pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
wallpaper cross tattoos for girls on
dsairam
09-10 02:50 PM
Landed on 03/1997 on H1B. Didn't file for GC until 2003 as plan was to work for 2-3 years, get into an MBA program, and then go back.
MBA resulted in loans of $120K which in turn meant spending some more time in the US which resulted in buying a house which resulted in even bigger loan.
Now living the American "dream" on EAD.
MBA resulted in loans of $120K which in turn meant spending some more time in the US which resulted in buying a house which resulted in even bigger loan.
Now living the American "dream" on EAD.
gcformeornot
05-31 12:41 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2011 tattoo Side Tattoos For
GCplease
03-11 01:19 PM
I received the rfe details today..Here is my list of documents needed by uscis
1) updated properly completed form G-325A
2) employment letter from my new employer to prove that i am working on the same/similar job as my LC (since I did not submit AC21 documents), I need to do it now, since I changed my address and the letter mentions that I am not staying in the same state as of my original LC and now they require AC21 documents.
Hi eb3retro,
I understand from your signature that you Receipt date is 7/2/07. was your case transferred to Vermont or something and transferred back to TSC. Do you know what was the Receipt date mentioned in the Transfer Notice.
I am just trying to guess when they may come to my case. My receipt date for 485 was from Vermont and is 7/31/07. But then it was transferred back to Texas and this has a Receipt date of 10/1/07. I am just trying to find out which Receipt date will be considered to pre-adjudicate my application.
Thanks.
1) updated properly completed form G-325A
2) employment letter from my new employer to prove that i am working on the same/similar job as my LC (since I did not submit AC21 documents), I need to do it now, since I changed my address and the letter mentions that I am not staying in the same state as of my original LC and now they require AC21 documents.
Hi eb3retro,
I understand from your signature that you Receipt date is 7/2/07. was your case transferred to Vermont or something and transferred back to TSC. Do you know what was the Receipt date mentioned in the Transfer Notice.
I am just trying to guess when they may come to my case. My receipt date for 485 was from Vermont and is 7/31/07. But then it was transferred back to Texas and this has a Receipt date of 10/1/07. I am just trying to find out which Receipt date will be considered to pre-adjudicate my application.
Thanks.
more...
bigboy007
06-04 11:59 AM
why not ? 140 and 485 can be filed at same time if dates become current.
yoda
09-13 03:00 PM
Sent this to Boston Globe and the largest TV Channel of NH (WMUR Channel 9)
more...
addsf345
11-17 02:23 PM
One of IV members 'lazycis' (he is a knowledgable & senior member) also mentioned this, which exactly matches with what RG said:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisions. I hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
Pardon my ignorance, but is this something we can ask clarification from CIS Ombudsman? Its real confusing:confused:
Some updates: I talked to two different lawyers and both advised differently on this issue. In fact I got the impression that one of them didn't have much clue as much as some experienced IV members have. (He said if job titles are different than you have issues...) There are many people hanging on to their current employer due to confusion on this issue and potential effect on pending GC.
and the great question continues to haunt: can a person keep working legally on EAD status if his/hers I-485 gets revoked in error by CIS? or he will be forced to resign from a new job when his MTR is being filed or in progress??? This is really killing me. Who has the answer? if anyone knows, please please share!
lazycis, chanduv - anyone to comment on above new information???
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisions. I hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
Pardon my ignorance, but is this something we can ask clarification from CIS Ombudsman? Its real confusing:confused:
Some updates: I talked to two different lawyers and both advised differently on this issue. In fact I got the impression that one of them didn't have much clue as much as some experienced IV members have. (He said if job titles are different than you have issues...) There are many people hanging on to their current employer due to confusion on this issue and potential effect on pending GC.
and the great question continues to haunt: can a person keep working legally on EAD status if his/hers I-485 gets revoked in error by CIS? or he will be forced to resign from a new job when his MTR is being filed or in progress??? This is really killing me. Who has the answer? if anyone knows, please please share!
lazycis, chanduv - anyone to comment on above new information???
2010 flower side cross tattoos
deshbhakt
09-11 04:57 PM
Why is everybody so freaking out? arent they going to release new visas for FY 2009 in October? My assumption is November's bulletin will take care of the cut off dates based on those visa numbers.
Please correct me if my thinking is incorrect.
Please correct me if my thinking is incorrect.
more...
h1techSlave
10-01 12:13 PM
This loss of visas is due to:
gaps in USCIS� accounting of cases;
USCIS not processing enough pending applications in a timely manner; and
the imprecise art of predicting workflows and demand surges at three federal agencies:
Department of Labor (DOL) (approves labor certifications);
USCIS (processes immigration petitions after completion of labor certifications and processes green card applications for applicants in the United States); and
DOS (establishes priority dates and processes immigrant visas from applicants outside the United States).
