Project "Ocean" : Become a U.S. Citizen by 2008 Election !!

[kashmir]

3rd and 5th requests of the petition

Here are the 3rd and 5th requests of our petition.

3. Remove Restrictions on EB I-485 applicants:
One of the main problems being faced by employment based I-485 applicants is the restriction on job portability. Though " The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act (AC21)" tried to address these concerns, it failed to remove all the restrictions on job portability. The applicants requests Congress to remove all the restrictions on job portability after 6 months from the date of filing the I-485 application. The current restrictions require that an applicant can change the job provided the new job is a similar job with similar job duties. This leaves a wide scope for interpretation for USCIS.

5. Approve permanent resident application of dependents if the primary applicant dies:
During the Adjustment Of Status (AOS) period, if the Primary applicant dies, all their dependents are denied the permanent resident status and removal proceedings are most likely initiated against them. This is highly inequitable. To uproot families of honest, tax paying, hard working people because the primary bread earner has passed on is highly egregious. The immigration benefits applicants request you to change the existing laws so that, during the Adjustment Of Status, if the Primary applicant dies any time after six months of the date of Receipt, the dependents’ applications should not be rejected. The dependents must not be penalized for the processing delays at USCIS.

I want to simplify our request items.
My suggestion is:
Remove any restriction (except securiy check) once 180 days passed after AOS filed.
I believe it covers both 3rd and 5th requests.
If you had a comment, please post it here.
-kashmir

 

[qwerty123]

Comments

Hi Kashmir,

First off, I am sure that many people will agree with me when I say that we sincerely appreciate your and others efforts with regards to Projects' Ocean and Kashmir.

I do have a comment on request #3 in your previous message. After reading the request, here are my thoughts:

1. the green card is for future employment predicated on an approved LC in a specific job function, and

2. as specified in AC21, the USCIS "should" reduce AOS (and other application) processing times to 6 months or less,

Therefore, with regard to removing all restrictions on job portability, we may have a better argument if we request removal of restrictions after a period beyond the initial 6 months of AOS filing, say 12 months after AOS filing. Then for people who have waited more than a year for AOS approval, we can argue that had the AOS application been processed within 6 months, as mandated by AC21, those people would already have been working in their "future" employment for a reasonable period of time, and therefore would have been free to change jobs without the restrictions of AC21.

I think we will be required to compromise in our efforts, but also to be specific in our requests, so it may be better to keep the requests separate rather than combining them. You may or may not agree with my opinions, but anyway good luck for tomorrow.

P.S. I agree with keeping the security check restrictions for the duration of the pending application.

 

[kashmir]

Re: Comments

Hi, qwerty123,
Thanks for your comment.

I think your comments are reasonable.
But honestly speaking, I am not familier with AC21 and job portability because it is not my major concern.
I am rather intersted in #5 as posted before
However, I understand #3 is the largest concern for most of EB I-485 applicants due to the current economy condition.

On the other hand, we have to work with one of Congressional staffs.
Usually, she is not familier with AC21 related issues, too.
Also, I believe it is not a good idea to emphasize "we are Employment based (so legal, also paying tax, etc.)" too much.
Most of people including Congressional staffs really don't care, and it would make our request complicated, and it would reduce the chance to be enacted.

So, my strategy is:
to propose simply and generally at first:
Remove any restriction (except securiy check) once 180 days passed after AOS filed.
then, to incorporate it into another strong bill.
If the detail discussion would be really required after that,
we shuold discuss it at that time.

Further comments are welcome.
-kashmir

 

[kashmir]

talked to Ms. Alis Aguirre at Anne Eshoo (D CA 14th) Washington DC office 10/20/2003

Since I had no call from Alis at 10am,
I called her at 10:15am, but she was in a meeting.
Again, I called her at 12:20pm, then it was connected.

I found that she did not have my latest letter that I had faxed on Saturday,
so I had to explain her from the beginning...

After I requested amendment of Naturalization requiment,
she seemed to have no idea,
but she told me that she would ask to Congresswoman and call me back later.

Also, she mentioned that Anna Eshoo didn't belong to Immigration related committee,
so she had no experience to introduce an immigration related bill.

Anyway, she had not seen our faxed petitions yet.
I think we need to follow up.
-kashmir

Originally posted by kashmir
I will talk with Ms. Alis tomorrow (10/20/2003) morning.
I will focus the 6th request of our petition "Amend Naturalization Requirements".
-kashmir
6. Amend Naturalization Requirements:
Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427] states that “ No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years”.
The INA should be amended so that, for people who had obtained the permanent residency through Employment, the five year lawful residency requirement should start from the day adjustment of status application (I-485) was filed with USCIS. ...

Two words "through Employment" might be removed.

 

[kashmir]

Fax to Ms. Alis Aguirre at Anne Eshoo (D CA 14th) Washington DC office

Can you fax one page of your letter like the following ?
Your residential address doesn't matter.
Then, please post at the subproject thread once you had faxed.
-kashmir


October 20, 2003

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
Attn: Ms. Alis Aguirre
205 Cannon Building
Washington, DC 20515-0514
Fax: (202) 225-8890

Re: Petition by ImmigrationPortal.Com

Dear Alis Aquirre;

(sample)
I am a member of ImmigratinPortal.Com.
Could you please take our petition into consideration,
especially amendment of Naturalization requiment ?

Best regards,

(your signature)
(your name)
(your address)

Originally posted by kashmir
Since I had no call from Alis at 10am,
I called her at 10:15am, but she was in a meeting.
Again, I called her at 12:20pm, then it was connected.

I found that she did not have my latest letter that I had faxed on Saturday,
so I had to explain her from the beginning...

After I requested amendment of Naturalization requiment,
she seemed to have no idea,
but she told me that she would ask to Congresswoman and call me back later.

Also, she mentioned that Anna Eshoo didn't belong to Immigration related committee,
so she had no experience to introduce an immigration related bill.

Anyway, she had not seen our faxed petitions yet.
I think we need to follow up.
-kashmir

 

[rk4gc]

Faxed reply to Senator Barbara Boxer's Office

I got this letter from the Constituent Representative, so I addressed him in the letter.

I gave my detials and explained what kind of problems an immigrant like me will face because of backlogs.

1. Cannot take any major decisions like buying a home, or doing a major investment in US. (I'm in 6th year if there is any problem with my application I may end up going back to my home country)

2. Without an AP in hand cannot leave USA to visit home country or any other place unless its an immidiate family emergency (assuming using EAD). Mentioned now AP is taking about 150 to 180 days.

also asked if he can help in

1. Arranging a meeting with Senator Barbara Boxer to discuss in detail the problems of immigration community.
2. Convey our request to Senator Barbara Boxer to request Director of CSC (California Service Center of BCIS) to allocate at least 15 officers to adjudicate only EB I-485 cases.

And attached the petition again.

Lets keep the ball rolling guys. Lets hope that all these good people listen to us and help us.

 

[kashmir]

Re: Faxed reply to Senator Barbara Boxer's Office

Originally posted by rk4gc
I got this letter from the Constituent Representative, so I addressed him in the letter.
...
Lets keep the ball rolling guys. Lets hope that all these good people listen to us and help us.

Hi, rk4gc,
I'm very pleased to hear that you have faxed reply to U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer's office.

I am also planning to fax to both Senators later this week to follow up the current activity to Anna Eshoo and your letter.
-kashmir

 

[rk4gc]

Received reply from Congress Woman Zoe Lofgren for my fax asking for more details. I've to send them to the concerned employee in her office. I'll send the reply in Weeknd.

10/6/2003 rk4gc - Zoe Lofgren (CA 16th) - fax - petition

 

[Huracan]

Disagreement

Hi,

I have tried to skim over all the posts in this thread, and I couldn't find a word of disagreement. Although I agree with the general idea of the petition there are a few points in which I disagree. First, it seems that the petition is written to fit Mr. Kashmir personal situation (on the matter of naturalization requirements).

Why the need to put the 8 years requirement? What about people who got green card through consular processing from outside the country? Are you going to make them wait another three years more, just because you got stuck on your adjustment of status. If my interpretation of your petition is correct, it seems selfish to me.

I would propose to reduce the number of years from 5 to 3, not only to employment based green cards, but for everyone. This simplifies the law, no more special married to U.S. citizen case. I would suggest to do as in Canada, and count time spent in the country prior to acquire permanent resident status as half time towards the three years requirement. I would require that time in the country to have been in legal status. Please note I am not saying legal working status, as your petition seems to discriminate against dependents of permanent resident (H4 and the like).

I applaud your effort to get legislation changes, but I firmly believe that your effort towards making changes to the naturalization requirements is misguided.


My 2 cents.
Huracan

 

[kashmir]

Re: Disagreement

Hi, Huracan,
Thanks for your suggestive comment,
especially I agree on your proposal of third paragraph.

> it seems that the petition is written to fit Mr. Kashmir personal situation

The petition was originally written by several core members at the VSC forum.
Actually, I suggested not to emphasize "Employment Based" too much,
but other members wanted to appeal the right of legal workers.

> Why the need to put the 8 years requirement?

This is not requirement.
It is an alternative proposal in case the first proposal "5 years from AOS filing" is not accepted.
Although this alternative item was added by the VSC forum,
I want to remove it.

> What about people who got green card through consular processing from outside the country?

It is a good question.
The proposal must be updated condering CP cases.

> Are you going to make them wait another three years more, just because you got stuck on your adjustment of status.

I think you mean the above "8 years requirement", but it is not a case.

> If my interpretation of your petition is correct, it seems selfish to me.

I am not a volunteer for this forum nor Immigrants.
I am working on Immigration issues for myself at first,
so somebody may think I am selfish although I don't care.
However, I believe that some works such as Project Kashmir and this project would benefit not only myself but also other people.
This is why I have been posting my messages here.
If some of people would support this project with endorsement, I am very pleased.

> I would propose to reduce the number of years from 5 to 3, not only to employment based green cards, but for everyone.
> This simplifies the law, no more special married to U.S. citizen case.

I really like this proposal.
I will discuss this proposal when I talk to the staff of Anna Eshoo next time.

> I would suggest to do as in Canada, and count time spent in the country prior to acquire permanent resident status as half time towards the three years requirement.

I think this is also nice to have,
but I'm afraid that it makes our request complicated.
I'd like to keep our proposal simple.

> I would require that time in the country to have been in legal status.
> Please note I am not saying legal working status, as your petition seems to discriminate against dependents of permanent resident (H4 and the like).

I agree on this item.

If you had a further comment, it would be welcome.
Thanks again,
-kashmir

Originally posted by Huracan
Hi,

I have tried to skim over all the posts in this thread, and I couldn't find a word of disagreement. Although I agree with the general idea of the petition there are a few points in which I disagree. First, it seems that the petition is written to fit Mr. Kashmir personal situation (on the matter of naturalization requirements).

Why the need to put the 8 years requirement? What about people who got green card through consular processing from outside the country? Are you going to make them wait another three years more, just because you got stuck on your adjustment of status. If my interpretation of your petition is correct, it seems selfish to me.

I would propose to reduce the number of years from 5 to 3, not only to employment based green cards, but for everyone. This simplifies the law, no more special married to U.S. citizen case. I would suggest to do as in Canada, and count time spent in the country prior to acquire permanent resident status as half time towards the three years requirement. I would require that time in the country to have been in legal status. Please note I am not saying legal working status, as your petition seems to discriminate against dependents of permanent resident (H4 and the like).

I applaud your effort to get legislation changes, but I firmly believe that your effort towards making changes to the naturalization requirements is misguided.

My 2 cents.
Huracan

 

[kashmir]

naturalization requirement - Re: Re: Disagreement

Originally posted by kashmir
...
> I would propose to reduce the number of years from 5 to 3, not only to employment based green cards, but for everyone.
> This simplifies the law, no more special married to U.S. citizen case.

I really like this proposal.
I will discuss this proposal when I talk to the staff of Anna Eshoo next time.
...

We may need some discussion.

(1) 5 years after approval (current law)
(2) 5 years after AOS filed (original proposal)
(3) 3 years after approval (Huracan's new proposal)

Both (2) and (3) are better than (1).
If waiting time is 2 years, (2) equals (3).
Considering the current and future AOS backlog, (2) should be fair and better than (3), but the condition for CP cases must be added.

Do you have any comment ?
Can somebody write a draft of amendment ?
-kashmir

 

[kashmir]

Originally posted by rk4gc
Received reply from Congress Woman Zoe Lofgren for my fax asking for more details. I've to send them to the concerned employee in her office. I'll send the reply in Weeknd.

10/6/2003 rk4gc - Zoe Lofgren (CA 16th) - fax - petition

Hi, rk4gc,
I am very pleased to hear that Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren replied to you.
-kashmir

 

[kashmir]

Originally posted by rk4gc
Just faxed.
Btw, Kashmir, why emphasis on only "amendment of Naturatization requirement"
even "reducing back logs" is also important isn't it?
Whats the strategy?
21st October 2003 05:08 PM

Hi, rk4gc,
We are contacting Congressional offices.
Usually, Congresspersons and their staffs are not familier with Immigration issue.
Some of them are still saying "INS ..."
Also, in my impression, they are not so clever to handle Immigration related complicated issues.
But I have neither time nor patience to explain many things to such a person at one time.

So, my strategy is:
(1) our request must be simple and specific (for even a person at Congressional office to understand)
(2) to request one by one per Congressional office.

"Amendment of Naturalization Requirement" seems to satisfy (1) more than another requests,
so I started with this request according to (2).

If we can start contacting another Congressperson, we may choose another request.
Of course, "reducing backlog" is important.
However, it is neither simple nor specific.
For those people, "reducing backlog" or "expedite" doesn't mean anything at all.
-kashmir

 

[Huracan]

Re: naturalization requirement - Re: Re: Disagreement

Originally posted by kashmir
We may need some discussion.

(1) 5 years after approval (current law)
(2) 5 years after AOS filed (original proposal)
(3) 3 years after approval (Huracan's new proposal)

Both (2) and (3) are better than (1).
If waiting time is 2 years, (2) equals (3).
Considering the current and future AOS backlog, (2) should be fair and better than (3), but the condition for CP cases must be added.

Do you have any comment ?
Can somebody write a draft of amendment ?
-kashmir

This is the Canadian law regarding the time as permanent resident. I still think the proposal to reduce the years from 5 to 3 is the choice which would benefit the most people and it would be the simplest one to write. It would benefit employee based, family based and consular processing equally. My apologies for accusing your proposal of selfish, I didn't know how that draft was produced. Still, to benefit people who have had a lengthy immigration process, something on the line of the Canadian law would be of great benefit. I could see the BCIS working hard to avoid having people naturalize the day after they got permanent residence due to the time accumulated while waiting for the GC

Again, I would encourage you to drop the 8 years requirement.

Partial list of requirements for citizenship in Canada:

(c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection
2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and has,
within the four years immediately preceding the date of his or her
application, accumulated at least three years of residence in
Canada calculated in the following manner:

(i) for every day during which the person was resident in
Canada before his lawful admission to Canada for permanent
residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated
one-half of a day of residence, and

(ii) for every day during which the person was resident in
Canada after his lawful admission to Canada for permanent
residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated
one day of residence;

My 2 cents,
Huracan

 

[kashmir]

Letter from Pete Stark (D CA 13th) - follow up Town Meeting 10/18/2003 Fremont

Originally posted by kashmir
I am back from Fremont over the Dumbarton Bridge.
...
18th October 2003 12:48 PM

I received a letter from Pete Stark (D CA 13th) today.
-kashmir


October 23, 2003

(my name)
(my address)

Dear Mr. (my last name);

Thank you for attending my recent Town Meeting in Fremont and expressing your concerns about the I-485 and N-400 application processing backlog.

I forwarded the information you presented at last Saturday's meeting to the Acting Director, Office of Congressional Relations, Department of Homeland Security. I asked that the ImmigrationPortal.Com concerns be reviewed and requested a review of the signature list. I do not expect to receive a response regarding each application. I requested a response related to the overall concerns expressed about the I-485 and N-400 application backlog.

I will inform my colleague, Congresswoman Eshoo of my efforts and I encourage you to continue to work with her staff regarding the status of your employment-based application.

I will be back in touch with you when I receive the response to the letter I sent to the Department of Homeland Security.

Sincerely,

(Pete Stark's signature)
Pete Stark
United States Congressman

 

[kashmir]

kash777: Letter from Pete Stark - follow up Town Meeting 10/18/2003 Fremont

Originally posted by kashmir
I received a letter from Pete Stark (D CA 13th) today.
-kashmir

Yesterday (on 10/24/2003), kash777 received a letter from Pete Stark, too.

(originally posted at VSC forum)

Rajeev/Operations/Edison/Kashmir and all there ,reply from Congressman please read .

Today I received letter in mail which mentions our concern and when we (kashmir and myself ) attended town meeting on Oct 18th : below is the letter contents :

...

We handed over petition and signature list ,which this congressman has asked to Acting Directore to review and reply. I wish to know from Rajeev or any one experienced there how is the impact of this ,on BCIS .I mean does this helps. I think every one must try contacting senator and congressman. Looks like they are writing and asking some reply..may be worth trying ...

 

[kashmir]

List of Petition Phisically Delivered as of 10/24/2003

9/23/2003 kashmir - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - the petition letter 
9/23/2003 kashmir - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - the petition letter
9/23/2003 kashmir - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - the petition letter
9/29/2003 kashmir - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - the petition and 362 CA singnatures
9/30/2003 kashmir - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - the petition and 362 CA signatures
=
10/6/2003 kashmir - Zoe Lofgren (CA 16th) - fax - petition and 394 CA signatures
10/6/2003 kashmir - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - petition and 394 CA signatures
10/6/2003 kashmir - Mike Honda (CA 15th) - fax - petition and 394 CA signatures
10/6/2003 yih - Mike Honda (CA 15th) - fax - petition
10/6/2003 yih - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/6/2003 yih - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition
10/6/2003 kuldeepc - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - petition
10/6/2003 kuldeepc - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/6/2003 kuldeepc - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition
10/6/2003 1amShantanuA  - ? - fax - petition
10/6/2003 lareds - ? - fax? - petition
10/6/2003 rk4gc - Zoe Lofgren (CA 16th) - fax - petition
10/7/2003 kashmir - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - [color=green]office[/color] - petition and 2,491 all signatures
10/7/2003 kashmir - Zoe Lofgren (CA 16th) - [color=green]office[/color] - petition and 2,491 all signatures
10/7/2003 vg0405 - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/7/2003 vg0405 - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition
10/7/2003 vg0405 - congressperson (CA ?) - fax - petition
10/7/2003 CS485 - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/7/2003 CS485 - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition
10/7/2003 CS485 - Ed Royce (R-CA 40th) - fax - petition
10/7/2003 LC66 - congresswoman (CA ?) - fax - petition
10/8/2003 kashmir - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - petition
10/8/2003 kashmir - Zoe Lofgren (CA 16th) - fax - petition
10/8/2003 Arz - Zoe Lofgren (CA 16th) - fax - petition
10/8/2003 Dadagiri - Mike Honda (CA 15th) - fax - petition
10/9/2003 kash777 - Pete Stark (CA 13th) - [color=green]office[/color] - petition
10/9/2003 rk4gc - Zoe Lofgren (CA 16th) - fax - petition
10/9/2003 rk4gc - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition [B][color=purple]=> 10/17/2003 LETTER[/color][/B]
10/10/2003 rk4gc - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/10/2003 CS485's friends - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition
10/10/2003 CS485's friends - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/10/2003 CS485's friends - Christopher Cox (CA 48th) - fax - petition
10/10/2003 gettingclosernow - Christopher Cox (CA 48th) - fax - petition
10/10/2003 gettingclosernow - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition
10/10/2003 gettingclosernow - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/10/2003 yih - Mike Honda (CA 15th) - [color=green]USPS priority[/color] - petition and all signature (100+ pages)
10/10/2003 budhram - ? - fax - petition
10/10/2003 kash777 - Dianne Feinstein - fax - petition
10/11/2003 rk4gc - Zoe Lofgren (CA 16th) - [color=blue]townhall[/color] - petition, 2,627 all signatures [B][color=purple]=> 10/23/2003 LETTER[/color][/B]
10/11/2003 kashmir - Zoe Lofgren (CA 16th) - [color=blue]townhall[/color] - petition and 2,627 all signatures
=
10/13/2003 kashmir - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - [B][color=red]meeting request[/color][/b] and petition [B][color=purple]=> 10/15/2003 CALL[/color][/B]
10/13/2003 kashmir - Pete Stark (CA 13th) - fax - petition
10/13/2003 ganshm - (R CA 41st) - fax - petition
10/13/2003 kadamtal - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - petition
10/13/2003 spyder - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - petition
10/13/2003 hero123 - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - petition
10/14/2003 kashmir - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - [color=green]office[/color] - [B][color=red]meeting request[/color][/b] and petition
10/14/2003 kadamtal - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/14/2003 spyder - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/14/2003 hero123 - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/14/2003 kadamtal - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition
10/14/2003 spyder - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition
10/14/2003 hero123 - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition
10/15/2002 sri3440 - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - [color=green]USPS[/color] - petition
10/15/2002 sri3440 - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/15/2002 sri3440 - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition
10/15/2002 sri3440 - congressperson (CA ?) - fax - petition
10/16/2003 kashmir - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - [color=green]phone[/color] -
10/16/2002 georgi - Dianne Feinstein (CA) - fax - petition
10/16/2002 georgi - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - petition
10/18/2003 kash777 - Pete Stark (CA 13th) - [color=blue]townhall[/color] - petition and 2,827 all signatures [B][color=purple]=> 10/24/2003 LETTER[/color][/B]
10/18/2003 kashmir - Pete Stark (CA 13th) - [color=blue]townhall[/color] - petition and 2,827 all signatures [B][color=purple]=> 10/24/2003 LETTER[/color][/B]
10/18/2003 kashmir - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - [color=red][b]proposal[/b][/color]
=
10/20/2003 kashmir - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - [color=green]phone[/color] -
10/20/2003 kashmir - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/21/2003 rk4gc - Barbara Boxer (CA) - fax - reply
10/21/2003 Eager2000 - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/21/2003 Dadagiri - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/21/2003 yih - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/21/2003 CS485 - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/21/2003 needneed - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/21/2003 kadamtal - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/21/2003 rk4gc - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/21/2003 withAAAA - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/21/2003 waitn2long - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/22/2003 kashmir - Don Neufeld (Director, CSC) - [color=green]USPS Certified[/color] -  petition and 2,827 all signatures
10/24/2003 ben2000 - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/24/2003 withAAAA - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/24/2003 timesa - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter
10/24/2003 kashmir - Anna Eshoo (CA 14th) - fax - letter

 

[kashmir]

FAX THE PETITION Campaign - AGAIN

(originally posted at the petition main thread at the VSC forum)

FAX THE PETITION Campaign - AGAIN

Since we started the Project Ocean about one month ago in California, especially in San Francisco Bay Area,
1) we have FAXed more than 50 petitones to Congressional offices
2) we hava handed totally almost a thousand of pages of the petitions and the list of signatures to Congressional offices to visit their district office or to attend the town hall meeting
3) we handed the petitions and the list signatures directly to a couple of Congresspersons.

Last week, we started receiving a letter from these Congressional offices.
We have to follow up repeatedly until our goal would be achieved.

Our goal is neither to send the petition nor to meet Congressional persons or Director of Service Center.
It is just a first step.
Even if you could meet the Director or Senators, itself would not help to reduce EB I-485 backlog at all.
Still, we have to follow a lot of things.

I started discussing with my representative to introduce a bill to amend INA.
Even if I would succeeed to get a Sponsor, we need several Co-Sponsors.

Please start sending the petition to your Congressperson's Washington D.C. office by phisically delivery method such as FAX, USPS Mail, or district office visit.
I think E-MAIL doen't work at this stage at all.
I encourage each one to fax the petition with a cover letter in which you write your name, residential address, and your signature.

Again, this is only the first step in the long way to our goal.
-kashmir

 

[kashmir]

Virginia (VA) update

YJay is actively working in Virginia (VA).
-kashmir

(originally posted at VSC forum by YJay)

I e-mailed Tom Davis (District 11 Rep.) the petition twice. I stopped at his stand at Fairfax festival a few days ago and talked to his staff. I also talked to his immigration rep. for 30 minutes on the phone and tried to set up a meeting with him. His Washington DC office called me back as a follow up. I received a letter response from Senator John Warner acknowledging our concerns. All these indicate they have been made aware of our petition.

Regarding the meeting, it’s unfortunate that I don't have enough number to join the meeting. Only dsatish and kirs expressed interests.

Frank Wolf (district 10) is the only VA congress member who supports employment based immigration while all others are pro-illegals, and family based and religious workers. Does anyone on this board live in his district? Please set up a meeting with him. I’ll join for sure. If I don’t get any response from this board I’ll mail the petition to him (without signature list).

 

[kashmir]

activities against U.S.Goverment Executive Branch update

1) Acting Director, Office of Congressional Relations, Department of Homeland Security
Congressman Pete Stark (D CA 13th) forwarded the following documents.

1. petition (8 pages)
2. list of signatures as of 10/17/2003 (125 pages)

and he requested

1. ImmigrationPortal.Com concerns be reviewed
2. a review of the signature list - not expect to receive a response regarding each application
3. a response related to the overall concerns expressed about the I-485 and N-400 application backlog

2) Don Neufeld, Director, CSC, USCIS
The following documents was sent by kashmir via USPS Certified Mail on 10/22/2003 and received on 10/24/2003.

1. cover letter
2. petition (8 pages)
3. list of signatures as of 10/17/2003 (125 pages)