vdlrao
07-16 06:05 PM
EB2 is current now..."EB2 will be current within a year" gives an impression that EB2 which is not current will get current in one year...
I mean EB2 India will be current with in a year.
I mean EB2 India will be current with in a year.
wallpaper hairstyles 2011 smoking weed
delax
07-25 09:47 AM
IMO, both arguments and are valid as far as speculations are concerned. It all depends on perspective. In this thread, we are focusing on statistics and calculations. I my self did lot of calculations. However, objectively looking at Ron's comments, it appears like his concern and underlying message is what if USCIS won't adjudicate enough numbers and wastes visa numbers as it did lot of times. He is basing his prediction on years of experience. With recent pressure on DOS/USCIS to use visa number, I think, they are making an attempt to use up all numbers and that will definitely bring life to our calculations. But what If they do not do that.....and their 'target' is a low number.
What you say can certainly happen, but I beleive that the pressure on USCIS is exponentially greater after last summer. People are watching their every step very closely. They got away with their inefficiency in prior years because the bottleneck was not USCIS - it was DOL that took a zillion years to clear labor petitions. Additionally the visa recapture of 2000 ensured no retrogression until 2005. Even after 2005 there were very few 485's to approve because of a) very low perm applications/approvals in 2005 and early 2006 and b) all the 2003/2004 labors were stuck in BEC's and were approved only in late 2006 or early 2007 (like yours truly - mine was actually an RIR but the BEC classified it as Traditional Recruitment and began recruiting for the position - but thats another story).
Net net; USCIS inefficiency was masked under DOL's backlog - but now their transgressions are out in the open and they cant hide anymore behind DOL especially after last summer.
As much as Ron Gotcher has been accurate in the past, I think he is missing the point this time. At an ulterior level he needs to show USCIS in poor light because he only recommends CP for his clients. If I were his client and I hear him say that this year USCIS is different then I am bound to switch over from CP to AOS!
What you say can certainly happen, but I beleive that the pressure on USCIS is exponentially greater after last summer. People are watching their every step very closely. They got away with their inefficiency in prior years because the bottleneck was not USCIS - it was DOL that took a zillion years to clear labor petitions. Additionally the visa recapture of 2000 ensured no retrogression until 2005. Even after 2005 there were very few 485's to approve because of a) very low perm applications/approvals in 2005 and early 2006 and b) all the 2003/2004 labors were stuck in BEC's and were approved only in late 2006 or early 2007 (like yours truly - mine was actually an RIR but the BEC classified it as Traditional Recruitment and began recruiting for the position - but thats another story).
Net net; USCIS inefficiency was masked under DOL's backlog - but now their transgressions are out in the open and they cant hide anymore behind DOL especially after last summer.
As much as Ron Gotcher has been accurate in the past, I think he is missing the point this time. At an ulterior level he needs to show USCIS in poor light because he only recommends CP for his clients. If I were his client and I hear him say that this year USCIS is different then I am bound to switch over from CP to AOS!
apb
12-14 02:24 PM
I really don't see how removing the per country ceilings alone without increasing the anual quota will help the entire comminity. If you do that alone all it will do is make the date retrogressed for all the countries even further. So where's the gain?
Getting the anual quota increased, not counting dependents in the quota and recapturing visas from passed years will help EVERYBODY.
If people want to think that something petty as removing the per country quota is going to solve all our problms then all the best (and God bless us all) ! :cool:
PS - Pardon me if this sounds harsh but this is how I see it.
We need to understand that the basic premise of the removing the per country limit uses the assumption that there is enough visa for all of us. But sadly this is not true. We have ask for increasing the GC limit from 140000 to xyz. The last increase was in 1990 which was after 14 years. Now 18 years have passed and there is no change in that direction.
Increasing limit cannot be fought in the court. It requires changes in law. Removing dependents from EB based GC consumption also cannot be decided in court. But removing per country limit for EB/GC can be decided in court. Just because we are fighting for one does not mean we are ignoring other agendas of IV.
Getting the anual quota increased, not counting dependents in the quota and recapturing visas from passed years will help EVERYBODY.
If people want to think that something petty as removing the per country quota is going to solve all our problms then all the best (and God bless us all) ! :cool:
PS - Pardon me if this sounds harsh but this is how I see it.
We need to understand that the basic premise of the removing the per country limit uses the assumption that there is enough visa for all of us. But sadly this is not true. We have ask for increasing the GC limit from 140000 to xyz. The last increase was in 1990 which was after 14 years. Now 18 years have passed and there is no change in that direction.
Increasing limit cannot be fought in the court. It requires changes in law. Removing dependents from EB based GC consumption also cannot be decided in court. But removing per country limit for EB/GC can be decided in court. Just because we are fighting for one does not mean we are ignoring other agendas of IV.
2011 Kristen Stewart and Robert
newbie2020
07-03 09:41 PM
My LC applied in Feb 2008
LC approved Apr 2008
I-140 Applied May 2008
My 6th yr H1B expires Dec 2008
H1B Maxout Jan 2008
I am short by around 20 days Should i recapture the days by going out of country for 20 days and apply H1B 1yr extension, Will i Qualify for 3 yrs in this case...?
or should i just Apply for I-140 PP in Oct 2008 and 3 yr H1B Extension without worrying about recapturing 20 days.
LC approved Apr 2008
I-140 Applied May 2008
My 6th yr H1B expires Dec 2008
H1B Maxout Jan 2008
I am short by around 20 days Should i recapture the days by going out of country for 20 days and apply H1B 1yr extension, Will i Qualify for 3 yrs in this case...?
or should i just Apply for I-140 PP in Oct 2008 and 3 yr H1B Extension without worrying about recapturing 20 days.
more...
eastindia
10-15 03:42 PM
proengineer why did you create a new profile to post this?
Why are you marketing a lawyer?
Why are you marketing a lawyer?
sroyc
02-12 08:44 PM
I don't think Abhijit chose the right analogy, so your response to that makes sense.
India and China are not sending multiple skilled-immigrant teams to the US. They have come here on their own either to work or study and they are being hired by American companies on the basis of merit, same as everyone else.
Other than the fact that there is a large talent pool of high-tech workers in India and China, there's nothing that stops them for hiring more skilled immigrants from other countries.
If the US truly believes in a quota system for employment based immigration, it should reflect in the workforce first. Enforce the quota system while issuing F1/H1 visas. Then you will also ensure true diversity (only among immigrants) in the workforce.
What you have is two classes of immigrant workers in the same company - those who belong to retrogressed categories and those who are not, with similar qualifications and with similar roles. The difference is that in a few years, the workers who get the green card sooner will have the ability to pursue other opportunities while the other class of workers grind away. With the current scenario, a future colleague from a ROW country can join 6-8 years after me and still get the green card ahead of me. How can you say that it is not discrimination?
If you remove the per country quota, the ROW candidates might have to wait for 3 years instead of 1, but the Indian/Chinese candidates will have to wait for 3 years instead of 8-10. I don't think removing the per country quota will harm ROW folks as much as it'll benefit Indians and Chinese AND it'll ensure fairness.
Per country limit applies to every country in exactly the same way. It doesn't discriminate between Chad or China. So, how is it discrimination? And think about it- in Olympics soccer/basketball every country can send only one team. Should China and India be allowed to send more teams since they have a larger population? We should try to increase the number of GCs.
India and China are not sending multiple skilled-immigrant teams to the US. They have come here on their own either to work or study and they are being hired by American companies on the basis of merit, same as everyone else.
Other than the fact that there is a large talent pool of high-tech workers in India and China, there's nothing that stops them for hiring more skilled immigrants from other countries.
If the US truly believes in a quota system for employment based immigration, it should reflect in the workforce first. Enforce the quota system while issuing F1/H1 visas. Then you will also ensure true diversity (only among immigrants) in the workforce.
What you have is two classes of immigrant workers in the same company - those who belong to retrogressed categories and those who are not, with similar qualifications and with similar roles. The difference is that in a few years, the workers who get the green card sooner will have the ability to pursue other opportunities while the other class of workers grind away. With the current scenario, a future colleague from a ROW country can join 6-8 years after me and still get the green card ahead of me. How can you say that it is not discrimination?
If you remove the per country quota, the ROW candidates might have to wait for 3 years instead of 1, but the Indian/Chinese candidates will have to wait for 3 years instead of 8-10. I don't think removing the per country quota will harm ROW folks as much as it'll benefit Indians and Chinese AND it'll ensure fairness.
Per country limit applies to every country in exactly the same way. It doesn't discriminate between Chad or China. So, how is it discrimination? And think about it- in Olympics soccer/basketball every country can send only one team. Should China and India be allowed to send more teams since they have a larger population? We should try to increase the number of GCs.
more...
amitjoey
07-03 04:59 PM
If we report "Unofficial report of Scandal at USCIS". That will be picked up by everyone. I am sending it to all the reporters, please help out. We need hundreds of emails to be sent out to create the ripple, or should I say the flood.
4th of JULY is a great day to get this published.
4th of JULY is a great day to get this published.
2010 kristen stewart smoking a bowl
needhelp!
09-23 05:28 PM
Fifteen minutes is well worth the time to influence a $2 trillion enterprise.
more...
JA1HIND
02-13 07:37 AM
How about everyone who came up with this idea on this thread. Why should IV core or murthy or someone do this ?
Does any one on this forum happen to know an approximate dollar amount that would cost for if we (IV team) is planning to proceed further with this class action law suite on USCIS?? the reason I am asking for is if we have known dollar amount/target amount in hand it makes it easy for all to start contributing towards this target amount and proceed further with law suite.
I am sure someone on IV team would create a separate bucket for this specific class action law suite task and keep track of amount that's been collected...
Yes, I totally support this class action suite and also willing to support as mush as I can financially....
Does any one on this forum happen to know an approximate dollar amount that would cost for if we (IV team) is planning to proceed further with this class action law suite on USCIS?? the reason I am asking for is if we have known dollar amount/target amount in hand it makes it easy for all to start contributing towards this target amount and proceed further with law suite.
I am sure someone on IV team would create a separate bucket for this specific class action law suite task and keep track of amount that's been collected...
Yes, I totally support this class action suite and also willing to support as mush as I can financially....
hair 2011 kristen stewart ring
Jerrome
09-24 10:25 AM
When can I get my gc based on these uscis data for sept 2005 eb-2.Please suggest me.
100% by this time next year if the spill over rules are not changed. If they are changed then in next 5 years.
(India upto september 2005 got almost 15K) per year india got 3500, do the math.
100% by this time next year if the spill over rules are not changed. If they are changed then in next 5 years.
(India upto september 2005 got almost 15K) per year india got 3500, do the math.
more...
ilikekilo
07-10 11:32 AM
Wish you the very best byeusa......
I might be moving to Canada next summer if there is no progress in my case here...My PD is Nov 2003 EB-3...I got my Canadian PR in May 2005 and I have until May 2008 to move.....So keeping my fingers crossed..I too work for a Canadian company in US.....Wish you good luck...
how long did it take you get your canadian PR adn when did u apply? please share
I might be moving to Canada next summer if there is no progress in my case here...My PD is Nov 2003 EB-3...I got my Canadian PR in May 2005 and I have until May 2008 to move.....So keeping my fingers crossed..I too work for a Canadian company in US.....Wish you good luck...
how long did it take you get your canadian PR adn when did u apply? please share
hot 2011 Kristen Stewart Smoking:
BharatPremi
12-14 02:38 PM
Nope. UK and Pakistan would then join the club of India & China. ROW is an artificial construct. The reason USCIS posts priority dates for India, China, Mexico and Philippines separately is that applicants from these countries are typically, and especially over subscribed. ROW countries are just countries which are not typically over subscribed in the EB category.
So what you are saying, in other words, is 7% limit is for every country in the world (Except USA:)) correct?
So what you are saying, in other words, is 7% limit is for every country in the world (Except USA:)) correct?
more...
house tagged kristen stewart kstew
vdlrao
09-15 02:44 PM
I just wondering seeing these estimated numbers, with out having a proper information, for the given years.
tattoo 2011 kristen stewart smoking
caliducas
07-13 09:40 AM
Alright! Back to the US immigration deal! There is still hope and the battle is not over. So I wish you all the best with your cases. Mine has not been rejected/returned yet since my application was delivered on July 3rd. I don't know what will happen, but there is still hope!!!
:)
:)
more...
pictures kristen stewart smoking a
rahulpaper
06-27 09:26 PM
Based on this, I have again (yes, again) emailed by immigration lawyer and sent him the AILA's URL (although I cant see it coz I am not member of AILA).
IF AILA reports that they stopped accepting new 485 petitions for EB3-other, then it is pretty freaking scary and that means that what my lawyer told me "I cant happen, bla bla bla..." is really not 100% accurate. If it happened in June, it can happen in July. This is now REALLLLY SCARY, coz my lawyer has plans for July-end for filing.
Ever since the dates got current, it has been more stressful than the time when dates were retrogressed and almost makes me miss the retrogression days when I didnt have to depend on the lawyers for my career.
It is indeed scary...I guess rumors can come to haunt us...I know that mine is not going in before mid july...we are seeing that is visible but doesnt exist...May be august bulletin (like predicted by USCIS) will still be "C"....GOOD LUCK to all. Irony of life is...all my life i gave exams in an effort to not get a "C"....and now all i pray for is just another "C"...
IF AILA reports that they stopped accepting new 485 petitions for EB3-other, then it is pretty freaking scary and that means that what my lawyer told me "I cant happen, bla bla bla..." is really not 100% accurate. If it happened in June, it can happen in July. This is now REALLLLY SCARY, coz my lawyer has plans for July-end for filing.
Ever since the dates got current, it has been more stressful than the time when dates were retrogressed and almost makes me miss the retrogression days when I didnt have to depend on the lawyers for my career.
It is indeed scary...I guess rumors can come to haunt us...I know that mine is not going in before mid july...we are seeing that is visible but doesnt exist...May be august bulletin (like predicted by USCIS) will still be "C"....GOOD LUCK to all. Irony of life is...all my life i gave exams in an effort to not get a "C"....and now all i pray for is just another "C"...
dresses girlfriend kristen stewart
PlainSpeak
01-13 06:56 PM
My friend ..I care for you.
MC
Ahh MC you are a charming person using your charm to hit below the belt
Now what do i do with you....
I guess i will let this slide because i am not sure what your intentions
If your next post are more informative maybe there would be a better reply (I know not that you care)
Cherio
MC
Ahh MC you are a charming person using your charm to hit below the belt
Now what do i do with you....
I guess i will let this slide because i am not sure what your intentions
If your next post are more informative maybe there would be a better reply (I know not that you care)
Cherio
more...
makeup 2011 kristen stewart smoking
abhijitp
07-04 11:24 AM
I have more emial addresses if you want them.....
someone pls tell me how to upload , i have now an .xls file of media contacts, about 931k in size.
someone pls tell me how to upload , i have now an .xls file of media contacts, about 931k in size.
girlfriend kristen stewart smoking
nozerd
09-30 01:22 PM
Well we are Indian citizens so we would have to carry passport anyway. What you mention is only a concern for Canadian nationals and that too they dont need visa. They only need passport for ID instead of DL.
hairstyles kristen stewart smoking
Macaca
06-28 08:09 PM
but if USCIS knew this (that June+July can finish all the numbers for 2007) then why does the visa bulletin talk about retrogression in September timeframe for India/China? Why not August itself?
That is why I (and my lawyer) expected dates to continue in July + Aug. I actually expected USCIS to continue and use 2008 quota and start retrogressing in Nov 2007.
My analysis is based on info in Ombudsman report. May be there is more stuff! May be something changed! May be they did not have # of adj applicants.
We can complain to Ombudsman!
That is why I (and my lawyer) expected dates to continue in July + Aug. I actually expected USCIS to continue and use 2008 quota and start retrogressing in Nov 2007.
My analysis is based on info in Ombudsman report. May be there is more stuff! May be something changed! May be they did not have # of adj applicants.
We can complain to Ombudsman!
pmat
04-09 10:36 AM
I have some questions about the Canadian immigration application:
1. Birth certificates: They are asking for the Birth Certificates with the application. I and my wife don't have our birth registered in India. Can we provide birth certificates that the Indian embassy sends for this purpose? For US I-485, we were planning to use Non-availability certificates.
2. Experience Letter: Will a notarized letter from colleague work for showing work-exp in India. Please note that I already have over 4 yrs of experience in US after that - for which I will manage to get a work exp letter from my company.
3. Status in US: My H1B is valid until Oct 2009, but I don't have the visa stamped on my passport (last H1B visa stamp expired). Can I send a copy of I-797 to prove my status? Also, my wife's F-1 visa has expired but she has a valid I-20 until Dec 2007. Can I send copy of I-20 for proving her valid status in US?
I would really appreciate if someone can provide insight in these concerns.
Thanks,
pmat
1. Birth certificates: They are asking for the Birth Certificates with the application. I and my wife don't have our birth registered in India. Can we provide birth certificates that the Indian embassy sends for this purpose? For US I-485, we were planning to use Non-availability certificates.
2. Experience Letter: Will a notarized letter from colleague work for showing work-exp in India. Please note that I already have over 4 yrs of experience in US after that - for which I will manage to get a work exp letter from my company.
3. Status in US: My H1B is valid until Oct 2009, but I don't have the visa stamped on my passport (last H1B visa stamp expired). Can I send a copy of I-797 to prove my status? Also, my wife's F-1 visa has expired but she has a valid I-20 until Dec 2007. Can I send copy of I-20 for proving her valid status in US?
I would really appreciate if someone can provide insight in these concerns.
Thanks,
pmat
BharatPremi
12-13 01:22 PM
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
I am not a lawyer. Here is my understanding as a lay man:
What is constitution?
A: At some point of time, group of people, with having confidence from
majority of people, with a centralizing tone of some common
philosophy/ethics, create the framework of regulations with a goal to make
society orderely, to make sure that common good of people remains
prevalent and maintained and assures the penalty for deed done agianst
common good and breaking the common order of the society. Wise ones,
accepting the limit of individual capabilities, understanding the different
needs of the society at different time, keep windows opened to improve
the "base" constitution with making sure all checks and balances do not
allow the misuse and hecnce the word "Amendment/s" have the existence.
Now there has to be some base ground when base consitution is prepared.
What that could be? During the process of human evolution, with accumulated experience of centuries, human societies have established some common practices which we now name "Ethics" and amazingly many are similar across many culture. For example, Burglary is considered crime in each and every society without any question or difference. Why?.. I do not like somebody snatches away my chain as in my mind I have established my ownership to that chain. You also do not like it somebody snatches away your car.If there are only two humans on earth, things might have been simpler considering one is burglar of those two. But here in society now every body has to establish the proof that s/he is aowner of something and somebody else snatches that away then it is not good. So wise ones decided (to keep
controlled and organized society) made a rule : "From today we will call the act of snatching something away from somebody an act of crime if the person can prove that s/he is the original owner of that thing and let's call that person a "burglar" because he snatched away the thing" Now it was suited to everybody because it was protecting their belonging so that was established as "Ethics" and stories of "criminal behaviour"were created by every society for snatching away the thing from somebody. That make every human understand the fact that snatching away is bad thing
(if done openly:), If lawyer snatches away big money from your pocket .. no it is not a crime or that matter USCIS... just kidding :))
Now making story short, after 200/300 years of evolution, USA has legally decided to push the "Ethics" of employment: "Equivalent Oppertunity to all Citizens without race, creed, color, country of origin" and "Skill is the criteria of an employment" Now when these ethical and progressive principals are already implemented for common good of citizens, it should be implemented for foreign labor (non immigrants/immigrants).
Can we "constitutionally" label some person that, hey you will be called burglar if you snatches thing away from US born person but you will not be called burglar if you snatches away the thing from pakistani or Sweedish or Chiense who has just arrived in this country?
So bootmline: If at all constitution is permitting "per country based ceilings" then
we will have to fight to change that because it is not right.
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
I am not a lawyer. Here is my understanding as a lay man:
What is constitution?
A: At some point of time, group of people, with having confidence from
majority of people, with a centralizing tone of some common
philosophy/ethics, create the framework of regulations with a goal to make
society orderely, to make sure that common good of people remains
prevalent and maintained and assures the penalty for deed done agianst
common good and breaking the common order of the society. Wise ones,
accepting the limit of individual capabilities, understanding the different
needs of the society at different time, keep windows opened to improve
the "base" constitution with making sure all checks and balances do not
allow the misuse and hecnce the word "Amendment/s" have the existence.
Now there has to be some base ground when base consitution is prepared.
What that could be? During the process of human evolution, with accumulated experience of centuries, human societies have established some common practices which we now name "Ethics" and amazingly many are similar across many culture. For example, Burglary is considered crime in each and every society without any question or difference. Why?.. I do not like somebody snatches away my chain as in my mind I have established my ownership to that chain. You also do not like it somebody snatches away your car.If there are only two humans on earth, things might have been simpler considering one is burglar of those two. But here in society now every body has to establish the proof that s/he is aowner of something and somebody else snatches that away then it is not good. So wise ones decided (to keep
controlled and organized society) made a rule : "From today we will call the act of snatching something away from somebody an act of crime if the person can prove that s/he is the original owner of that thing and let's call that person a "burglar" because he snatched away the thing" Now it was suited to everybody because it was protecting their belonging so that was established as "Ethics" and stories of "criminal behaviour"were created by every society for snatching away the thing from somebody. That make every human understand the fact that snatching away is bad thing
(if done openly:), If lawyer snatches away big money from your pocket .. no it is not a crime or that matter USCIS... just kidding :))
Now making story short, after 200/300 years of evolution, USA has legally decided to push the "Ethics" of employment: "Equivalent Oppertunity to all Citizens without race, creed, color, country of origin" and "Skill is the criteria of an employment" Now when these ethical and progressive principals are already implemented for common good of citizens, it should be implemented for foreign labor (non immigrants/immigrants).
Can we "constitutionally" label some person that, hey you will be called burglar if you snatches thing away from US born person but you will not be called burglar if you snatches away the thing from pakistani or Sweedish or Chiense who has just arrived in this country?
So bootmline: If at all constitution is permitting "per country based ceilings" then
we will have to fight to change that because it is not right.
No comments:
Post a Comment