Macaca, thanks for the analysis.
My question is, is IV paying enough attention to this?
What I have seen is that IV is spending 80% of its energy to change the current immigration law (increase the EB visa numbers in some fashion etc.). As far as I can see, this is not going any where due to a variety of reasons.
Is it time to rethink our priorities? If we put more of our collective energy to force USCIS to do a better job, will we get better results? Sure, the immigration law needs fixing. But our predicament is not due to immigration law. Our predicament is that the USCIS is not doing a good job. They are only working 4 hours a day. (I saw a post from a person who went and looked around the USCIS parking lot on a Friday :D. He/She says the parking lot was empty in the afternoon.).
I suggest that the IV core spend 80% of energy in fixing the USCIS bottleneck. We should have another rally infront of the USCIS doorsteps (or a flower campaign or a card campaign or a degree copy sending campaign). 20% of the energy can still be spent on fixing immigration law.
gaps in USCIS� accounting of cases;
USCIS not processing enough pending applications in a timely manner; and
the imprecise art of predicting workflows and demand surges at three federal agencies:
Department of Labor (DOL) (approves labor certifications);
USCIS (processes immigration petitions after completion of labor certifications and processes green card applications for applicants in the United States); and
DOS (establishes priority dates and processes immigrant visas from applicants outside the United States).
Macaca, thanks for the analysis.
My question is, is IV paying enough attention to this?
What I have seen is that IV is spending 80% of its energy to change the current immigration law (increase the EB visa numbers in some fashion etc.). As far as I can see, this is not going any where due to a variety of reasons.
Is it time to rethink our priorities? If we put more of our collective energy to force USCIS to do a better job, will we get better results? Sure, the immigration law needs fixing. But our predicament is not due to immigration law. Our predicament is that the USCIS is not doing a good job. They are only working 4 hours a day. (I saw a post from a person who went and looked around the USCIS parking lot on a Friday :D. He/She says the parking lot was empty in the afternoon.).
I suggest that the IV core spend 80% of energy in fixing the USCIS bottleneck. We should have another rally infront of the USCIS doorsteps (or a flower campaign or a card campaign or a degree copy sending campaign). 20% of the energy can still be spent on fixing immigration law.
hair cross tattoos for girls on
kate123
08-23 08:21 AM
Does it mean the eligibility criteria/job requirement for EB2 is changed from Bachelors + 5 years of experience to Bachelors + 10 years of experience?
This line is not good:
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
This line is not good:
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
more...
rajeev_74
04-25 05:33 PM
Tell me, in any of the bills that came in 2005, PACE, CIR. Dream Act etc., or later, IS there even one mention or a discussion of changing the PD? Let's discuss more on how to bring out more into the open, the issues the H1 visa holders are facing from their small time employers in applying for permanent residence, backlog issues and how redtape is destroying these young men's goals, about lack of visa numbers.
Why there is even a provision in the last Senate bill, for illegals to SELF petition for GC, if employer doen't apply in 2 years. Let's discuss about a similar provision for H1 visa holders who are legally working here, paying taxes. Let's discuss even more important issue.
Why should we pay, SS Tax and Medicare if we are temporary workers. Let them START collecting once I-485 is applied.
This last point will resonate well with all It will be picked up easily; you will see the panic flying in the leven when a simple mention of it is made.
These are the practical things we need to discuss. Not a theoritical PD definition, on which we have no locus standi.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on that...just because it was never brought up doesn't mean it should never be taken up. I think you core members know better...if this does not sound practial...End of discussion.
Thanks
Why there is even a provision in the last Senate bill, for illegals to SELF petition for GC, if employer doen't apply in 2 years. Let's discuss about a similar provision for H1 visa holders who are legally working here, paying taxes. Let's discuss even more important issue.
Why should we pay, SS Tax and Medicare if we are temporary workers. Let them START collecting once I-485 is applied.
This last point will resonate well with all It will be picked up easily; you will see the panic flying in the leven when a simple mention of it is made.
These are the practical things we need to discuss. Not a theoritical PD definition, on which we have no locus standi.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on that...just because it was never brought up doesn't mean it should never be taken up. I think you core members know better...if this does not sound practial...End of discussion.
Thanks
hot hair cross tattoos for girls
h1techSlave
03-04 12:31 PM
I am NSC EB3-I 2003 PD - no change. The status remains the same.
more...
house cross tattoos for girls on
sanju
03-12 08:31 PM
Oh I can find that information again-
Goto - http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=selectfields
- check box for client name
- click 'submit' button
- enter 'Immigration Voice' in the client name
- click 'submit' button
Now you see the amount spent by IV for lobbying in the Senate documents. Its around 1/2 million dollars.
Goto - http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=selectfields
- check box for client name
- click 'submit' button
- enter 'Immigration Voice' in the client name
- click 'submit' button
Now you see the amount spent by IV for lobbying in the Senate documents. Its around 1/2 million dollars.
tattoo tattoos for girls on side.
singhsa3
09-12 02:48 PM
We don't need 70K people. 50-100 will do. But we do need a media strategy.
only 30 people have voted so far....and we are talking about organizing 70,000 People.....Most of the users come here to get the latest news related to GC and to get answers to their questions....50% of users won't even log in to the site if they don't have any "URGENT Question" or "Need Help.."( I know that 50% of my friends don't log in to the site everyday) Type of questions to Post...I bet more then half of the users won't be aware of these efforts that we are trying to put in. I think we need to first inform everybody that IV needs theirs support. we should send emails to every users to come and check the site..
only 30 people have voted so far....and we are talking about organizing 70,000 People.....Most of the users come here to get the latest news related to GC and to get answers to their questions....50% of users won't even log in to the site if they don't have any "URGENT Question" or "Need Help.."( I know that 50% of my friends don't log in to the site everyday) Type of questions to Post...I bet more then half of the users won't be aware of these efforts that we are trying to put in. I think we need to first inform everybody that IV needs theirs support. we should send emails to every users to come and check the site..
more...
pictures Cross Tattoos For Girls On
SkilledWorker4GC
07-15 10:19 AM
Sent a contribution worth lunch money for a week.
Biller Name Account Amount Pay Date Confirmation Memo Note
Immigration Voice
Free Checking XXXX $25.00
07/18/2008 7YDR4-N7FRN HIGH 5 funding Dr Contri, Amit B
New Day today.
Good morning everyone. Let's get back to making this campaign a roaring success. We need new High Fives today people. All those IV brothers and sisters who havent yet contributed their $5.00, please do so. It is a great cause and lets face it, IV is the ONLY organization of the legal immigrants, by the legal immigrants, AND FOR the legal immigrants ONLY.
Also let us remember to update our signatures and include a link to this thread.
Biller Name Account Amount Pay Date Confirmation Memo Note
Immigration Voice
Free Checking XXXX $25.00
07/18/2008 7YDR4-N7FRN HIGH 5 funding Dr Contri, Amit B
New Day today.
Good morning everyone. Let's get back to making this campaign a roaring success. We need new High Fives today people. All those IV brothers and sisters who havent yet contributed their $5.00, please do so. It is a great cause and lets face it, IV is the ONLY organization of the legal immigrants, by the legal immigrants, AND FOR the legal immigrants ONLY.
Also let us remember to update our signatures and include a link to this thread.
dresses hot girly skull tattoos. small
santb1975
05-26 11:23 PM
:confused:
more...
makeup cross tattoos · cross tattoos
ambals03
04-30 09:54 AM
Senator John Kyl (R-Texas)
Should say:
Senator Jon Kyl - (R - AZ)
(202) 224-4521
Should say:
Senator Jon Kyl - (R - AZ)
(202) 224-4521
girlfriend dresses cross tattoos for
desi485
11-19 03:29 PM
desi, thank you for sharing above. Can some one clarify what RG means by "beyond his control exception"???
is this a standard CIS term? Have anyone heard this term before? If it is a common term used while appeals or MTRs, I would say, RG is correct. However I haven't come across this before.
AFAIK, it is a legal term.
is this a standard CIS term? Have anyone heard this term before? If it is a common term used while appeals or MTRs, I would say, RG is correct. However I haven't come across this before.
AFAIK, it is a legal term.
hairstyles cross tattoos for girls on
reachtoravi
07-20 12:23 AM
Donated one time $100 ...
Just now signed up for $50 a month recurring contribution ...
Thanks to IV for all great work.
Just now signed up for $50 a month recurring contribution ...
Thanks to IV for all great work.
pathiren
07-21 03:10 PM
Count me in. I am in Irvine and would be more than helpful to work for this cause. Cheers all!! Wave is building up for a revolution to chage the immigration laws of US!!!!
diptam
08-10 01:08 PM
Diluted drinks wont help you - Have " straight up "...
Its August 12th today and we are really screwed
no receipts for me too :( r Williams 7:55am 07/02
i m going go drinking to drown my sorrows soon.
Its August 12th today and we are really screwed
no receipts for me too :( r Williams 7:55am 07/02
i m going go drinking to drown my sorrows soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment