ‘Conditional’ GC procedure, for which they have do not have a precedent to follow.

b. In addition to draining the existing resources, such a program would also give excuses for further increase in (non-conditional) I-485 backlogs.

c. Since this is a policy change instead of a procedure change, it may require the involvement of lawmakers to draft new laws and policies.
d. Even if USCIS is willing to accept this settlement point in its entirety, they may be unable to do so (in the time frame) due to these new policies that need to be approved.

e. Even if this is taken to the court, I can foresee USCIS putting up several reasons, including but not limited, to national security; i.e. providing “all rights and privileges of Lawful Permanent Residence (green card)…” without completing the required background checks and other due processes.

f. Finally, a conditional GC will never be equivalent to the original one. It just extends the pain for a longer period of time.

I understand from a negotiation standpoint why you want to keep point #4 in the settlement, but at the same time, why cannot we propose a Premium Processing for I-485 as well, with its proceeds solely used for 485 processing. This would provide a fall back plan to alleviate the 485 backlog, should USCIS is unable/unwilling to implement #4.

To my understanding, the FBI background check should take about 3 weeks the (arrest/criminal/rap-sheet records from CJIS, FBI), hence the 485 backlog could be primarily due to lack of prioritization and/or insufficient resources. This lawsuit may have given an impetus to prioritization and premium-processing fees can provide the necessary resources.
Click to expand...


Let us create a wish list for the community. One or more of you volunteer to take care of it. It can be an excel document compiled from everyone's thoughts.

If you folks like the idea, let us do it. Along with the 8-point setllement or sometime thereafter, CIS can be presented the wish list to see how many of these items they can accomodate. As a matter of courtesy, I will let the CIS counsel know that we will be sending in a community wish list, which is not a set of demands, but a set of wishes, that would help CIS customers and CIS both. We will settle for the 8-points, but we would want the wish list to be commented upon by the CIS - what they can and cannot do and the reasons why some thing cannot be done. The reasons given by CIS should include suggestions on how the changes can be accomplished. If it is more money, we can then take that to Congress.

I have always believed in the cooperative model of dispute resolution (several years of mediation experience will do that for you). While we are on the opposite sides of the litigation, we can still try to come up with cooperative solutions that will cause the least pain to everyone.

Thet does not mean the litigation abates. We continue fighting.

So how about that wish list? Do it or let it go?
 
Re: Great Job - lets cut to the chase and move forward!

Originally posted by Dream On
Great job with the amended proposal.

I suggest we stop bickering and fighting amongst ourselves and put this to the vote. There are enough important issues covered and the sooner we agree to move forward, the sooner we will see whether the USCIS is really sincere about addressing ANY issues.

Once we have the issues (as outlined in Rajiv’s amended proposal) addressed, I believe it sets a precedent for other issues to be addressed in a similar manner.

Lets get moving and test the waters! Lets set up a vote to get general agreement on this.
Click to expand...
Thats what I'm talking about. GC is multi stage process and everybody keeps thinking to cover their current status, stage of the process probably we are not gonna get anywhere than what mr. Khanna says. If USCIS conisder and accepts this proposal thats biggest success for EB category applicants in the immigration history and this success lays red carpet for the faster processing of rest of immigrant applications. One have draw line at some point of time, not keep including million applicants current scenarios.
 
100% agreed

I think getting a temporary green card after 6 months pending I-485 application and valid for 5 years is great.

THanks,
SPartakus
 
Re: Comments on Settlement Draft

Early I expressed the similar concern that this proposal doesn't know solve the problem from the root. Then I was suggesting, since we are proposing to separate security check (not abandoning) from 485, why can't we ask for the real plastic card in 6months of filing. Security check can keep going as they wish. I believe this is better than premium processing as I don't believe USCIS/FBI can improve their efficiency on security check in a year or two. See the washington post asrticel few pages back on this thread.


Originally posted by vu2vut
Hello Rajiv,



?.With immediate effect, once the I-485 has been pending for …XYZ days , the applicants should receive a conditional approval of the green card - there being no further evidence of employment required. ……? all rights and privileges of Lawful Permanent Residence (green card)?

What we are asking is the creation of a new breed of aliens, a group that is between nonresident aliens but not quite permanent residents. Of all the 8 negotiation points I think this is the most contentious one due to several factors.

a. This requires USCIS to institute a new ‘Conditional?GC procedure, for which they have do not have a precedent to follow.

b. In addition to draining the existing resources, such a program would also give excuses for further increase in (non-conditional) I-485 backlogs.

c. Since this is a policy change instead of a procedure change, it may require the involvement of lawmakers to draft new laws and policies.
d. Even if USCIS is willing to accept this settlement point in its entirety, they may be unable to do so (in the time frame) due to these new policies that need to be approved.

e. Even if this is taken to the court, I can foresee USCIS putting up several reasons, including but not limited, to national security; i.e. providing “all rights and privileges of Lawful Permanent Residence (green card)…” without completing the required background checks and other due processes.

f. Finally, a conditional GC will never be equivalent to the original one. It just extends the pain for a longer period of time.

I understand from a negotiation standpoint why you want to keep point #4 in the settlement, but at the same time, why cannot we propose a Premium Processing for I-485 as well, with its proceeds solely used for 485 processing. This would provide a fall back plan to alleviate the 485 backlog, should USCIS is unable/unwilling to implement #4.

To my understanding, the FBI background check should take about 3 weeks the (arrest/criminal/rap-sheet records from CJIS, FBI), hence the 485 backlog could be primarily due to lack of prioritization and/or insufficient resources. This lawsuit may have given an impetus to prioritization and premium-processing fees can provide the necessary resources.
Click to expand...
 
Comments on proposal

Firstly, thank you and your staff for standing up for us "intending immigrants". Your work and effort is invaluable.

I think there should be a priority of items, also a triage in terms of what we think is acceptable to the USCIS rather than our ideal wants.

1. Start premium processing of I-140’s;

I think this is a low priority since this would immediatley have them answering back resources/manpower.

2. All I-140’s pending over 180 days should be adjudicated immediately without premium processing fees;

This instead of #1, though if tied in with the 180 day rule may be more acceptable to them.

3. Continue concurrent filing of I-140 and I-485;

Absolutely especially in addition to #7 below, which if it goes favourably will tie in the 180 day rule to the I-140 and so preclude the need to ask for item #1 & #2.

4. Once the I-485 has been pending for 180 days, the applicants should receive a conditional approval of the green card evidenced by a stamp on the passport valid for 5 years, subject to revocation only on security grounds;

This is important since it will hopefully address the "uncertainty" which really is the main problem. However I feel they may think it too broad a process, taking control out of their hands. Maybe a tiered system, ie "probation" for some months until more checks are carried out before the stamp mentioned before may apease them.

5. USCIS should provide public reports on agency workloads and priorities;

Yes

6. The phone system should be improved so meaningful information can be received;

Yes but again they will scream resources and at the end of the day I doubt will give us any proper information unless the processing itself has improved.

7. We must be provided a method of getting binding, written opinions on AC21 and other regulatory issues on which no regulations are issued by USCIS within six months after enactment of a statute; and

Yes, I think this is important bit should push to have the 180 rule appiled to concurrents as well.

8. We should be assured a community contact point for addressing recurring grievances.

Yes definitely, as long as it is not an impotent figurehead otherwise it is just as useful as screaming at the computer when we see the non-moving processing times.

That's my opinion as a concurrent filer and I understand others may have different opinions and I no way dismiss theirs.
 
about I-140

Because of point#4, many people who are concerned about I-140 delay assume that once I-485 has been filed for 180 days, you automatically get the 'interim gc' whether your I-140 is approved or not, which is, however, not specified in point#4. My suggestion is that this should be included in pint#4. Otherwise #4 has to go bundled together with #1 - I-140 premium processing. Also #1 should specify I-140 must be adjudicated within 90 days under premium processing. The current point#4 only doesn't garantee people with I-140 still pending after 180 days of I-485 filing get the interim gc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top