GCneeded
12-15 04:29 PM
Posted my story and highlighted our cause.
wallpaper Miami Ink : Kat Von D Tattoo
optimist
06-17 04:10 PM
not sure how to do this. can some one in this thread create a poll just for eb3-India just to see a ball park number of people waiting in eb3 india and for how long they are waiting (may be we can start from jan 2001 all the way till jun 2008). This atleast would give us an idea of how many IVers are waiting in eb3 queue..pls discard if you did not like this idea. thanks.
There is a similar poll already existing- pls participate if you haven't...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6203&page=13
There is a similar poll already existing- pls participate if you haven't...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6203&page=13
BharatPremi
12-13 03:33 PM
I never have and never will like the idea of being asked to pay, I give what I can unasked. What of the people that by circumstance do currently not have these amounts of money to spare. I should not have to feel excluded nor should I have to explain my very personal reasons why to everyone.
Have you guys looked in the forums lately, people are getting "yelled" at and talked to rudely if they do not disclose how much exactly they have contributed. So we are only allowed to an opinion or help if we have money?
I will contribute when I have money to spare, however it seems I will have to leave this organization based on the comments that have been out there before I get to the point where I can afford to contribute. That goes for both time and money, some of us have responsibilities that we do not want to disclose.
*sigh* I might have just opened myself up to the ones that like to attack....go ahead...
:) Do not worry.
Have you guys looked in the forums lately, people are getting "yelled" at and talked to rudely if they do not disclose how much exactly they have contributed. So we are only allowed to an opinion or help if we have money?
I will contribute when I have money to spare, however it seems I will have to leave this organization based on the comments that have been out there before I get to the point where I can afford to contribute. That goes for both time and money, some of us have responsibilities that we do not want to disclose.
*sigh* I might have just opened myself up to the ones that like to attack....go ahead...
:) Do not worry.
2011 Kat Von D Videos
chanduv23
03-31 07:54 AM
Received one today.
Weirdest thing:
Person's 140 was revoked by employer;
person received notice of intent to deny. NOID clearly stated that 140 was revoked by employer then quoted ac21 law and said beneficiary may be eligible and to give job offer letter.
person responded with letter from new ac21 employer with perfectly matching job duties/descriptions.
uscis sent denial. Denial only stated that 140 was revoked and 140 immigrant petition is needed to get greencard.
Don't know if this is a new procedure that they are following the main law where a valied 140 is needed the whole time.
So do you think they are going after AC21 folks as a scapegoat? I spoke to few people on this including lawyers and they say that "denials on 485" when 140 gets revoked is a common thing and usually the officer who issues the denial letter does not check and verify to see other details. Thats why they have to go through the MTR process.
Weirdest thing:
Person's 140 was revoked by employer;
person received notice of intent to deny. NOID clearly stated that 140 was revoked by employer then quoted ac21 law and said beneficiary may be eligible and to give job offer letter.
person responded with letter from new ac21 employer with perfectly matching job duties/descriptions.
uscis sent denial. Denial only stated that 140 was revoked and 140 immigrant petition is needed to get greencard.
Don't know if this is a new procedure that they are following the main law where a valied 140 is needed the whole time.
So do you think they are going after AC21 folks as a scapegoat? I spoke to few people on this including lawyers and they say that "denials on 485" when 140 gets revoked is a common thing and usually the officer who issues the denial letter does not check and verify to see other details. Thats why they have to go through the MTR process.
more...
husker
07-19 06:19 PM
As a couple of members mentioned that the core will not take any money from the funds members contributed, and its is really unfortunate that Aman + all the core team have to spend a lot of money out of their pocket. I am not a CPA but have seen that a lot of NOP do set aside administrative funds. That how the organization would work. The good ones will have only 10% of funds towards administrative cost. The BEST ONE LIKE IV has NONE (No money for administrative cost!!!). I am sure the core will not want to dive into the funds people are giving BUT can members send money seperately to set up an administrative fund.
I like khodalmd idea, I know not everyone is going to chip in, but if we have atleat 1000 people we can all send $100, so that atleast the core team dont take on the financial burden of the entire community. People sent flowers, a lot of people sent flowers...I am sure atleat 1000 appreciative members can shell out $100 for IV.
I am game for the $100 suggested by anzerraja (I think)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Contribution: Till now $300 + $50 re-occuring
I like khodalmd idea, I know not everyone is going to chip in, but if we have atleat 1000 people we can all send $100, so that atleast the core team dont take on the financial burden of the entire community. People sent flowers, a lot of people sent flowers...I am sure atleat 1000 appreciative members can shell out $100 for IV.
I am game for the $100 suggested by anzerraja (I think)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Contribution: Till now $300 + $50 re-occuring
krishmunn
04-02 09:18 PM
Unfotunately what you are saying sounds cool except that its not true.
Job offer has to be valid on the day petition filed or the specific date mentioned.
If the job offer no longer exist, employer need to withdraw the H1. Until and unless employer does so, he is on hook to pay the employee.
The only argument against employee here is , employee did not report to work. If employee can prove (through email copies etc) that he actually tried to report but employer barred him, employer must pay the wage till the date H1 was sent for withdrawal.
Filing an H1 means that a job offer exist as of the day requested in the petition . For example, if the petition has a start date of Oct 1, 2010, and the petition is not withdrawn, employer is stating that he has a valid job opening starting October 1. No additional job offer/invite is required. The only time such invite *May Be* required (at PoE) is if the employee is travelling much later than the start date specified in the Petition.
Job offer has to be valid on the day petition filed or the specific date mentioned.
If the job offer no longer exist, employer need to withdraw the H1. Until and unless employer does so, he is on hook to pay the employee.
The only argument against employee here is , employee did not report to work. If employee can prove (through email copies etc) that he actually tried to report but employer barred him, employer must pay the wage till the date H1 was sent for withdrawal.
Filing an H1 means that a job offer exist as of the day requested in the petition . For example, if the petition has a start date of Oct 1, 2010, and the petition is not withdrawn, employer is stating that he has a valid job opening starting October 1. No additional job offer/invite is required. The only time such invite *May Be* required (at PoE) is if the employee is travelling much later than the start date specified in the Petition.
more...
Lollerskater
09-17 02:36 PM
did he just say HR5882? lol wut
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1382/facepalm2ly3.jpg
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1382/facepalm2ly3.jpg
2010 kat von d tattoos. kat von d
days_go_by
01-29 05:18 PM
Do you have a link to this news/alert?
it's on http://www.immigration-law.com/
it's on http://www.immigration-law.com/
more...
gimme_GC2006
06-11 09:16 AM
What happened in your case?
I rear-ended a car last April..The damage to the car (other person's car) was minimum (<1500) but the other driver claimed whiplash injury...They wanted 10K from my insurance (at that time that was my limit..:-( ).
But my insurance offered them $2500 and they rejected the offer and filed a lawsuit in the county court.
I have a deposition this month..God knows what will happen..
But I am curious to know what was your accident about.
I rear-ended a car last April..The damage to the car (other person's car) was minimum (<1500) but the other driver claimed whiplash injury...They wanted 10K from my insurance (at that time that was my limit..:-( ).
But my insurance offered them $2500 and they rejected the offer and filed a lawsuit in the county court.
I have a deposition this month..God knows what will happen..
But I am curious to know what was your accident about.
hair Tattoo Women Kat Von D is one
prasadn
10-30 05:14 PM
gootle.....either give answer or shut your both.....
I can unload a whole dictionary of the choicest words on you, however my advice to you is to open another thread where I am sure you will get your question answered.
I can unload a whole dictionary of the choicest words on you, however my advice to you is to open another thread where I am sure you will get your question answered.
more...
katrina
08-01 06:04 PM
Hi va-labor2002.
I did a lot of research on this. If you would like to start recruiting AlliedHealthcare professionals let me know. May be we can work together.
I'm in too :)
I did a lot of research on this. If you would like to start recruiting AlliedHealthcare professionals let me know. May be we can work together.
I'm in too :)
hot Kat Von D
Abhinaym
09-17 01:35 PM
Why not? I know Bill clinton was hooked up to some Indian restaurants in DC/NVA.
Yup, there are good ones in NoVa and MD, but nothing of repute in DC.
I wonder how Bill Clinton managed to go those ones... traffic is such a bitch here...
Yup, there are good ones in NoVa and MD, but nothing of repute in DC.
I wonder how Bill Clinton managed to go those ones... traffic is such a bitch here...
more...
house kat von d tattoo gallery. kat
akkakarla
11-21 11:40 AM
There is a speculation that Lou Dobbs may run for President as Independent. Whaw I really want to see him run for President and see in debate what he tells about various issues.
Anil
Anil
tattoo Kat Von D Tattoo Record
gk_2000
04-20 04:56 PM
In any case, why should someone be SO disturbed if some lawyer says "I will try to prove your degree equivalency for trying to get into EB2"?
Going by folks' behavior here, I am inclined to think, some simply hate such a lawyer for nothing more than personal interests
Going by folks' behavior here, I am inclined to think, some simply hate such a lawyer for nothing more than personal interests
more...
pictures kat von d tattoo. katvond
gc_check
07-11 01:06 PM
Just wondering why USCIS is neither accepting nor rejecting the July 2nd application? How long can thy hold applications like this? Can they leverage this in their favour in the class action lawsuit? Is this procrastination deliberate , considering its legal implications?
They either have to reject the application or provide the receipt notice. Cannot hold the applications without any actions for long time.
They either have to reject the application or provide the receipt notice. Cannot hold the applications without any actions for long time.
dresses (Kat Von D tattooing: Photo
gimme_GC2006
08-10 08:28 AM
Wooooooooohoooooooooooooo...
I received a sms saying that my case status has been updated (weird they sent it @ 9:25 pm PT). I was like here comes another biometrics appointment... but still let's check the status online. To my surprise and by god's grace, case status was changed to "Card/Document Production" (still cannot believe it). I dunno what triggered this but i did contact my Congressman yesterday. My wife's status has also changed to "decision" - should move to "Card production" soon.
My suggestion to all of you - please don't lose patience and do whatever you can from your end to expedite your case. It's your GC and you've to make sure you get it. Contact I/O, infopass and congressman/senator. Don't expect anything from your lawyers as they only care about money and it is in their best interest to see your case pending (more RFEs, EADs, APs, etc).
Thanks and all the best to all of you out there still waiting for your GC.
congrats!!
That is the exact response I got for my SR.
I have contacted our congressman's office yesterday for help..lets see how it goes.
I gave my 2nd finger prints on july 28th.
So far nothing. :mad:
I received a sms saying that my case status has been updated (weird they sent it @ 9:25 pm PT). I was like here comes another biometrics appointment... but still let's check the status online. To my surprise and by god's grace, case status was changed to "Card/Document Production" (still cannot believe it). I dunno what triggered this but i did contact my Congressman yesterday. My wife's status has also changed to "decision" - should move to "Card production" soon.
My suggestion to all of you - please don't lose patience and do whatever you can from your end to expedite your case. It's your GC and you've to make sure you get it. Contact I/O, infopass and congressman/senator. Don't expect anything from your lawyers as they only care about money and it is in their best interest to see your case pending (more RFEs, EADs, APs, etc).
Thanks and all the best to all of you out there still waiting for your GC.
congrats!!
That is the exact response I got for my SR.
I have contacted our congressman's office yesterday for help..lets see how it goes.
I gave my 2nd finger prints on july 28th.
So far nothing. :mad:
more...
makeup photo Kat Von D with the
shx
10-02 11:44 PM
I wont get into EB2/EB3 fights, but tell you what my opinion about this is.
The law definitely supports interfiling and priority date porting. However, this is like reserving seats on a bus by throwing your handkerchief in good old India. It is unfair to let people jump ahead in the queue, even though they acquired the eligibility to file in EB2, at a far later date.
There might be some genuine cases where people could not file in EB2, even though they were eligible. I only support these cases.
I've a pending EB2 485. However, let me be honest. If I had EB3 to start with, I too would've interfiled in EB2 and would've ported my priority date. Who wouldn't do it if the law allowed them to!
The law definitely supports interfiling and priority date porting. However, this is like reserving seats on a bus by throwing your handkerchief in good old India. It is unfair to let people jump ahead in the queue, even though they acquired the eligibility to file in EB2, at a far later date.
There might be some genuine cases where people could not file in EB2, even though they were eligible. I only support these cases.
I've a pending EB2 485. However, let me be honest. If I had EB3 to start with, I too would've interfiled in EB2 and would've ported my priority date. Who wouldn't do it if the law allowed them to!
girlfriend Kat Von D Kat Von D, tattoo
kshitijnt
10-09 07:28 PM
Only thing that makes sense right now is gold.
hairstyles pictures kat von d tattooing.
Leo07
12-03 10:14 AM
Paid membership irrespective of the amount of payment will drive away the people. With all dues respect to IV, there are defintely other places where you can get good(if not better) information for free.
Strength of online communities is always the members...the higher the members the better.
Having said that, I kind of disagree with the punishing the wrong answers with a $5.00...most of the answers in these forums are people experiences and they are not legal professionals. People will not be able to share the experiences openly/freely. I think, it's the responsibility of the questioner to pick the right answer and donate for the value that he/she deems the question is worth.
My thoughts...anyways..
Strength of online communities is always the members...the higher the members the better.
Having said that, I kind of disagree with the punishing the wrong answers with a $5.00...most of the answers in these forums are people experiences and they are not legal professionals. People will not be able to share the experiences openly/freely. I think, it's the responsibility of the questioner to pick the right answer and donate for the value that he/she deems the question is worth.
My thoughts...anyways..
sanju
09-24 01:46 AM
Ok, I will give you a weak analogy. See how Indian IPOs distribute shares when it is oversubscribed. The same thing goes here. Replace money by applicants and replace investors by countries, and you will get a sense as to why per country quota is implemented. I agree it is hard to digest the per country quota, but it is what it is. It is affirmative action if you will. It requires equality, but gives some buffer to people not properly represented (or run the risk of being overwhelmed by any single country).
You are right, it is very hard to digest, even for you, who seems to support it. And, if I may add, your example it too "complicated" for me. Try giving easy example for me, I am kind a slow, maybe I should get some "preferential treatment". Yes, that's the word, "preferential".
Country quota is NOT affirmative action, nowhere even close. If you are socio-politically dominated by Indian or Chinese, yes, then it is affirmative action. But if you do not come from a place there Indian and Chinese imperial powers have taken over the country, then how are you socio-politically dominated by Indian or Chinese. And if you are not dominated by Indian or Chinese in the country where you came from, then how could it be "like" affarmative action.
Maybe you yet don't know, but Indian and Chinese EB applications cannot vote and they do not have any representation in the US government. So its not that you are "not properly represented" and Indian and Chinese have all the representation. WE ALL HAVE NO REPRESENTATION. Just so that its clear.
Your next argument is that you are "overwhelmed" by Indian and Chinese so there should be country-limits. Well, I can understand that, we are very overwhelming people. You see 40% of the world population gets 14% green card, we tend to become "overwhelming" for other.
Observation: Each time, I reply to each and every part of your post. But you totally ignore what I write. You did not answer whether you think you are equal? inferior? or superior? That is the question. Hope you answer that.
Quota system treats everybody anything but "equal". And this is not just the question of equality, because I am sure you agree that we are equals. It is the question of PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. You are in the category getting preferential treatment, so you oppose any change, you "create" arguements that you were "promised" a system when you came, and thus any change to the system, before you get your green card would be WRONG and UNFAIR. So you should continue to get that PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. And PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT to you is NOT WRONG AND UNFAIR. Right?
BTW, hope you liked the You tube video, Frank is really good. I do not want you to go, so that's why I posted the video. Hope it helped you to stick around. Now don't say you have the right to watch it 5 times and I can watch it only once because I am from India and you are ROW :D
Cheers,
You are right, it is very hard to digest, even for you, who seems to support it. And, if I may add, your example it too "complicated" for me. Try giving easy example for me, I am kind a slow, maybe I should get some "preferential treatment". Yes, that's the word, "preferential".
Country quota is NOT affirmative action, nowhere even close. If you are socio-politically dominated by Indian or Chinese, yes, then it is affirmative action. But if you do not come from a place there Indian and Chinese imperial powers have taken over the country, then how are you socio-politically dominated by Indian or Chinese. And if you are not dominated by Indian or Chinese in the country where you came from, then how could it be "like" affarmative action.
Maybe you yet don't know, but Indian and Chinese EB applications cannot vote and they do not have any representation in the US government. So its not that you are "not properly represented" and Indian and Chinese have all the representation. WE ALL HAVE NO REPRESENTATION. Just so that its clear.
Your next argument is that you are "overwhelmed" by Indian and Chinese so there should be country-limits. Well, I can understand that, we are very overwhelming people. You see 40% of the world population gets 14% green card, we tend to become "overwhelming" for other.
Observation: Each time, I reply to each and every part of your post. But you totally ignore what I write. You did not answer whether you think you are equal? inferior? or superior? That is the question. Hope you answer that.
Quota system treats everybody anything but "equal". And this is not just the question of equality, because I am sure you agree that we are equals. It is the question of PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. You are in the category getting preferential treatment, so you oppose any change, you "create" arguements that you were "promised" a system when you came, and thus any change to the system, before you get your green card would be WRONG and UNFAIR. So you should continue to get that PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. And PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT to you is NOT WRONG AND UNFAIR. Right?
BTW, hope you liked the You tube video, Frank is really good. I do not want you to go, so that's why I posted the video. Hope it helped you to stick around. Now don't say you have the right to watch it 5 times and I can watch it only once because I am from India and you are ROW :D
Cheers,
sobers
02-22 12:31 PM
Whether it is logical or not, whether we like it or not, the issues of illegal and legal immigration are intrinsically tied up (to the disadvantage of skilled workers, of course:-()
Anyhow, this appeared in today's Wall Street Journal...it may forbode a taste of things to come..or not come..this one focusses on the DREAM Act which is geared to provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants..
---------------
Should Illegal Immigrants Get Tuition Help?
States' Varying Stances on College-Education Benefit Illustrate Congress's Overhaul Task
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
February 22, 2006; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- An emotional state-level dispute over college tuition shows how tough it will be for Congress to overhaul immigration laws and extend citizenship benefits to the country's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.
Four years ago, California passed a law granting in-state tuition to students who were in the U.S. illegally but had graduated from a California high school. Eight other states followed, allowing illegal immigrants to attend public colleges for in-state student fees -- usually less than half what out-of-state students pay.
DiAnna Schimek, a Democrat who heads the Nebraska Senate's education committee, says she has pushed for an in-state tuition bill for illegal immigrants as a matter of compassion and economic calculation. "These children didn't bring themselves" but were brought by their parents, she says. "It's only a good investment on our part to make certain they are productive citizens."
But attitudes have been hardening as an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants flood in yearly. "That's an alarm to the people here ... it's a drain on the economy," says Rep. Glenn Donnelson, a Utah Republican who heads an education committee in his state.
So while some legislators want to extend tuition benefits to illegal immigrants in their states, others are calling for laws to deny the benefit -- or take it back.
Lawmakers in Utah, Kansas and New Mexico -- which passed in-state tuition benefits only two or three years ago -- now are waging uphill fights to repeal them. Massachusetts legislators last month rejected a bill to offer in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.
Six states are considering measures that would deny in-state tuition, tuition waivers or state scholarships to illegal immigrants. In New York, which offers in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, and Virginia, which recently passed a law offering benefits to some, bills have been introduced to bar illegal immigrants from attending public colleges.
Meanwhile, lawsuits challenging in-state tuition for illegal immigrants have been filed in California and in Kansas. "There's something wrong with giving a benefit to an illegal that we don't even give to citizens of other states," says state Rep. Becky Hutchins, a Kansas Republican leading a repeal effort there.
The tuition laws generally require illegal immigrants to have attended a local high school for three years, to have graduated or earned a high-school equivalency and to sign an affidavit promising to legalize their immigration status as soon as they are eligible.
Promoters expect few students to actually take up the benefit. Dropout rates are high and academic scores generally are low among Hispanics, who account for the majority of illegal aliens. And even in-state tuition, which averages about $5,500 this year, may be out of reach for children whose parents typically hold minimum-wage jobs.
Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri law professor who brought a federal suit against the Kansas program, says 221 illegal immigrants are enrolled in Kansas public colleges this year, and that even when the benefit becomes widely known, the number probably wouldn't exceed 2,700.
Even so, in-state tuition laws have become flashpoint among some voters who feel they haven't any other way to protest illegal immigration. Federal laws allow illegal immigrants to use emergency medical services, and a 1982 Supreme Court decision entitles their children to public education through high school.
Rod Adair, a New Mexico state senator who introduced unsuccessful legislation to repeal his state's immigrant-tuition benefit, says he was acting "in response to my constituents. They're frustrated."
Prof. Kobach's suit contends Kansas's in-state tuition benefit violates a federal law that prohibits states from giving any benefit to an illegal alien that they don't also extend to all U.S. citizens.
Among his plaintiffs, Heidi Hydeman, an Iowa native, says she was charged out-of-state tuition by the University of Kansas, though she lived in Kansas for six years and paid Kansas income tax for three years while attending the school. "I thought it was unfair," says Ms. Hydeman.
Mr. Donnelson, the Utah legislator, says Utah would face a $34 million bill if a similar suit were filed there, and current out-of-state students were refunded the difference between in-state tuition and the nonresident tuition they pay.
But legislators' doubts go beyond that. Although illegal immigrants who get the tuition benefit pledge to legalize their status, there is almost no way they can do that under current laws. And even with a college degree, there is almost no way for illegal immigrants to legally get a job.
For years, congressional supporters have promoted a measure, called the Dream Act, that would clear up those problems. States would be allowed to offer in-state tuition to illegal-immigrant students who, in turn, could become citizens.
In 2003, almost half the Senate cosponsored the Dream Act. But the Dream Act's prospects have faded, and this year its pivotal supporter, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, withdrew as a sponsor. "Realistically, the Dream Act will not pass" and should be included in an overhaul of immigration laws, he said.
But the tensions fueling opposition to in-state tuition laws are the same ones making it hard for Congress to pass immigration overhaul. A coalition of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, immigrant-rights groups and labor unions wants new federal laws that would let illegal immigrants eventually become citizens.
They are being stymied, however, by social conservatives, who worry about being culturally overwhelmed by immigrants, and by Republican national-security hawks, who are demanding that Washington cut off illegal immigration first. The tension prevented the U.S. House from taking up immigration overhaul last year, and is complicating the Senate's efforts to pass it this year.
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
Anyhow, this appeared in today's Wall Street Journal...it may forbode a taste of things to come..or not come..this one focusses on the DREAM Act which is geared to provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants..
---------------
Should Illegal Immigrants Get Tuition Help?
States' Varying Stances on College-Education Benefit Illustrate Congress's Overhaul Task
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
February 22, 2006; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- An emotional state-level dispute over college tuition shows how tough it will be for Congress to overhaul immigration laws and extend citizenship benefits to the country's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.
Four years ago, California passed a law granting in-state tuition to students who were in the U.S. illegally but had graduated from a California high school. Eight other states followed, allowing illegal immigrants to attend public colleges for in-state student fees -- usually less than half what out-of-state students pay.
DiAnna Schimek, a Democrat who heads the Nebraska Senate's education committee, says she has pushed for an in-state tuition bill for illegal immigrants as a matter of compassion and economic calculation. "These children didn't bring themselves" but were brought by their parents, she says. "It's only a good investment on our part to make certain they are productive citizens."
But attitudes have been hardening as an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants flood in yearly. "That's an alarm to the people here ... it's a drain on the economy," says Rep. Glenn Donnelson, a Utah Republican who heads an education committee in his state.
So while some legislators want to extend tuition benefits to illegal immigrants in their states, others are calling for laws to deny the benefit -- or take it back.
Lawmakers in Utah, Kansas and New Mexico -- which passed in-state tuition benefits only two or three years ago -- now are waging uphill fights to repeal them. Massachusetts legislators last month rejected a bill to offer in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.
Six states are considering measures that would deny in-state tuition, tuition waivers or state scholarships to illegal immigrants. In New York, which offers in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, and Virginia, which recently passed a law offering benefits to some, bills have been introduced to bar illegal immigrants from attending public colleges.
Meanwhile, lawsuits challenging in-state tuition for illegal immigrants have been filed in California and in Kansas. "There's something wrong with giving a benefit to an illegal that we don't even give to citizens of other states," says state Rep. Becky Hutchins, a Kansas Republican leading a repeal effort there.
The tuition laws generally require illegal immigrants to have attended a local high school for three years, to have graduated or earned a high-school equivalency and to sign an affidavit promising to legalize their immigration status as soon as they are eligible.
Promoters expect few students to actually take up the benefit. Dropout rates are high and academic scores generally are low among Hispanics, who account for the majority of illegal aliens. And even in-state tuition, which averages about $5,500 this year, may be out of reach for children whose parents typically hold minimum-wage jobs.
Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri law professor who brought a federal suit against the Kansas program, says 221 illegal immigrants are enrolled in Kansas public colleges this year, and that even when the benefit becomes widely known, the number probably wouldn't exceed 2,700.
Even so, in-state tuition laws have become flashpoint among some voters who feel they haven't any other way to protest illegal immigration. Federal laws allow illegal immigrants to use emergency medical services, and a 1982 Supreme Court decision entitles their children to public education through high school.
Rod Adair, a New Mexico state senator who introduced unsuccessful legislation to repeal his state's immigrant-tuition benefit, says he was acting "in response to my constituents. They're frustrated."
Prof. Kobach's suit contends Kansas's in-state tuition benefit violates a federal law that prohibits states from giving any benefit to an illegal alien that they don't also extend to all U.S. citizens.
Among his plaintiffs, Heidi Hydeman, an Iowa native, says she was charged out-of-state tuition by the University of Kansas, though she lived in Kansas for six years and paid Kansas income tax for three years while attending the school. "I thought it was unfair," says Ms. Hydeman.
Mr. Donnelson, the Utah legislator, says Utah would face a $34 million bill if a similar suit were filed there, and current out-of-state students were refunded the difference between in-state tuition and the nonresident tuition they pay.
But legislators' doubts go beyond that. Although illegal immigrants who get the tuition benefit pledge to legalize their status, there is almost no way they can do that under current laws. And even with a college degree, there is almost no way for illegal immigrants to legally get a job.
For years, congressional supporters have promoted a measure, called the Dream Act, that would clear up those problems. States would be allowed to offer in-state tuition to illegal-immigrant students who, in turn, could become citizens.
In 2003, almost half the Senate cosponsored the Dream Act. But the Dream Act's prospects have faded, and this year its pivotal supporter, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, withdrew as a sponsor. "Realistically, the Dream Act will not pass" and should be included in an overhaul of immigration laws, he said.
But the tensions fueling opposition to in-state tuition laws are the same ones making it hard for Congress to pass immigration overhaul. A coalition of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, immigrant-rights groups and labor unions wants new federal laws that would let illegal immigrants eventually become citizens.
They are being stymied, however, by social conservatives, who worry about being culturally overwhelmed by immigrants, and by Republican national-security hawks, who are demanding that Washington cut off illegal immigration first. The tension prevented the U.S. House from taking up immigration overhaul last year, and is complicating the Senate's efforts to pass it this year.
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment