apb
08-17 10:03 PM
See all of you in rally !.
And you will there with your friend...//wink.. correct.
And you will there with your friend...//wink.. correct.
wallpaper animal cell cake ideas.
pd_recapturing
09-26 04:13 PM
Hi, I received the RNs of my wife and me (485,765 and 131) by calling the USCIS today. Online status check shows the receipt date of 09/24. I dont see my checks cashed yet. How much time it takes to get the check cashed ?
GcInLimbo
11-19 12:08 AM
Nope. H1 was rejected after 2 and half years of processing. I don't know the reasons for the rejection.
2011 3d animal cell cake.
sundarpn
04-14 04:45 PM
Hey all,
I have exactly 1.8 yrs left on my h1b. My 6th year starts March 2008.
I am in a permanent job now and my labor (EB3) priority date is Aug 2006.
I-140 with Nebraska has been pending for the last 6 months. (yes I am going to pay 1K and get it converted to premium )
I have another new job offer (permanent) from a company in bedford, boston.
The problem is the new company (like most big companies) will not start GC processing immediately. They may start after 3 months or after 6 months per policy. No commitments. :confused:
So Questions:
1. If the new employer submits labor after my 6th year starts, what are my options? (is it a risk?). In my experience with companies ( I am talking non desi, non consulting companies) it takes 6 months or more to get Perm labor filed.
2. I may not be able to port PD from my current employer as my I140 is still pending and if I give my notice, they will very well cancel it before it gets approved. (Even if I convert to premium now, it will take 3 weeks to get approval and I doubt if the new employer will wait). besides I am doubtful if I can get a copy of the 140 approval.
3. Another option I can think of is forget this offer.
Stick to my current employer, get I140 approved, get my 3 yr H1b extension and then try to switch when I have 3 more years. Is this even a practical / realistic option?
Appreciate any opinions.
I have exactly 1.8 yrs left on my h1b. My 6th year starts March 2008.
I am in a permanent job now and my labor (EB3) priority date is Aug 2006.
I-140 with Nebraska has been pending for the last 6 months. (yes I am going to pay 1K and get it converted to premium )
I have another new job offer (permanent) from a company in bedford, boston.
The problem is the new company (like most big companies) will not start GC processing immediately. They may start after 3 months or after 6 months per policy. No commitments. :confused:
So Questions:
1. If the new employer submits labor after my 6th year starts, what are my options? (is it a risk?). In my experience with companies ( I am talking non desi, non consulting companies) it takes 6 months or more to get Perm labor filed.
2. I may not be able to port PD from my current employer as my I140 is still pending and if I give my notice, they will very well cancel it before it gets approved. (Even if I convert to premium now, it will take 3 weeks to get approval and I doubt if the new employer will wait). besides I am doubtful if I can get a copy of the 140 approval.
3. Another option I can think of is forget this offer.
Stick to my current employer, get I140 approved, get my 3 yr H1b extension and then try to switch when I have 3 more years. Is this even a practical / realistic option?
Appreciate any opinions.
more...
LostInGCProcess
03-02 06:14 PM
Any one who had been through this process , can you please PM me or post attorney reference who is based in NJ .
i greatly appreciate your responses.
Could you PM me the name of the company that is causing so much trouble to you? That way I can be alert and also let my friends know not to join should they come across that company.
I am sorry, I don't know any attorneys that deal with civil cases like non-compete.
Thanks.
i greatly appreciate your responses.
Could you PM me the name of the company that is causing so much trouble to you? That way I can be alert and also let my friends know not to join should they come across that company.
I am sorry, I don't know any attorneys that deal with civil cases like non-compete.
Thanks.
bkam
05-18 10:30 PM
Every time when such "mistake" is made (honest mistake or on purpose), the core group and people who have been involved in the interview must react (faxes, letters, email) and stress that IV is international, not an ethnic group.
This is important for our common goal.
This is important for our common goal.
more...
JA1HIND
09-02 01:10 PM
I did not get any soft LUD. Will all the updates happening, folks getting second FP, I wanted to make sure my case is not getting delayed due to some mistake either on their or my part. If nothing else, upon changing the address using online means, USCIS should have sent me a notice in mail at my new address to confirm the change, which I did not get. Hence the query.
Question: did you update your new home mailing address online at USPS (Postal website) or using USCIS (Change address) at the time of updating your new mailing address? Initially you do receive a confirmation # when you fillout first part of online application then later you would see additional links at the bottom of page where it would ask for "are there any pending application" somthing like that...
If you did update using UCSIS website then did you enter your A# (that is if you have already applied for EAD/I-485 then you should have a A#) along with your pending receipt numbers?
I did change my home address for 4 times now in the past 2 years and everytime when updated using USCIS, I promptly received individual letters notification/confirmation for each family members (pending cases) that address was sucessfully updated.
Just a thought!!
Question: did you update your new home mailing address online at USPS (Postal website) or using USCIS (Change address) at the time of updating your new mailing address? Initially you do receive a confirmation # when you fillout first part of online application then later you would see additional links at the bottom of page where it would ask for "are there any pending application" somthing like that...
If you did update using UCSIS website then did you enter your A# (that is if you have already applied for EAD/I-485 then you should have a A#) along with your pending receipt numbers?
I did change my home address for 4 times now in the past 2 years and everytime when updated using USCIS, I promptly received individual letters notification/confirmation for each family members (pending cases) that address was sucessfully updated.
Just a thought!!
2010 3d animal cell cake.
a1b2c3
12-19 11:39 AM
If you think you displaced some americans, please give back their jobs and leave the country.:rolleyes:. Your GC status need not stop you from doing so.
Not before you give yours back. you are a temp anyways. you don't even have to surrender your gc.
Not before you give yours back. you are a temp anyways. you don't even have to surrender your gc.
more...
dipu76
06-01 06:16 PM
It is illegal.
It will be great if someone can send me any reference to confirm that it is illegal..
It will be great if someone can send me any reference to confirm that it is illegal..
hair hot 3D Animal Cell Project by 3d animal cell cake.
prasadn
09-10 08:54 PM
hello every1,
I was wondering how many of you are here who had applied their labor with MS + 0 years of experience for EB2 category..
Could you please shed some light on your profile and current standing in GC process ??
Thank youu....
My current position was advertised as MS with 0 years experience even though I had MS + 4 years experience. However I applied in old labor system (pre-PERM).
I was wondering how many of you are here who had applied their labor with MS + 0 years of experience for EB2 category..
Could you please shed some light on your profile and current standing in GC process ??
Thank youu....
My current position was advertised as MS with 0 years experience even though I had MS + 4 years experience. However I applied in old labor system (pre-PERM).
more...
EkAurAaya
03-19 10:23 PM
There are no TAX on selling price as long as you stayed in the house for 2 year , you can exclude up to $250,000 ($500,000 for a married couple)
If you meet the two-year ownership and use tests for a principal residence, and don't sell more than one principal residence in any two-year period, you can exclude any capital gain tax on the sale - up to the $250,000 or $500,000
When you close your sale, your real state lawer will pay to your bank, your real estate agent, your reality transfer fee and other misc fee like Attorney fee etc.
I have sold 2 houses in last 7 years and no real estate lawyer ever asked for 10% tax!!!
More over are you making any money on the property sale now a days?!
FED allows
Thanks for confirming! No i m not looking to sell in this market :D (although if i have to sell i will still break even) i have a rental property that i was thinking of selling early last year and the lawyer mentioned this to me... so i wanted to confirm!
If you meet the two-year ownership and use tests for a principal residence, and don't sell more than one principal residence in any two-year period, you can exclude any capital gain tax on the sale - up to the $250,000 or $500,000
When you close your sale, your real state lawer will pay to your bank, your real estate agent, your reality transfer fee and other misc fee like Attorney fee etc.
I have sold 2 houses in last 7 years and no real estate lawyer ever asked for 10% tax!!!
More over are you making any money on the property sale now a days?!
FED allows
Thanks for confirming! No i m not looking to sell in this market :D (although if i have to sell i will still break even) i have a rental property that i was thinking of selling early last year and the lawyer mentioned this to me... so i wanted to confirm!
hot Animal Cell Model 3d - Page 2
hojo
09-04 09:12 PM
awesome, thanks for the tutorial, thats mighty handy Jubba
more...
house 3d Animal Cell Diagram With;
njboy
05-08 10:33 AM
Pa** may be denigratory in England, but to me, its like saying "desi". Is "desi" denigratory too? I was just guiding our friend to forums that might be able to help him better. Im sorry if any offence was taken.
