Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

VBGate (Close, Open, Close, Open...)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • VBGate (Close, Open, Close, Open...)

    "The government will be announcing shortly that it has reversed its July 2 announcement that the fiscal year 2007 employment based visa numbers had been used up and that it was going to refuse to accept adjustment of status filings during July. Instead, Secretary Chertoff advises that USCIS will keep the applications filed and reopen filings for a 31-day period from July 18 through August 17, 2007, in order to provide the same filing window people would have had if the July 2 actions had not taken place. Filers will be able to pay the July filing fees during the entire window period.

    Unfortunately, it does not appear that today's announcement helps the EB-3 other workers whose applications were rejected in June."

    A Scoop from AILA National

  • #2
    "The government will be announcing shortly that it has reversed its July 2 announcement that the fiscal year 2007 employment based visa numbers had been used up and that it was going to refuse to accept adjustment of status filings during July. Instead, Secretary Chertoff advises that USCIS will keep the applications filed and reopen filings for a 31-day period from July 18 through August 17, 2007, in order to provide the same filing window people would have had if the July 2 actions had not taken place. Filers will be able to pay the July filing fees during the entire window period.

    Unfortunately, it does not appear that today's announcement helps the EB-3 other workers whose applications were rejected in June."

    A Scoop from AILA National

    Comment


    • #3
      It's very difficult (almost next to impossible) to understand the logic behind what has actually taken place.

      In any case, those eligible to apply must now be feeling relieved.

      Comment


      • #4
        As what they say, "the USCIS isn't known for efficiency, but this issue is a new low."

        Comment


        • #5
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RationalE:
          It's very difficult (almost next to impossible) to understand the logic behind what has actually taken place.

          In any case, those eligible to apply must now be feeling relieved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          Logic? looks none. Aggrieved applicants should rightfully be indemnified, not just feel relieved. Wishful thinking, I know.

          Comment


          • #6
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As what they say, "the USCIS isn't known for efficiency, but this issue is a new low." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

            Who knows.

            Michael Chertoff is an extremenly intelligent man (he worked with Giulliani in New York, was one who brought down the Bonanno family, not an easy feat by all means), thus ,as long as he heads DHS (USCIS, by default), anyone who berates him (and those under him) as incompetent is doing so at the cost of overestimating his/her own intelligence.

            It could be either (Note: A and B are my humble guesses) :

            A) Unintentional miscommunication (or lack thereof) in certain level

            B) USCIS actually wants Congress to allocate MORE imm. visas for EB workers and thus brings this issue to National headlines

            C) Unknown

            Comment


            • #7
              ... and that's also an uncalled for rush to judgment to infer and deduce that I, who quoted the cited line, mean to belittle the distinguished career in the practice of law and in government service of the honorable DHS secretary and the agency he heads... and that I exercised extreme caution that such idea, though I agreed to when I read it, should in any way be attributed to myself.

              But the actual deal isn't that the people manning the Immigration Service and the blunders being attributed to it are of their own doing but are sorry offshoots of outdated laws and systems that need from top to bottom revamping.

              Even the Secretary himself was exasperated in the aftermath of Immigration Reform's demise late last month. This is an excerpt from a Washington Post story on July 1:


              "Chertoff Scolds Senate on Immigration

              The homeland security chief on Sunday scolded the Senate for failing to pass an immigration bill and said it will be difficult for the government to crack down on illegal workers. "We're going to continue to enforce the law. It's going to be tough," Michael Chertoff said. "We don't really have the ability to enforce the law with respect to illegal work in this country in a way that's truly effective."" AP, July 1, 2007."


              While the originally cited quotation above came from this other more recent Washington Post article that was also published on our host website the ILW.COM, entitled: A Gift from Gandhi.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...2007071002055_2.html

              "Crystal Williams, deputy director for programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, suspects that there may still be open slots in the annual green card quota.
              "They lied. That's the simple part of it. They lied to keep from having to take these applications," Williams said. The association's sister organization is filing a lawsuit to force the government to accept the filed applications.
              "The system is deeply broken," Williams said.
              Rep. Zoe Lofgren, (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Citizenship, Refugees, Immigration, and Border Security, says she plans to hold a hearing on the issue and is pressing USCIS to accept the recently filed applications.
              "They have really messed this up," she said. "The Department of Homeland Security is not known for overarching efficiency, but this is a new low."
              " (emphasis mine).

              Comment


              • #8
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... and that's also an uncalled for rush to judgment to infer and deduce that I, who quoted the cited line, mean to belittle the distinguished career in the practice of law and in government service of the honorable DHS secretary and the agency he heads... and that I exercised extreme caution that such idea, though I agreed to when I read it, should in any way be attributed to myself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                I agree, that's why didn't mention you personally (if you thought I did, then it indeed was "an uncalled for rush to judgment" on your behalf), but I referred - in general - to anyone who berates him as overestimating their own intelligence.

                Comment


                • #9
                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RationalE:
                  ... (if you thought I did, then it indeed was "an uncalled for rush to judgment" on your behalf)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                  That's what I meant, you did it ON MY BEHALF!

                  Hahaha!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What exactly did I do on your behalf?

                    What is it that you meant?

                    And what exactly do you mean now?

                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... and that's also an uncalled for rush to judgment to infer and deduce that I, who quoted the cited line, mean to belittle the distinguished career in the practice of law and in government service of the honorable DHS secretary and the agency he heads... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                    From my responce to the above: "I agree, that's why didn't mention you personally (IF you thought I did, then it indeed was "an uncalled for rush to judgment" on your behalf), but I referred - in general - to anyone who berates him as overestimating their own intelligence".

                    Definition of "IF" :

                    Main Entry: if

                    Pronunciation: 'if, &f

                    Function: conjunction

                    Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gif; akin to Old High German ibu if

                    1 a : in the event that b : allowing that c : on the assumption that d : on condition that
                    2 : WHETHER &lt;asked if the mail had come&gt; &lt;I doubt if I'll pass the course&gt;
                    3 -- used as a function word to introduce an exclamation expressing a wish &lt;if it would only rain&gt;
                    4 : even though : although perhaps &lt;an interesting if untenable argument&gt;
                    5 : and perhaps not even &lt;few if any changes are expected&gt; -- often used with not &lt;difficult if not impossible&gt;
                    - if anything : on the contrary even : perhaps even &lt;if anything, you ought to apologize&gt;

                    Source


                    P.S. I like having fun too.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Q1: What exactly did I do on your behalf?

                      A1: You rushed to judge in general (including me) that the phrase "is a new low" tends to berate the extreme qualification of Chertoff (and his people) to do his job.

                      Q2: What is it that you meant?

                      A2: Please refer to A1.

                      Q3: And what exactly do you mean now?

                      A3: Please refer to A1 & A2.


                      Yet in fairness, you're right on target, it's nice to have fun!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A1: You rushed to judge in general (including me) that the phrase "is a new low" tends to berate the extreme qualification of Chertoff (and his people) to do his job. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                        This simply is not so.

                        1) Please show the exact phrase/word/sentence where I definitely "included" you in what you claim to be my "rush to judgement".

                        2) As to "in general".


                        (a) Breaking down the quote you attached to your post: "the USCIS isn't known for efficiency, but this issue is a new low."

                        A) Phrase "Is a new low" means that there were "lows" before (do I need to provide another link to MW Dictionary for definition of "low" and explain why "new low" means there were "lows" before?)

                        B) Thus, it implies that there is a pattern of "lows" at USCIS, or at least that it's not the first time (and probably not the last time) it's happening.

                        C) To speak of whole entity in such terms can hardly be interpreted as expressing one's admiration for the same.



                        (b) Next, your own words: "As what they say,.."

                        A) This means you refer to what "they" say and could possibly mean more than just a reference, but I didn't make any direct assumptions or inferences from it as you now claim, not now nor then.

                        B)If you disagree, please see 1) above.



                        (c) Finally, my responce to what you posted:

                        A) "Who knows". This means I certainly don't know what it's all about (and my statement is in accord and consistent with my previous post where I wrote: "It's very difficult (almost next to impossible) to understand the logic behind what has actually taken place".

                        B) "Michael Chertoff is an extremenly intelligent man (he worked with Giulliani in New York, was one who brought down the Bonanno family, not an easy feat by all means), thus ,as long as he heads DHS (USCIS, by default), anyone who berates him (and those under him) as incompetent is doing so at the cost of overestimating his/her own intelligence".

                        Here I simply state my opinion of Michael Chertoff and further say that "anyone who berates him(and those under him, i.e. USCIS) as incompetent is doing so at the cost of overestimating his/her own intelligence."

                        Note: it neither says that YOU berated him or his organisation, nor does it directly claim to apply to "those" whom you quoted and referred to before( for quotes see 2(a) and 2(b) above).

                        But it specifically says that "anyone who berates him(and those under him) as incompetent is doing so at the cost of overestimating his/her own intelligence".

                        Key words: "anyone who"

                        Now, if you are not the one "anyone who" refers to, nor do you think it applies to "those" whom you quoted, then what is all your argument about and what do you base your claim on when you say "A1: You rushed to judge in general (including me) that the phrase "is a new low" tends to berate the extreme qualification of Chertoff (and his people) to do his job.?


                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yet in fairness, you're right on target, it's nice to have fun! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                        Yeah, I know.
                        I basically had nothing better to do in last half-an-hour

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Again, let's leave it there. But hey, thank you for enriching my thread. In closing, let me leave you with this quote from the ilw.com's Immigration Daily headline comment of today. This is within reach to all but, nothing, I'm just tempted to do so.


                          "Winners, Losers

                          The VB Gate scandal resulted in the following winners:

                          * Immigration Voice - this is the first time that pro-immigration advocates have successfully waged an effective online media campaign, Immigration Voice was pivotal in setting the platform for decisive action. Take-away: leveraging online technology produces results.
                          * Zoe Lofgren - her active leadership was critical in VB Gate reversal. Take-away: show your support by contributing to her next campaign.
                          * Azulay, Horn, & Seiden LLC and AILF - Azulay was the first law firm to file a lawsuit, while AILF stood ready to litigate. Take-away: Litigation is an effective stick and the immigration bar could be more aggressive in future litigation opportunities.

                          and the following losers:

                          * USCIS, DOS - they have lost credibility and they have alienated their customers for no gain. Take-away: Hopefully, these agencies will seek input from the stakeholders, including immigrant websites, in the future.
                          * Congress - The statutory language on visa allocation is not properly executed by the Executive Branch agencies, leading to fewer approved visas than the statute mandates. Take-away: Congress needs to solve this thru a technical amendment.
                          * Anti-immigration activists - Their conspicuous absence during VB Gate reveals their true allegiance. These activists should have been working side by side to defend legal immigration if their claim to be anti-illegal immigration (but pro-legal immigration) was in fact true. Take-away: The media should not allow them to use "anti-illegal" as a moniker, rather anti-immigrants - legal and illegal - is more apropos."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I followed the link from here

                            Comment



                            Working...
                            X