US Visitor's Visa and Ms. Jagger

A New York Appellate Court has ruled that Bianca Jagger (Ex wife of Mick Jagger) cannot have a "primary residence" in the US, and thus she could be evicted from her residence in NYC. Bianca had a visitor's visa. The visitor's visa does not allow a person to maintain a residence in the US, because the visit is purely temporary. This is the main proof that the Consulates look for in granting the visitor's visa. A person can visit, travel (B-2 visa) or work (B-1) temporarily (usually not more than 6 months) in the US on this visa. However except in rare circumstances, a visitor cannot be paid for his services in the US. Unlike Australia, we do not have a visa whereby a person can visit, work and get paid to defray the cost of travel in the US. For more information on the visitor's visa please visit my web site: http://www.visatous.com/

However that does not mean that a person cannot have a house or residence in the US. In fact much of Manhattan real estate is owned by people who do not live there. I think it is inherently unfair that we let visitors buy property and businesses without granting them some type of status to work in the US. We should institute a system like Australia whereby visitors can perform temporary work and get paid here, as long as they return to their home country. Of course they should pay taxes to the US on those earnings. This will be a win win situation.

Internationalism

In 1893, in the world parliament of religion, in Chicago, a young ascetic from India, Swami Vivekananda addressed the conference as "Sisters and Brothers of America" instead of the usual Ladies and Gentlemen. Thus was born a new concept, Internationalism, as opposed to Nationalism. Much later Disney crytllalized it into the song, "its a small world after all." The concept that we live in one world, without borders, is in direct conflict to the likes of Lou Dobbs. Nationalism lead us to two world wars, and is still influencing immigration policies everywhere, from the US to Switzerland. Immigration dominates the policy. Are we going back towards the ultra nationalism of the previous century?
What if we could move away from insularism, and become one world, who would control? Who would you vote for the Head of the WORLD?

New Naturalization Questions

For a complete list of questions and answers, please visit http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/100q.pdf

Here's my take on some of the questions:

Q 10. What is freedom of religion:
A. You can practice any religion or not practice a religion. It fails to mention that we are still ruled by the right wing Christian Group. We do not have freedom to do stem cell research, we do not have gay marriages, under the Robert's Court we may certainly loose our abortion rights.

Q. 46 asks what is the political party of the President now. Q. 47 asks who is the speaker of the house now, without mentioning the political party. No questions ask which party has the majority in the House and Senate now. Hmmmmm, these questions were drafted by the Republican govt, but in future the answers can turn against them.

The Dream Act

The American DREAM, alas an acronym for the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors, was first introduced in the senate in 2003 (when it was sponsored by McCain and Kennedy). This bill has always been bipartisan, always gained momentum and always died. From its ashes, another bill gets resurrected every now and again. It has risen again, like the Phoenix this week in the Senate.

Will it pass? If prior history is an indicator, then no. It will die and along with its death, dies the hopes and dreams of many hard working individuals. Every time this bill dies, every time a little something probably dies inside all these individuals, who work hard, contributes to our economy but is shut off from the dream just because they are deemed "illegal".

Flip Flop- Bush govt style

This is the Bush Government, not John Kerry.

On June 13, they announced that every employment based applicants can file for adjustment of status (AOS)

On June 14 they said all applicants needed medical examination to file

On July 02, they said no applicants could file

On July 17 they said every applicant could file

On July 23 they said AOS applications could be filed without medical examination

NOW IF ONLY THEY FLIP FLOPED ABOUT IRAQ - OR FOR ABOUT 99% OF THEIR POLICIES!

Sound and Fury Signifying NOTHING

The DOS announced on June 15, 2007 that all employment based priority dates will become current as of July 1, and that everyone could file their adjustment of status applications. This sent a ray of hope amongst the immigrant community. Since we could not file the adjustment unless the applicants are in the country, many people cut short their vacation to their home country, changed return tickets for very high prices, and raced back to the US. They got their medical done for a lot of money, pictures taken, and applications done. For us, immigration attorneys, we worked every day for at least 10 hours, including Saturday and Sunday. Then on the morning of July 2 (July 1st was a Sunday and no one could file), the DOS announced, in an unprecedented move that it is retracting its position, and made visa unavailable for everybody, no matter what the country of birth, or what the employment based preference is. Visa numbers won't open up until Oct 1, and by then, the fees for immigration will triple.

Where were all those Govt statisticians, all those think tank employees at DOS when they announced the visa availability. Why does the Govt of a free society think that they can toy with real people, real lives?

I know that Govt employees salaries are indexed to the salary of the chief executive, the President. Does the govt employees brains also have to be indexed to the presidential brains?

H-1B

A Note to CIS, if they read my blog, which they wont. (The executive branch of our Government from its leader Mr., President down do not read).

Could you please let employers substitute their employees, ie if one employee got the lottery, and the other did not, the employer (since the petition belongs to the employer) should get to choose which employee they will bring in.