mshelat
05-28 05:30 PM
That's great news. You can apply for the stimulus payment next year.
Do you think this applies universally or just one off?
Do you think this applies universally or just one off?
wallpaper facebook smileys penguin. aim Kiss+emoticon+facebook
gc_in_30_yrs
08-03 02:54 PM
Meetesh V Patel
MVP Law Group, P.A.
is not so good. i would not recommend anybody to this law firm. they do not answer promptly, they do not reply your emails. the phone always goes to voice mail. horrible guys. but one time for H1B extension they did good work.
MVP Law Group, P.A.
is not so good. i would not recommend anybody to this law firm. they do not answer promptly, they do not reply your emails. the phone always goes to voice mail. horrible guys. but one time for H1B extension they did good work.
gc_maine2
06-13 08:21 PM
Congratulations !!!!! what a great news waldenpond.
Everyone please take a moment to Applause the IV core group for every effort they made since its inception.
Thanks
Sree
Congratulations to all IV members for being able to apply for I-485. This is GREAT news. Please please apply for your I-485 at the earliest. It would be best if your application reaches USCIS in the week of 2nd July. Here is the link to July Visa Bulletin:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html
Remember that you have to be in the country to apply for I-485. We may soon have lawyer�s information on our website to answer your questions in real time. Not sure till the time we get confirmation from the attorney but IV is working on this and may post this information soon.
This is GREAT development!!!!
IV Core Team
Everyone please take a moment to Applause the IV core group for every effort they made since its inception.
Thanks
Sree
Congratulations to all IV members for being able to apply for I-485. This is GREAT news. Please please apply for your I-485 at the earliest. It would be best if your application reaches USCIS in the week of 2nd July. Here is the link to July Visa Bulletin:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html
Remember that you have to be in the country to apply for I-485. We may soon have lawyer�s information on our website to answer your questions in real time. Not sure till the time we get confirmation from the attorney but IV is working on this and may post this information soon.
This is GREAT development!!!!
IV Core Team
2011 facebook smileys penguin.
needhelp!
06-30 12:33 PM
Request them to give you one minute of their time..
more...
andycool
06-10 02:17 PM
Visa Bulletin for July 2010 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5019.html)
It has lot of good News >>>>
VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED CATEGORIES
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment First: Current
Employment Second:
China and India: March or April 2006
Employment Third:
Worldwide: June through September 2004
China: October through December 2003
India: February 2002
Mexico: Unavailable
Philippines: June through September 2004
It has lot of good News >>>>
VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED CATEGORIES
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment First: Current
Employment Second:
China and India: March or April 2006
Employment Third:
Worldwide: June through September 2004
China: October through December 2003
India: February 2002
Mexico: Unavailable
Philippines: June through September 2004
fuzzy logic
08-01 05:12 PM
Any one had experience with masudafunai.com?
more...
nat23
06-26 02:09 PM
i thought a simple majority i.e. >50 would make the bill pass through senate. is that not true?
Nope. Need 60 votes to do anything in Senate and that is why even though the Dems have a so called majority then cant get anything done.
Nope. Need 60 votes to do anything in Senate and that is why even though the Dems have a so called majority then cant get anything done.
2010 facebook smileys penguin.
DSLStart
09-15 09:02 PM
:confused: But really what part of other posters msg u didn't get for which u asked translation?
The skilled professional sent the secret message with a red dot saying..
--------------------
you too are a*****e
--------------------
and assured the language expertise.
:D:D:D:D:
The skilled professional sent the secret message with a red dot saying..
--------------------
you too are a*****e
--------------------
and assured the language expertise.
:D:D:D:D:
more...
sriteam
05-20 12:53 PM
Done. Good job Guys
$100.00 USD - Unique Transaction ID #9KK0369153797784B
$100.00 USD - Unique Transaction ID #9KK0369153797784B
hair Cute Penguin Cartoons Tag Your
dpp
07-21 09:12 AM
Yes, you are right. It shouldn't take years to make a decision even if it is complicated. I think they may be not working on those cases at all. That may be the reason, they didn't comeup with any decision. It will be good if DOL gives the operating procedures and comeup with fair action on what they are really doing.
My case was filed in 2002 under traditional labor certification. DOL never questioned anything or asked for any clarifications (so I assume there were no complications). The job was advertised in last April (it was a little newspaper advertisement with few lines and very generic job requirements). There were no resumes received. But still I have not received my labor approval. So what baffles me most is why has the DOL been not able to taken any decision on my case even after 5 years. One of my friends who applied in traditional labor two years after me has already received his LC. Let us say, for argument sake, the case was complicated. How complicated can it be to be delayed by several years, not months? We probably would get answers to these questions only if we drag the DOL to court and make them explain.
My case was filed in 2002 under traditional labor certification. DOL never questioned anything or asked for any clarifications (so I assume there were no complications). The job was advertised in last April (it was a little newspaper advertisement with few lines and very generic job requirements). There were no resumes received. But still I have not received my labor approval. So what baffles me most is why has the DOL been not able to taken any decision on my case even after 5 years. One of my friends who applied in traditional labor two years after me has already received his LC. Let us say, for argument sake, the case was complicated. How complicated can it be to be delayed by several years, not months? We probably would get answers to these questions only if we drag the DOL to court and make them explain.
more...
lakshman.easwaran
07-23 01:31 PM
My I-140 was filed on July 9, 2007, USCIS received it on July 10, 2007. Just heard from lawyer that they received my 140 receipt. The date on the receipt is July 16, 2007. My I-140 was sent to NSC.
hot facebook smileys penguin.
priderock
05-31 01:23 PM
No. What I am saying is that this is a good amendment that can help us. But if its introduced and voted upon, it will fail to pass in the Senate because this amendment has a H1B exemption and H1B quota increases are very very unpopular and controvertial since last few years.
Therefore the achilles heel (Weak portion that will cause failure) of this good amendment is the H1B quota trick attached at the end. The amendment may pass the senate with a majority vote if it doesnt have H1B quota exemptions in it.
logiclife , you may know more, being close to or part of the core group, about how these processes are going. But from my observation , I think these bills get passed or failed based on lobbying (apart from legislators political considerations) , even though those provisions may not be fair to all. consider why a sweeping change like amnesty(what ever you name it) to illegals is being voted in, while legals are made to stand in line forever.
I think it will have better chances if H1 provisions are included because of a broader industry lobbyists that support H1 program. They do not support GC backlog elimination as much as they love getting more H1s.
Who do you think will push for a bill that has only all good things for EB GC applications ? I am not questioning your reasoning, I just want to know :)
As some one put it, " But for the bad luck, we would not have a luck". This immigration issue is being discussed because of undocumented workers and their group's push.
Therefore the achilles heel (Weak portion that will cause failure) of this good amendment is the H1B quota trick attached at the end. The amendment may pass the senate with a majority vote if it doesnt have H1B quota exemptions in it.
logiclife , you may know more, being close to or part of the core group, about how these processes are going. But from my observation , I think these bills get passed or failed based on lobbying (apart from legislators political considerations) , even though those provisions may not be fair to all. consider why a sweeping change like amnesty(what ever you name it) to illegals is being voted in, while legals are made to stand in line forever.
I think it will have better chances if H1 provisions are included because of a broader industry lobbyists that support H1 program. They do not support GC backlog elimination as much as they love getting more H1s.
Who do you think will push for a bill that has only all good things for EB GC applications ? I am not questioning your reasoning, I just want to know :)
As some one put it, " But for the bad luck, we would not have a luck". This immigration issue is being discussed because of undocumented workers and their group's push.
more...
house secret Facebook smileys.
legal_la
05-11 04:29 PM
FYI.
I got the information from another friend who was in similar situation. He had consulted rajiv khanna regarding this issue and the answer he got was that he can go back and work with the old company as long as the H1 papers from the old company are still valid.
I got the information from another friend who was in similar situation. He had consulted rajiv khanna regarding this issue and the answer he got was that he can go back and work with the old company as long as the H1 papers from the old company are still valid.
tattoo facebook smileys penguin.
sriramkalyan
07-23 04:24 PM
My PRIORITY DATE IS sep 2002 ..i am still stuck in PBEC ...
Sending Petition to USCIS and letter to DOL . should be first step ..
Sending Petition to USCIS and letter to DOL . should be first step ..
more...
pictures of Facebook chat emoticons
gcnotfiledyet
06-12 03:16 PM
Problems will not go away. Such incidents may happen elsewhere or in the same place.
If Air France was genuine they should have made everyone stay in the same place or atleast talk to theie department of immigration and arrange a temporary supervised visa and take all people to the hotel.
They just did not care
Can't agree with you more. Screw them and never fly with them. Then they will realize what it means. I don't see any issues with on spot transit visas in such circumstances. What if there was a terrorist attack on airport? They will still ask for transit visas for Indians to get outside airport? Best is avoid Europe at all costs and fly direct. Avoid any city in between including middle eastern cities.
If Air France was genuine they should have made everyone stay in the same place or atleast talk to theie department of immigration and arrange a temporary supervised visa and take all people to the hotel.
They just did not care
Can't agree with you more. Screw them and never fly with them. Then they will realize what it means. I don't see any issues with on spot transit visas in such circumstances. What if there was a terrorist attack on airport? They will still ask for transit visas for Indians to get outside airport? Best is avoid Europe at all costs and fly direct. Avoid any city in between including middle eastern cities.
dresses facebook emoticon , kiss middot; by facebook smileys middot; Newpenguin
harsh
03-17 11:11 AM
The option to file 485 after labor approval before priority dates become current is not present. It is not present in specter's bill either. It was present in S.1932 but current bills do not have that provision. I hope someone brings in an amendment to include this feature. This would help greatly for most of us.
more...
makeup facebook smileys penguin.
jayram123
07-18 04:50 PM
Is it not all about the bottomline?
Can any one of you as a single person make a difference? NO
Can WE as a group make a difference? YES and we have proved that.
Are WE focused as a group? Yes. In its entirety? No, and we will probably never be since we are a group.
This mess was not created by the guy with a PD of 2007 but by USCIS. So, you can hate USCIS all you want but what did the guy with PD2007 do. He just got lucky. He got lucky, plain and simple. Why should anybody feel bad about someone else's luck?
Come on guys, at least some of us are seeing the end of the light. Don't think I am PD 2007. My PD is Dec 2003. This is my fourth employer I am pursuing my GC with. I started working in 1997 and my first labor was filed in 1997. For various reasons I had to switch. I have seen all different cases. People who came in 2004 and got their GC by 2005. Is it fair? No, but it isn't the guy's fault. It is USCIS's and that's what we are trying to change. One issue at a time.
This was a can't miss opportunity caused by the USCIS foul-up. Nobody could miss out on pursuing this. Now that we are done with that, I am sure core will focus on other important issues like BEC victims etc.
Hope that helps. Peace!
Can any one of you as a single person make a difference? NO
Can WE as a group make a difference? YES and we have proved that.
Are WE focused as a group? Yes. In its entirety? No, and we will probably never be since we are a group.
This mess was not created by the guy with a PD of 2007 but by USCIS. So, you can hate USCIS all you want but what did the guy with PD2007 do. He just got lucky. He got lucky, plain and simple. Why should anybody feel bad about someone else's luck?
Come on guys, at least some of us are seeing the end of the light. Don't think I am PD 2007. My PD is Dec 2003. This is my fourth employer I am pursuing my GC with. I started working in 1997 and my first labor was filed in 1997. For various reasons I had to switch. I have seen all different cases. People who came in 2004 and got their GC by 2005. Is it fair? No, but it isn't the guy's fault. It is USCIS's and that's what we are trying to change. One issue at a time.
This was a can't miss opportunity caused by the USCIS foul-up. Nobody could miss out on pursuing this. Now that we are done with that, I am sure core will focus on other important issues like BEC victims etc.
Hope that helps. Peace!
girlfriend facebook emoticon , kiss middot; by facebook smileys middot; Newpenguin emote facebook
ksircar
07-21 04:59 PM
risker,
Once again I urge you to contact IV core ASAP. To start with send PM, ask for their contact number and then discuss the problem. Don't spend too much time on this forum, time is limited. Once you explain the problem to them they may advise you what should be the best course of action. The core may not be directly involved, but at least they may guide you in the right direction.
Regards.
Once again I urge you to contact IV core ASAP. To start with send PM, ask for their contact number and then discuss the problem. Don't spend too much time on this forum, time is limited. Once you explain the problem to them they may advise you what should be the best course of action. The core may not be directly involved, but at least they may guide you in the right direction.
Regards.
hairstyles Smilies middot; us on facebook smileys
krishnam70
07-18 12:12 PM
None has called a ban for anyone being differ but it's just the way you express your opinions by using the words like "herd mentality", "dimwitted" etc. Not that you have accepted that you are here for news only, I don't think we need people like you.
IV is not a news site. It's a group of people who are fighting for a common cause. One needs to understand the common cause is not just helping July filers or people affected with retrogress but a bigger aim of helping all the legal employment-based immigrants. But one also needs to understand that not all the objective can be accomplished at a time and we need to strike the iron when it's hot and make every opportunity count, be it a BEC, retrogression, July filer or Visa recapturing.
Having said that, I do agree that BEC is one of the issue which should definitely be focussing on next. I'm sure IV members (even if they are not a BEC victim) will support whole heartedly any cause which can bring some relief to BEC victms. What we need is a united front and some unique ideas like flower campaign. Do not forget the flower campaign idea was pursued by one of the IV member who was not part of core.
I think critics of both sides of the argument need to have their say but in a decent manner. This is a public forum and while personal opinions are welcome please be sensitive to the situation other people are in before making any statements. Everybody needs a place to vent out but this is not an forum for vents, it is for a common cause. While we acheive some small victories in this long wait the actual battle is ahead of us and lets not lose focus. There might be many of our fellow members who might become inactive because they recd their GC's or simply not interested anymore and yet at the same time there would be many more new members joining the group for help and advise.
It is imperative to understand , as often pointed out by logiclife, that one person's loss is not anothers gain here. While some of us may feel bad because even latest PERM approved can file 485 while BEC stuck filers are waiting in the benches there is no guarantee that they will get GC before us. If that were true then there would be not so many people waiting here for their GC's. I do feel worried to an extent about how this might affect my chances of getting a GC(waiting 7 yrs already, 485 filed 3 yrs ago) but is there anything we can do to change this? -certainly, the way to change it is to look at the big picture and try to eliminate the reasons for the backlog issue and see that reduced. If that is done and we see some changes on account of the SKILL bill or any of the other initiatives like re-capture of old unused visas or one Visa number per family then all of us would be in a better situation.
For those people who are insensitive to the emotions of people who are stuck in BEC remember till yesterday you were also cursing USCIS(irrespective of your PD) about not being able to file 485 and yet today you scorn those who feel wronged for not being able to file because of this BEC mess.
Lets all unite and try to work towards the large picture issues rather than squabbling over things like this. TO BAN or Not to BAN is IV moderators perogative, if somebody violated the spirit they need to get a warning and given a chance to change or then banned..my thoughts..
cheers
IV is not a news site. It's a group of people who are fighting for a common cause. One needs to understand the common cause is not just helping July filers or people affected with retrogress but a bigger aim of helping all the legal employment-based immigrants. But one also needs to understand that not all the objective can be accomplished at a time and we need to strike the iron when it's hot and make every opportunity count, be it a BEC, retrogression, July filer or Visa recapturing.
Having said that, I do agree that BEC is one of the issue which should definitely be focussing on next. I'm sure IV members (even if they are not a BEC victim) will support whole heartedly any cause which can bring some relief to BEC victms. What we need is a united front and some unique ideas like flower campaign. Do not forget the flower campaign idea was pursued by one of the IV member who was not part of core.
I think critics of both sides of the argument need to have their say but in a decent manner. This is a public forum and while personal opinions are welcome please be sensitive to the situation other people are in before making any statements. Everybody needs a place to vent out but this is not an forum for vents, it is for a common cause. While we acheive some small victories in this long wait the actual battle is ahead of us and lets not lose focus. There might be many of our fellow members who might become inactive because they recd their GC's or simply not interested anymore and yet at the same time there would be many more new members joining the group for help and advise.
It is imperative to understand , as often pointed out by logiclife, that one person's loss is not anothers gain here. While some of us may feel bad because even latest PERM approved can file 485 while BEC stuck filers are waiting in the benches there is no guarantee that they will get GC before us. If that were true then there would be not so many people waiting here for their GC's. I do feel worried to an extent about how this might affect my chances of getting a GC(waiting 7 yrs already, 485 filed 3 yrs ago) but is there anything we can do to change this? -certainly, the way to change it is to look at the big picture and try to eliminate the reasons for the backlog issue and see that reduced. If that is done and we see some changes on account of the SKILL bill or any of the other initiatives like re-capture of old unused visas or one Visa number per family then all of us would be in a better situation.
For those people who are insensitive to the emotions of people who are stuck in BEC remember till yesterday you were also cursing USCIS(irrespective of your PD) about not being able to file 485 and yet today you scorn those who feel wronged for not being able to file because of this BEC mess.
Lets all unite and try to work towards the large picture issues rather than squabbling over things like this. TO BAN or Not to BAN is IV moderators perogative, if somebody violated the spirit they need to get a warning and given a chance to change or then banned..my thoughts..
cheers
dvb123
01-11 11:00 PM
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:YQ8A5L4qUTMJ:www.shsu.edu/~kmd007/documents/WinFSHD2Userskmd007ArticlesDouglas-NationalOriginsSystem-1.pdf+supreme+court+national+origins+quota+1924&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbT24Qc157BZXxEE8b4o6Fcrv-YXTw
Consequences of the
National Origins Act
The goal of the National Origins Act was to control
both the quantity and quality of U.S. immigrants in an
effort to prevent further erosion of the ethnic composi-
tion of U.S. society. The law accomplished this goal
using three mechanisms: capping the overall number of
immigrants allowed into the United States in a given
month and year; favoring immigrants from certain
countries; and screening out otherwise qualified immi-
grants as unsuitable to the United States during the visa
screening process. The sorting mechanism heavily
favored northern and western European countries. The
temporary formula of 2% of the foreign-born of each
nationality in the 1890 census gave 85% of the quotas
to northern and western European nations. The national
origins system fully implemented in 1929 continued
the trend of both overall restriction and nation bias.
Indeed, the act virtually halted all immigration from
southern and eastern Europe. Thus, European immigra-
tion dropped from more than 800,000 in 1921 to less
than 150,000 by the end of the decade.
In addition to controlling the volume of immigra-
tion from Europe, the National Origins Act also
allowed a mechanism for selection of immigrants as
well. In its creation of consular offices abroad, the act
provided a frontline screening mechanism for select-
ing out those deemed unsuitable for the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001981----000-.html
� 1981. Equal rights under the law
How Current is This? (a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42_10_21_20_IX.html
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER IX > � 2000h–2Prev | Next � 2000h–2. Intervention by Attorney General; denial of equal protection on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin
How Current is This? Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in such action upon timely application if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42_10_21_20_I.html
PART THREE
ORGANISATIONS TO CONTACT - IV CORE PLs endorse this so that a few members will help me. OTHER MEMBERS CAN FORM GROUPS AND CONTACT THESE OFFICES.
American Immigration Council
1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005-3141
Tel.: 202-507-7500
Fax: 202-742-5619
Carl Shusterman
Law Offices of Carl Shusterman
600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1550, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel (213) 623-4592 Fax (213) 623-3720
National Origin, Immigration and Language Rights Program
The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
600 Harrison Street, Suite 120
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone (415) 864-8848
Fax: (415) 864-8199
TTY/TDD Line: (415) 593-0091
Email: info@las-elc.org
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004 USA
Phone: (212) 344-3005
URL: http://www.aclu.org/
Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)
14 Pidegon Hill Drive, Suite 500
0 Sterling, VA> 20165 USA
Phone: (703) 421-5443
Fax: (703) 421-6401
E-Mail: comment@ceousa.org
URL: http://www.ceousa.org/
Primary Contact: Linda Chavez, President
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
1801 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: (202) 663-4900
URL: http://www.eeoc.gov/
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, MD 21215
Phone: (410) 521-4939
URL: http://www.naacp.org/
E-Mail: members@naacp.org
PART TWO
LEGAL RESEARCH - EVERYBODY CAN CONTRIBUTE ABOUT COURT CASES, PRECEDENTS ETC AND I WILL TRY TO CONSOLIDATE ALL THE REPLIES HERE
Different Supreme Court Decisions
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/race-discrimination/race-discrimination-history.html
Gratz v. Bollinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke v. Regents that public universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment.[1
Bakke vs Regents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakke_v._Regents
Supreme Court Opinions
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/20.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/30.html
Articles
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-04-20-supreme-court_N.htm
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/racial-discrimination#constitutional-protection-against-racial
PART ONE
This is an old topic but I thought I would post some interesting info that I found. Give me green before someone drowns me in red.
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection)
The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:
Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
In Bakke, the Court held that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but that educational institutions could legally use race as one of many factors to consider in their admissions process. In Grutter and Gratz, the Court upheld both Bakke as a precedent and the admissions policy of the University of Michigan law school. In dicta, however, Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, said she expected that in 25 years, racial preferences would no longer be necessary. In Gratz, the Court invalidated Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, on the grounds that unlike the law school's policy, which treated race not as one of many factors in an admissions process that looked to the individual applicant, the undergraduate policy used a point system that was excessively mechanistic.
In these affirmative action cases, the Supreme Court has employed, or has said it employed, strict scrutiny, since the affirmative action policies challenged by the plaintiffs categorized by race. The policy in Grutter, and a Harvard College admissions policy praised by Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, passed muster because the Court deemed that they were narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in diversity. On the other side, it is argued that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to prevent the socio-political subordination of some groups by others, not to prevent classification; since this is so, non-invidious classifications, such as those used by affirmative action programs, should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny.[30]
One law firm I found dealing with Federal Litigation. There maybe many.
http://www.vblaw.com/PracticeAreas/Federal-Litigation-Appeals.asp
Should we not look at this option when Mexico's ambassador to the United States said Friday he expects immigration reform is unlikely to pass in that country in 2010 because of unemployment and midterm elections?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/08/world/AP-LT-Mexico-US-Migration.html
Antis are ahead of us in taking lawsuits to supreme court
http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/tech-workers-take-h-1b-case-supreme-court-024
OPINION JULY 1, 2009 The Supreme Court Says No To Quotas
Residents in a burning building want competent firefighters. They don't care about the race of those whose job it is to save them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640586803076705.html
VERY INTERSTING ARTICLES ABOUT THIS PER COUNTRY QUOTAS
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846255,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula
The 1921 Emergency Quota Act restricted immigration to 3% of foreign-born persons of each nationality resident in the United States in 1910.
The Immigration Act of 1924 provided that for three years immigration will be restricted to 2% based on the census of 1890, and that after June 30, 1927, total immigration from all countries will be limited to 150,000 based upon national origins of white inhabitants as shown by the census of 1920.
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/limiting_the_huddled_masses
http://homepage3.nifty.com/ubiquitous/Japanese-Americans_E/Page05.htm
Consequences of the
National Origins Act
The goal of the National Origins Act was to control
both the quantity and quality of U.S. immigrants in an
effort to prevent further erosion of the ethnic composi-
tion of U.S. society. The law accomplished this goal
using three mechanisms: capping the overall number of
immigrants allowed into the United States in a given
month and year; favoring immigrants from certain
countries; and screening out otherwise qualified immi-
grants as unsuitable to the United States during the visa
screening process. The sorting mechanism heavily
favored northern and western European countries. The
temporary formula of 2% of the foreign-born of each
nationality in the 1890 census gave 85% of the quotas
to northern and western European nations. The national
origins system fully implemented in 1929 continued
the trend of both overall restriction and nation bias.
Indeed, the act virtually halted all immigration from
southern and eastern Europe. Thus, European immigra-
tion dropped from more than 800,000 in 1921 to less
than 150,000 by the end of the decade.
In addition to controlling the volume of immigra-
tion from Europe, the National Origins Act also
allowed a mechanism for selection of immigrants as
well. In its creation of consular offices abroad, the act
provided a frontline screening mechanism for select-
ing out those deemed unsuitable for the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001981----000-.html
� 1981. Equal rights under the law
How Current is This? (a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42_10_21_20_IX.html
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER IX > � 2000h–2Prev | Next � 2000h–2. Intervention by Attorney General; denial of equal protection on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin
How Current is This? Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in such action upon timely application if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42_10_21_20_I.html
PART THREE
ORGANISATIONS TO CONTACT - IV CORE PLs endorse this so that a few members will help me. OTHER MEMBERS CAN FORM GROUPS AND CONTACT THESE OFFICES.
American Immigration Council
1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005-3141
Tel.: 202-507-7500
Fax: 202-742-5619
Carl Shusterman
Law Offices of Carl Shusterman
600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1550, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel (213) 623-4592 Fax (213) 623-3720
National Origin, Immigration and Language Rights Program
The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
600 Harrison Street, Suite 120
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone (415) 864-8848
Fax: (415) 864-8199
TTY/TDD Line: (415) 593-0091
Email: info@las-elc.org
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004 USA
Phone: (212) 344-3005
URL: http://www.aclu.org/
Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)
14 Pidegon Hill Drive, Suite 500
0 Sterling, VA> 20165 USA
Phone: (703) 421-5443
Fax: (703) 421-6401
E-Mail: comment@ceousa.org
URL: http://www.ceousa.org/
Primary Contact: Linda Chavez, President
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
1801 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: (202) 663-4900
URL: http://www.eeoc.gov/
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, MD 21215
Phone: (410) 521-4939
URL: http://www.naacp.org/
E-Mail: members@naacp.org
PART TWO
LEGAL RESEARCH - EVERYBODY CAN CONTRIBUTE ABOUT COURT CASES, PRECEDENTS ETC AND I WILL TRY TO CONSOLIDATE ALL THE REPLIES HERE
Different Supreme Court Decisions
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/race-discrimination/race-discrimination-history.html
Gratz v. Bollinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke v. Regents that public universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment.[1
Bakke vs Regents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakke_v._Regents
Supreme Court Opinions
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/20.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/30.html
Articles
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-04-20-supreme-court_N.htm
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/racial-discrimination#constitutional-protection-against-racial
PART ONE
This is an old topic but I thought I would post some interesting info that I found. Give me green before someone drowns me in red.
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection)
The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:
Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
In Bakke, the Court held that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but that educational institutions could legally use race as one of many factors to consider in their admissions process. In Grutter and Gratz, the Court upheld both Bakke as a precedent and the admissions policy of the University of Michigan law school. In dicta, however, Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, said she expected that in 25 years, racial preferences would no longer be necessary. In Gratz, the Court invalidated Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, on the grounds that unlike the law school's policy, which treated race not as one of many factors in an admissions process that looked to the individual applicant, the undergraduate policy used a point system that was excessively mechanistic.
In these affirmative action cases, the Supreme Court has employed, or has said it employed, strict scrutiny, since the affirmative action policies challenged by the plaintiffs categorized by race. The policy in Grutter, and a Harvard College admissions policy praised by Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, passed muster because the Court deemed that they were narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in diversity. On the other side, it is argued that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to prevent the socio-political subordination of some groups by others, not to prevent classification; since this is so, non-invidious classifications, such as those used by affirmative action programs, should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny.[30]
One law firm I found dealing with Federal Litigation. There maybe many.
http://www.vblaw.com/PracticeAreas/Federal-Litigation-Appeals.asp
Should we not look at this option when Mexico's ambassador to the United States said Friday he expects immigration reform is unlikely to pass in that country in 2010 because of unemployment and midterm elections?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/08/world/AP-LT-Mexico-US-Migration.html
Antis are ahead of us in taking lawsuits to supreme court
http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/tech-workers-take-h-1b-case-supreme-court-024
OPINION JULY 1, 2009 The Supreme Court Says No To Quotas
Residents in a burning building want competent firefighters. They don't care about the race of those whose job it is to save them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640586803076705.html
VERY INTERSTING ARTICLES ABOUT THIS PER COUNTRY QUOTAS
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846255,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula
The 1921 Emergency Quota Act restricted immigration to 3% of foreign-born persons of each nationality resident in the United States in 1910.
The Immigration Act of 1924 provided that for three years immigration will be restricted to 2% based on the census of 1890, and that after June 30, 1927, total immigration from all countries will be limited to 150,000 based upon national origins of white inhabitants as shown by the census of 1920.
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/limiting_the_huddled_masses
http://homepage3.nifty.com/ubiquitous/Japanese-Americans_E/Page05.htm
Caliber
05-17 03:23 PM
Please click on ImmigrationVoice.org - Advocacy -- Legislative Action Center (http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/home/) - Team IV
Cool. It takes less than 5 minutes. Please forward this to all the friends.
Thank you Team IV.
Cool. It takes less than 5 minutes. Please forward this to all the friends.
Thank you Team IV.
No comments:
Post a Comment