hopefulgc
11-09 09:11 PM
Time and again I hear people here and everywhere complaining about how "everyone-who-is-a-citizen" is simply out to get them and exploit them.
HR is bad mouthed. Lawyer is called a single $ whore. the list goes on.
By no means you are wrong.... what y'all say is correct to every extent of the word... but do you believe its because they are doing it so. Take a moment, think and tell me if you honestly believe that.
When was the last time garbage smelled nice... i don't see any of us complaining about that. Seriously, who else is not out to get you. let me answer that... EVERY-- FU**IN---BODY
Point is, when some law-maker, anti-immigrant, citizen john doe, his wife mary hoe come to the site, she should see the reflection of our high education and quality of thinking in the forums here. They have to feel our maturiy, charisma and elevated thinking in the posts we leave here.
Think of yourself as the really smart good lookin guy and "all these poeple" as the duette you wanna go out with. For once, we have to stop being cry winches.. and let people know who we really are.....
<h1>AWESOME and DESIRED</h1>
No don't leave me red marks... i am one of you... but who believes in us all.
HR is bad mouthed. Lawyer is called a single $ whore. the list goes on.
By no means you are wrong.... what y'all say is correct to every extent of the word... but do you believe its because they are doing it so. Take a moment, think and tell me if you honestly believe that.
When was the last time garbage smelled nice... i don't see any of us complaining about that. Seriously, who else is not out to get you. let me answer that... EVERY-- FU**IN---BODY
Point is, when some law-maker, anti-immigrant, citizen john doe, his wife mary hoe come to the site, she should see the reflection of our high education and quality of thinking in the forums here. They have to feel our maturiy, charisma and elevated thinking in the posts we leave here.
Think of yourself as the really smart good lookin guy and "all these poeple" as the duette you wanna go out with. For once, we have to stop being cry winches.. and let people know who we really are.....
<h1>AWESOME and DESIRED</h1>
No don't leave me red marks... i am one of you... but who believes in us all.
kalyan
06-11 11:49 AM
I definitely need PP for 140 since by the time my H1 is due for renewal (after completing 6 years), My 1-40 will be 15 months older.
I cannot ask my employer to do 1 year h1B renewals as the lawyer fee is also added to it.
IF PP can be done at that time, i am saved for 3 years with one visa stamping and my employer is also saved for 3 years.
I cannot ask my employer to do 1 year h1B renewals as the lawyer fee is also added to it.
IF PP can be done at that time, i am saved for 3 years with one visa stamping and my employer is also saved for 3 years.
greyhair
06-22 10:02 PM
I also work for Big4, but I work in IT. Wait time depends on your country of birth and the category of your application. If you are from India or China in Eb3, then you would be better off not applying because you will most likely retire before you get your green card.
It may be helpful to apply in Eb2. I am not sure if CFA Lvl 2 will qualify you for Eb2. But if you have Masters degree in your area of expertise then Eb2 should not be an issue. Performance bonus is not a measure of exceptional ability for Eb2.
You will have to provide more details or you will have to understand the process to estimating the time it will take for the approval. Given the size of the backlog, Eb2 is always better than Eb3. Ultimately, it depends on your employer and your job requirement.
It may be helpful to apply in Eb2. I am not sure if CFA Lvl 2 will qualify you for Eb2. But if you have Masters degree in your area of expertise then Eb2 should not be an issue. Performance bonus is not a measure of exceptional ability for Eb2.
You will have to provide more details or you will have to understand the process to estimating the time it will take for the approval. Given the size of the backlog, Eb2 is always better than Eb3. Ultimately, it depends on your employer and your job requirement.
pd052009
04-15 12:17 AM
It is our issue.. Lets gather to solve our issue..
more...
laborfd
07-27 09:47 AM
Guys,
I just created a search engine (http://immisearch.blogspot.com/) to help all people looking for a better way to search topics around immigration related activites. The search engine came as a result of my countless hours that I spent searching to answers around the web.
Try searching for any information with h1b, h4, Green Card, I-485, I140, citizenship etc, and the engine should give you a better result.
Leave a comment at the blog and let me know what else could be improved.
http://immisearch.blogspot.com/
-Vikram
Cool, good job, very useful :)
I just created a search engine (http://immisearch.blogspot.com/) to help all people looking for a better way to search topics around immigration related activites. The search engine came as a result of my countless hours that I spent searching to answers around the web.
Try searching for any information with h1b, h4, Green Card, I-485, I140, citizenship etc, and the engine should give you a better result.
Leave a comment at the blog and let me know what else could be improved.
http://immisearch.blogspot.com/
-Vikram
Cool, good job, very useful :)
mheggade
12-12 04:39 PM
DOS/USCIS had a co-ordination meeting to discuss how to prepare for the upcoming holiday's. The outcome of the meeting was to push EB2 cases as back as possible , so that people really can have a good time enjoying holiday. (When I say people read it as USCIS/FBI/DOS and lawyers ).
:)
I work for Federal agency as contractor I know very well how things work during the holiday season.
Happy long long holiday's you all.
:)
I work for Federal agency as contractor I know very well how things work during the holiday season.
Happy long long holiday's you all.
more...
immi2006
05-04 12:59 PM
Hi,
I spent 2 weeks just looking at all immigration.com posts and analysing the data patterns posted on the BEC, permtracker, calif 140 stage and so on... no one has published a report for a ready reckoner. I wanted to see the data sample to see where we stand today on the status as a snapshot, the data could be off the mark, because there could be folks who filed multiple LCs, and not withdrawn when one of them is approved !..or there could be employers who may have filed Eb2 and Eb3 for same person, cannot gurantee... so, the data is based on all postings of immigration.com, I would encourage u to read some of the posts to get a first hand feeling of the trends.
I spent 2 weeks just looking at all immigration.com posts and analysing the data patterns posted on the BEC, permtracker, calif 140 stage and so on... no one has published a report for a ready reckoner. I wanted to see the data sample to see where we stand today on the status as a snapshot, the data could be off the mark, because there could be folks who filed multiple LCs, and not withdrawn when one of them is approved !..or there could be employers who may have filed Eb2 and Eb3 for same person, cannot gurantee... so, the data is based on all postings of immigration.com, I would encourage u to read some of the posts to get a first hand feeling of the trends.
haritha
02-19 08:54 PM
Cataphract
Thanks for the update. This surely will inspire many more. You guys form a Brilliant Team. Good luck.
Haritha.
Thanks for the update. This surely will inspire many more. You guys form a Brilliant Team. Good luck.
Haritha.
more...
mnq1979
06-26 10:58 AM
You may need 2 affidavits each. More over you need additional supporting documents such as school certificate, medical record any other similar documents stating your birth date and your parents "full names". This what I was asked provide on my rfe. Wait for your rfe. They will tell you in that what need to be done. Good luck
Well i have documents which states my fathers name next to mine but i dont have any document which states my mother name !!!!! i m soo confused and tense !!!!
Well i have documents which states my fathers name next to mine but i dont have any document which states my mother name !!!!! i m soo confused and tense !!!!
Lisap
08-03 12:16 PM
Well atleast we arent alone I guess
more...
chanduv23
11-06 06:36 AM
Though this may be off topic, it is related to travel and NIV.
I booked tickets for my inlaws travelling on a tourist visa in Jet Airways - Chennai to JFK with layover in Brussels.
Now, when I ask people everyone say they travel by Lufthansa, Air India, Emirates etc... but I have not found anyone who has travelled by Jet Airways.
Just wanted to know if anyone has travelled via Jet Airways and their experience at the Brussels Airport, if it was smooth. My Inlaws do not speak English and this is the first time they are travelling.
Thanks
I booked tickets for my inlaws travelling on a tourist visa in Jet Airways - Chennai to JFK with layover in Brussels.
Now, when I ask people everyone say they travel by Lufthansa, Air India, Emirates etc... but I have not found anyone who has travelled by Jet Airways.
Just wanted to know if anyone has travelled via Jet Airways and their experience at the Brussels Airport, if it was smooth. My Inlaws do not speak English and this is the first time they are travelling.
Thanks
greenguru
04-01 12:26 AM
Sure.. I was having the same question.
Here is how it happens,
1. When you file for your I-140 Under EB2 you also provide the A#
2. So when your I-140 gets approved your 485 case will automatically know about this.
What you have do
1. Go to InfoPass and verify that your new I-140 is present on your application.
2. Call USCIS Help desk and check. Also tell them you filed in employment based and that your Priority date is current(Ofcourse if it is current only tell them). Request them to open an SR
3. your case will be approved in 25 days.
For me it took 20 days after i opened the SR. The official time is 45 days to 60 days.
Cheers, GG
Here is how it happens,
1. When you file for your I-140 Under EB2 you also provide the A#
2. So when your I-140 gets approved your 485 case will automatically know about this.
What you have do
1. Go to InfoPass and verify that your new I-140 is present on your application.
2. Call USCIS Help desk and check. Also tell them you filed in employment based and that your Priority date is current(Ofcourse if it is current only tell them). Request them to open an SR
3. your case will be approved in 25 days.
For me it took 20 days after i opened the SR. The official time is 45 days to 60 days.
Cheers, GG
more...
shishya
09-02 03:34 PM
Thanks for the confirmation that this is better confirmed and cleared out rather than face unnecessary delays. I have called them and re-requested an update of my address on phone -- NEED to wait another 45 days to receive a letter from USCIS, if not, apparently only then can I get an Infopass appointment. Lets see.
My Friend it does matters - Here is why - Although I changed my address online & got confirmation number every time I moved to different place - what happened was the RFE issued on my case was addressed to the place where I filed my application. Since then I moved to two different places and every time I moved I did update my address online promptly. Since RFE was posted to the old address as a result of the mail was fwd to all places where I lived in the past and finally delivered to my current address. Thanks to online status that I came to know RFE was issued on case with deadline. I received the RFE letter just about 3 days to respond. When we talked to CIS CSR about this the answer was that the IO who worked on my case got old address that was mentioned on my application itself and did not refer the address change made online. With help of my employer and attorney we were able to respond within the deadline date. I would call them and make sure the correct address and ask for confirmation letter from CIS. Hope this helps!
My Friend it does matters - Here is why - Although I changed my address online & got confirmation number every time I moved to different place - what happened was the RFE issued on my case was addressed to the place where I filed my application. Since then I moved to two different places and every time I moved I did update my address online promptly. Since RFE was posted to the old address as a result of the mail was fwd to all places where I lived in the past and finally delivered to my current address. Thanks to online status that I came to know RFE was issued on case with deadline. I received the RFE letter just about 3 days to respond. When we talked to CIS CSR about this the answer was that the IO who worked on my case got old address that was mentioned on my application itself and did not refer the address change made online. With help of my employer and attorney we were able to respond within the deadline date. I would call them and make sure the correct address and ask for confirmation letter from CIS. Hope this helps!
hariswaminathan
01-10 02:57 PM
Its been 5 months , I'vent recieved the FP for myself. My case status still shows "The case has been transferred to Nebraska etc etc.."
Anybody in the same shoes?
Applied July 23rd NSC. Receipt notice July 23rd and again another receipt September once my case went to CSC and back to NSC.
Got AP and EAD issued from CA (laguna Niguel USCIS) though not without headaches (RFE on AP)
took infopass appointment last week and officer said FPs havent been issued because Background check still not cleared for me (wife cleared but she will not get FP notice until mine is cleared). This is possibly the same reason you have not received yours. looks like i am stuck for the long haul in name check clearance.
good luck to you!
Anybody in the same shoes?
Applied July 23rd NSC. Receipt notice July 23rd and again another receipt September once my case went to CSC and back to NSC.
Got AP and EAD issued from CA (laguna Niguel USCIS) though not without headaches (RFE on AP)
took infopass appointment last week and officer said FPs havent been issued because Background check still not cleared for me (wife cleared but she will not get FP notice until mine is cleared). This is possibly the same reason you have not received yours. looks like i am stuck for the long haul in name check clearance.
good luck to you!
more...
waitnwatch
05-17 10:44 PM
That is true. This thing called "special handling" in common parlance is, thank god, not a hot topic of discussion. I hope this clause doesn't get weeded out given the current scenario where they have killed F4. I really wonder if "highly skilled" legal immigrants would ultimately get any benefit out of this bill. Limboland is where many people are - and at the end of the day you still get to live in Limboland and become its citizens by default.
My two cents! :( :(
My two cents! :( :(
saurav_4096
06-19 09:53 AM
Mr. EndlessWait -
You extended your status, not visa. Please get your basics correct.
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
Visa Number for the last issued visa (does not matter if is expired)
2. Date Visa Issued
Date of Issue for Visa in #1
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
Place of Issue for Visa in #1
Good Luck
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
If there is sufficeint time left on H1B, can one go for stamping at consulate although I485 is filed.
You extended your status, not visa. Please get your basics correct.
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
Visa Number for the last issued visa (does not matter if is expired)
2. Date Visa Issued
Date of Issue for Visa in #1
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
Place of Issue for Visa in #1
Good Luck
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
If there is sufficeint time left on H1B, can one go for stamping at consulate although I485 is filed.
more...
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
11-11 12:35 PM
Why don't you ask this in the free attorney call
hello
work for decent size company (1500 employees).i am the only non citizen/non gc holder
applied eb3 and stuck since 2003.gained masters in 2006
planning to apply to EB2 with different title .
my employer is requesting to apply eb2 for masters with 7 years of experience as requirement
in general if i look at DOL websites ,most positions requirements says masters plus 2 years like that
does that mean its guaranteed audit like that meaning do they question or is it possible
any experiences who ported are appreciated
thanks
hello
work for decent size company (1500 employees).i am the only non citizen/non gc holder
applied eb3 and stuck since 2003.gained masters in 2006
planning to apply to EB2 with different title .
my employer is requesting to apply eb2 for masters with 7 years of experience as requirement
in general if i look at DOL websites ,most positions requirements says masters plus 2 years like that
does that mean its guaranteed audit like that meaning do they question or is it possible
any experiences who ported are appreciated
thanks
lskreddy
06-10 11:37 PM
The worst hit 140's are EB3 (and that too mostly in NSC and some in TSC). Not a single NSC EB3-140 is coming at < 400 days.
EB2 is coming still okay and EB1/EB2-NIW are pretty quick. So i dont see a good quantity of benefit by allowing Premium Processing only on a thin section of applications ?? It make a difference of few days, not even months.
Where they need to re-instate Premium 140 to give actual relief - they wont do anything.
I agree, it is extremely narrow. Not too many employers wait until the 60 days window and if you had H1 approved, you would not qualify. I do believe this may be just to test waters and they will broaden it further..
EB2 is coming still okay and EB1/EB2-NIW are pretty quick. So i dont see a good quantity of benefit by allowing Premium Processing only on a thin section of applications ?? It make a difference of few days, not even months.
Where they need to re-instate Premium 140 to give actual relief - they wont do anything.
I agree, it is extremely narrow. Not too many employers wait until the 60 days window and if you had H1 approved, you would not qualify. I do believe this may be just to test waters and they will broaden it further..
singhsa3
11-15 10:01 AM
We are in agony and pain. Let us scream so loud that even deafs may lend their ears.
dilbert_cal
04-06 02:03 AM
Thanks for a very good analysis. I was hoping someone will do it and my heartfelt gratitude to you for stepping up.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com