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
wallpaper Avril Lavigne and Brody Jenner
reddymjm
05-21 01:55 PM
hi,
Just want to find out the process to apply for interim EAD...I applied for EAD renewal on 8th of may and my EAD expires August 16th...i doubt i get my EAD before my current expires...i just want to find out whether i can apply for interim EAD or ??? if yes, what are the current procedures? I e-filed my EAD application and sent all documents to TSC...please help gurus.
It is no longer available.
Just want to find out the process to apply for interim EAD...I applied for EAD renewal on 8th of may and my EAD expires August 16th...i doubt i get my EAD before my current expires...i just want to find out whether i can apply for interim EAD or ??? if yes, what are the current procedures? I e-filed my EAD application and sent all documents to TSC...please help gurus.
It is no longer available.
anilsal
09-15 10:03 PM
the ones I meet in DC. The ones I currently have, who did not make it to DC in spite of being aware about it, will no longer have me as a friend.
2011 fall for Brody Jenner.
pappu
05-29 07:28 PM
AVS channel has an indian program every saturday starting 10am -12.00pm
I am sure many indians watch this.There is also 'free' immigration advise by some lawyers at the end of the program.
If some one has contacts at AVS may be IV could get more coverage.
Thinking out loud..
Thanks. could you please get in touch with them and seek their help. If you get a positive response and they are interested, let us know and we will pursue it further. thanks
I am sure many indians watch this.There is also 'free' immigration advise by some lawyers at the end of the program.
If some one has contacts at AVS may be IV could get more coverage.
Thinking out loud..
Thanks. could you please get in touch with them and seek their help. If you get a positive response and they are interested, let us know and we will pursue it further. thanks
more...
HRPRO
03-07 07:05 PM
6 months.
Can we renew H1 after we're laid off based on 140 approval. I'm thinking going for regular or premium extension because it's about the time for extension. I still have a job this week...not sure about next...so looks like premium is the best. At least I'll have H1 extension for 3 yrs when I jump into the job market again....or is this irrelevant and I can renew even after laid off.
Smuggy,
If I were you, I would start looking right away and will definitely file the transfer with a Premium. I consider it the cost for peace of mind more than anything else.
HRPRO
Can we renew H1 after we're laid off based on 140 approval. I'm thinking going for regular or premium extension because it's about the time for extension. I still have a job this week...not sure about next...so looks like premium is the best. At least I'll have H1 extension for 3 yrs when I jump into the job market again....or is this irrelevant and I can renew even after laid off.
Smuggy,
If I were you, I would start looking right away and will definitely file the transfer with a Premium. I consider it the cost for peace of mind more than anything else.
HRPRO
Winner
04-09 04:44 PM
Thanks everyone.
I remember that some of the states requires you to have a vaild visa (or other proof of legal staus) for more than 2.5/3 years and only then they can get a drivers licence? If you have this information, kindly share that information.
I remember that some of the states requires you to have a vaild visa (or other proof of legal staus) for more than 2.5/3 years and only then they can get a drivers licence? If you have this information, kindly share that information.
more...
Saralayar
03-17 02:20 PM
According to IRS
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179211,00.html
If any member has ITIN, economic stimulus package benefit will not be given.
EAD is a must for applying SSN. You need to show the EAD card, I-94 and Passport at the time of applying for SSN.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179211,00.html
If any member has ITIN, economic stimulus package benefit will not be given.
EAD is a must for applying SSN. You need to show the EAD card, I-94 and Passport at the time of applying for SSN.
2010 Brody Jenner Wants to Get
raysaikat
05-24 05:43 PM
... My husband applied for GC and I have dependent EAD till Oct 2010 but then he moved out of USA last year ...
One point to add: If your husband did not get AP before going out and/or stayed outside for too long and/or did not file taxes in US, etc., then it is possible that he has abandoned his GC application, in which case the dependent's EAD also becomes invalid.
One point to add: If your husband did not get AP before going out and/or stayed outside for too long and/or did not file taxes in US, etc., then it is possible that he has abandoned his GC application, in which case the dependent's EAD also becomes invalid.
more...
srikondoji
07-05 11:33 AM
Create a seperate forum message for 'sending flowers'. And then we should all digg that message so that even media covers this practise.
--sri
PLEASE DIGG
http://digg.com/politics/Reversal_Frustrates_Green_Card_Applicants
--sri
PLEASE DIGG
http://digg.com/politics/Reversal_Frustrates_Green_Card_Applicants
hair Brody Jenner And Avril Lavigne
21stIcon
12-20 08:40 PM
Undocumented amount 33% taken out from monthly compensation then pay roll tax withhold amount went to federal, state tax, social tax and Medicare.
My point is how can employer deduct tax with is not shown on pay slip.
What would be take home for 100k base? He should deposit $8333/pm not $5835/pm then pay roll processing department will deduct appropriate amount not he deducts 33% then sends to pay roll.
My point is how can employer deduct tax with is not shown on pay slip.
What would be take home for 100k base? He should deposit $8333/pm not $5835/pm then pay roll processing department will deduct appropriate amount not he deducts 33% then sends to pay roll.
more...
at0474
01-09 03:45 PM
"I suppose this year's quota for EB3 India is not yet used (as small it may seem). My guess is, when EB3 processing begins, it should get your collegues out in 6 to 9 months from now."
EB3 quota is like a spoon of rice from a bag of basmati :))
--LOL! True, but I thought it is good enough for 5 guys with PDs in 2001.
EB3 quota is like a spoon of rice from a bag of basmati :))
--LOL! True, but I thought it is good enough for 5 guys with PDs in 2001.
hot Jason Wahler, Brody Jenner
nozerd
09-07 09:34 AM
Just to clarify I will not be working in US at all. I will only work in Canada and getting paid in Canada. I will only come to US for personal reasons (meeting fly etc) not work. Can I use the H1 stamp to enter under those circumstances.
more...
house success of Lauren#39;s show
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-21 02:04 PM
suggestions? ^^^^^^^
1) Read the requirement of EB2. Find out who are eligible in this category (Experience and bla bla bla)
Masters Degree, Managerial Position, Bachelor + 5 years are eligible. I am saying this because my friends have applied in these three categories to be eligible for eb2.
2) Your new Labor (PERM) in Eb2 might take up 8-10 months.
3) Apply I-140, I do not know if we have Premium Processing for it.
4) Once I-140 is Approved you can port the EB3 priority date to Eb2.
In your case 04 Eb3 will be now 04 Eb2.
The I -485 will have the old priority date 04 Eb2.
Most of the porting that I have heard is done by jumping ship. You ask your new employer to file in Eb2 and after your I-140 is approved you apply the old priority to EB2.
1) Read the requirement of EB2. Find out who are eligible in this category (Experience and bla bla bla)
Masters Degree, Managerial Position, Bachelor + 5 years are eligible. I am saying this because my friends have applied in these three categories to be eligible for eb2.
2) Your new Labor (PERM) in Eb2 might take up 8-10 months.
3) Apply I-140, I do not know if we have Premium Processing for it.
4) Once I-140 is Approved you can port the EB3 priority date to Eb2.
In your case 04 Eb3 will be now 04 Eb2.
The I -485 will have the old priority date 04 Eb2.
Most of the porting that I have heard is done by jumping ship. You ask your new employer to file in Eb2 and after your I-140 is approved you apply the old priority to EB2.
tattoo rody jenner and lauren
mnq1979
06-26 09:39 AM
I jst got an update on my and my wife I-485; i am not sure what it is about as i have not received the RFE yet.....but i think they are asking for our BC as we did not provide them when we applied for I-485;
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
more...
pictures Brody Jenner amp; Frank
chanduv23
10-27 07:15 PM
Our first New York meet started with a small meet at a Starbucks in Manhattan. After that we have been having frequent meetups and the attendence is considerably increasing.
So for you all in IN it is a good start. Good luck
So for you all in IN it is a good start. Good luck
dresses Make Lauren Conrad Jealous
jsb
10-25 11:42 AM
I filed my application on July27th. Completed FP on 10th Oct. I have not received EAD yet. When i called USCIS, I got response to wait 90days from the receipt date.
USCIS is overhelmed with filings, so delay is everywhere. How come you got your FP done so fast? I filed on July 2, and got just receipts, nothing else.
USCIS is overhelmed with filings, so delay is everywhere. How come you got your FP done so fast? I filed on July 2, and got just receipts, nothing else.
more...
makeup L.A. playboy Brody Jenner,
smccrea
03-14 05:31 PM
What if a person creates a company (a c-corp) say to run a restaurant and works in it. I know a foreign national can own a corporation in the U.S.; but are there any estrictions on working in your own business?
girlfriend Brody Jenner 25th Birthday
eb2_mumbai
10-20 09:35 PM
First of all I am not going to judge you by your actions because I do not know the full story of why you did it.
Now coming back to your question. There are few things you need to do.
1) Talk to a reputed immigration attorney. Take consulting time and tell them the whole story honestly they are the best people to guide you
2) As far as I can tell you out of status triggers a bar of 10 years on immigration to US. Perhaps if your wife can least get out of country and come back (re-enter) into the country on a valid visa then after admission perhaps you can take advantage of 245 (k) clause that counts OOS from last lawful admission for GC processin, but there is a chance that she might be denied entry if CBP officer can see her OOS in the system for some reason.
My advice is what ever you do make sure you consult an attorney and not some friend or some one from a forum. You have already made situation difficult do not make it any worse.
Now coming back to your question. There are few things you need to do.
1) Talk to a reputed immigration attorney. Take consulting time and tell them the whole story honestly they are the best people to guide you
2) As far as I can tell you out of status triggers a bar of 10 years on immigration to US. Perhaps if your wife can least get out of country and come back (re-enter) into the country on a valid visa then after admission perhaps you can take advantage of 245 (k) clause that counts OOS from last lawful admission for GC processin, but there is a chance that she might be denied entry if CBP officer can see her OOS in the system for some reason.
My advice is what ever you do make sure you consult an attorney and not some friend or some one from a forum. You have already made situation difficult do not make it any worse.
hairstyles lauren conrad pratt bikini The
pokemon
05-27 12:37 PM
Thx
Pokemon
Pokemon
jfredr
08-10 03:29 PM
Reforms To Visa Programs For Highly Skilled Workers.
IMPROVING EXISTING IMMIGRATION
22. The Administration Will Reform And Expedite Background Checks For Immigration. Current mechanisms for conducting immigration background checks are backed up, slowing processing times and endangering national security. The Administration is investing substantial new funds to address the backlog, and the FBI and USCIS are working together on a variety of projects designed to streamline existing processes so as to reduce waiting times without sacrificing security.
23. The President Is Directing The Department Of Homeland Security And The Social Security Administration To Study The Technical And Recordkeeping Reforms Necessary To Guarantee That Illegal Aliens Do Not Earn Credit In Our Social Security System For Illegal Work. Currently, aliens who make Social Security payments while working here legally can continue to accrue credits even if they overstay their visa. Improved data-sharing can lay the foundation for eventual Congressional action to eliminate this practice (which proved an obstacle to comprehensive reform). The relevant agencies are ordered to report to the President with a detailed plan for eliminating the problem.
IMPROVING EXISTING IMMIGRATION
22. The Administration Will Reform And Expedite Background Checks For Immigration. Current mechanisms for conducting immigration background checks are backed up, slowing processing times and endangering national security. The Administration is investing substantial new funds to address the backlog, and the FBI and USCIS are working together on a variety of projects designed to streamline existing processes so as to reduce waiting times without sacrificing security.
23. The President Is Directing The Department Of Homeland Security And The Social Security Administration To Study The Technical And Recordkeeping Reforms Necessary To Guarantee That Illegal Aliens Do Not Earn Credit In Our Social Security System For Illegal Work. Currently, aliens who make Social Security payments while working here legally can continue to accrue credits even if they overstay their visa. Improved data-sharing can lay the foundation for eventual Congressional action to eliminate this practice (which proved an obstacle to comprehensive reform). The relevant agencies are ordered to report to the President with a detailed plan for eliminating the problem.
InTheMoment
07-17 09:32 PM
XM0625 is the officer id.
No comments:
Post a Comment