Kind regards
Kind regards
tattoo animal cell out of cake.
cchada
09-02 09:50 PM
Congrates ...
Does PCC taken at Indian Consulate in US is vaild or do we need get form local police station and Passport office in India ????
Does PCC taken at Indian Consulate in US is vaild or do we need get form local police station and Passport office in India ????
more...
pictures 3d animal cell model project
kaisersose
07-16 11:52 AM
That does not make sense! Peaople on H4 are not allowed to work, period! Thats how the Visa category is defined. Now, how will one on H4 to work? Enter EAD! So, while EAD allows him/her to work, it changes the Visa status (be it H1 or H4) to AOS. It does not matter if you travel outside or not.
I do not know how you extended your spouse's H4 with the help of the attorney. It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
AOS is adjustment of status that starts when you apply for your 485. It is has nothing to do with using or not using EADs.
AOS obviously is independent of H status. A H-1 can choose to continue to use the H status after 485 as the two can coexist.
Like I said earlier, using EAD does not change the status.
I do not know how you extended your spouse's H4 with the help of the attorney. It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
AOS is adjustment of status that starts when you apply for your 485. It is has nothing to do with using or not using EADs.
AOS obviously is independent of H status. A H-1 can choose to continue to use the H status after 485 as the two can coexist.
Like I said earlier, using EAD does not change the status.
dresses animal cell cake ideas. 3d
savitri.bhave
07-05 08:52 PM
This is a very basic question and I need answer on this as early as possible and guidance from you.
I came to this country in Dec 2001 on H1B Visa.
I never applied for green card since then.
Now on Dec1,2007 my H1B expires so I will have to go back to China.
If I file for green card at this point, will I be able to get the yearly extension for next few years till my GC comes?
Am I even eligible to do so?
Can I go to Canada and still work in USA (Since I live close to canadian border)?
I came to this country in Dec 2001 on H1B Visa.
I never applied for green card since then.
Now on Dec1,2007 my H1B expires so I will have to go back to China.
If I file for green card at this point, will I be able to get the yearly extension for next few years till my GC comes?
Am I even eligible to do so?
Can I go to Canada and still work in USA (Since I live close to canadian border)?
more...
makeup 2010 3d animal cell cake.
lazycis
02-13 01:20 PM
"But the stranger who dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were once strangers..." Leviticus 19:34
girlfriend 3d animal cell cake.
rinkurazdan
05-31 11:17 AM
Keep the cash rolling...for that will only save us from the gross injustice.
hairstyles 3d animal cell cake. how to
kzinjuwadia
05-25 01:22 PM
After receiving GC do we have to report to SSN to change the SSN card but with same number. Existing card says work paper required.
Any anyone knows action item required after receiving GC then please post here?
Ppl do that; but I don't think it's a compulsory thing. Maybe it's good to remove one of the last traces of being non-immigrant in US ;)
Any anyone knows action item required after receiving GC then please post here?
Ppl do that; but I don't think it's a compulsory thing. Maybe it's good to remove one of the last traces of being non-immigrant in US ;)
GCOP
04-21 11:10 AM
It took 5 weeks to get it renewed because our old passports were issued in India. So they might be sending letter for confirmation to the passport office in India (Where it was originally issued) and once they receive it, they issue the new passports. For old passports issued by the Embassy in USA, it is faster.
Regarding contacting them, keep dialling (202) 939-9888, you might be able to talk with them, in one of the attempt. I was able to talk with them, the same way.
How long did it take for you to renew the passport. My appointment date is on Apr 03 and they received my documents on March 31st. I did not get the passport yet. Do you have a number to call them. I called all the numbers listed on the website and no one answers.
Regarding contacting them, keep dialling (202) 939-9888, you might be able to talk with them, in one of the attempt. I was able to talk with them, the same way.
How long did it take for you to renew the passport. My appointment date is on Apr 03 and they received my documents on March 31st. I did not get the passport yet. Do you have a number to call them. I called all the numbers listed on the website and no one answers.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment