gc4me
09-03 08:59 AM
Got the actual card yesterday. It is valid for two years. Kind of cool!
RD: 7/11/2008, CPO Email: 8/27/2008.
RD: 7/11/2008, CPO Email: 8/27/2008.
wallpaper organic-valentines-day-flowers
GKBest
10-12 05:06 PM
"PublicAffairs, CISOmbudsman" <CISOmbudsman.Publicaffairs@dhs.gov>
I'll ask my lawyer to do this since he still has some clients who are still waiting like us.
I'll ask my lawyer to do this since he still has some clients who are still waiting like us.
Administrator2
09-23 02:42 PM
the problem is that some of us are likely to eat his lunch
It is not his lunch. We should not see all this as a zero sum game. We all ought to learn not to get dragged into meaningless Eb2 v/s Eb3 fight. It doesn't help anyone. Some of us in IV core had the opportunity to see this situation very closely and witness how it plays out in Washington. No matter who says/starts Eb2 v/s Eb3 fight, you will not get any different response from IV.
Our position and work on this situation is very clear. We are all in this together and we should all help each other out instead of pulling each other down. This is the only way to fix the problem.
It is not his lunch. We should not see all this as a zero sum game. We all ought to learn not to get dragged into meaningless Eb2 v/s Eb3 fight. It doesn't help anyone. Some of us in IV core had the opportunity to see this situation very closely and witness how it plays out in Washington. No matter who says/starts Eb2 v/s Eb3 fight, you will not get any different response from IV.
Our position and work on this situation is very clear. We are all in this together and we should all help each other out instead of pulling each other down. This is the only way to fix the problem.
2011 valentines day flowers
mygc2006
09-18 08:52 AM
I got EAD Card Production ordered email yesterday for my wife!
EAD mailed to TSC - Aug 14th
ND - Aug 19th
Approval email - Sep 17th
Thanks and wish you all good luck!
EAD mailed to TSC - Aug 14th
ND - Aug 19th
Approval email - Sep 17th
Thanks and wish you all good luck!
more...
Ramba
07-28 12:08 PM
I dont think he 'threatened' EB2. He challenged. But if you were frightened, it is not his problem. who should go where?!
Sorry to read blaming debates between eb3 and eb2. Insted of blaming, it is better to take some action. Based on current practice by DOS, EB3-I will be like this for ever, unless more number opens up by any legislative changes. As per law, each EB catagories are allowed to have 40K visas. As demand for EB2 is more, (paricularly by In,Ch) one can not expect any flow from EB2 to EB3 . This is law one can not change it.
Now I am coming to important point to take some action by EB3-I. The law says, 7% country quota will be applied in each prefrence catagory if worldwide demand for visas is more than supply in that catagory. But the law does not set any time frame. Therefore, the real threat for EB3-I is EB3-ROW. As per current practice, untill EB3-ROW become "current" EB3-I will get only 3000 visas per year. What happen if EB3-ROW never become "current" for next 50 years? EB3-I will be stuck in 2001 or 2002 for ever. To add my point, let us imagine a hypothetical case. Lets say in 2010 about 1 million ROW guys neend EB3 visa number. All has PD 2010. EB3-In will be stuck in 2001 till one million EB-ROW with PD 2010 recives GC. In nut shell, a EB3-ROW with latest PD will be given more preference than EB3-In with PD 2001. As current practice does not set any time limit, new flow of applications keeps retrogressed countries stuck for ever. This point has to be conveyed to DOS and USCIS to change the practice. Applications receviced in one fiscal year has to be cleared (grant GC) to process the application from next year. This way new applications from ROW will not stuck the retrogreesd countries for ever.
Sorry to read blaming debates between eb3 and eb2. Insted of blaming, it is better to take some action. Based on current practice by DOS, EB3-I will be like this for ever, unless more number opens up by any legislative changes. As per law, each EB catagories are allowed to have 40K visas. As demand for EB2 is more, (paricularly by In,Ch) one can not expect any flow from EB2 to EB3 . This is law one can not change it.
Now I am coming to important point to take some action by EB3-I. The law says, 7% country quota will be applied in each prefrence catagory if worldwide demand for visas is more than supply in that catagory. But the law does not set any time frame. Therefore, the real threat for EB3-I is EB3-ROW. As per current practice, untill EB3-ROW become "current" EB3-I will get only 3000 visas per year. What happen if EB3-ROW never become "current" for next 50 years? EB3-I will be stuck in 2001 or 2002 for ever. To add my point, let us imagine a hypothetical case. Lets say in 2010 about 1 million ROW guys neend EB3 visa number. All has PD 2010. EB3-In will be stuck in 2001 till one million EB-ROW with PD 2010 recives GC. In nut shell, a EB3-ROW with latest PD will be given more preference than EB3-In with PD 2001. As current practice does not set any time limit, new flow of applications keeps retrogressed countries stuck for ever. This point has to be conveyed to DOS and USCIS to change the practice. Applications receviced in one fiscal year has to be cleared (grant GC) to process the application from next year. This way new applications from ROW will not stuck the retrogreesd countries for ever.
actaccord
02-17 11:11 AM
local chapters....I have been part to two chapters but not seeing any communication happening around. On one chapter last communication is on June 2010 with 170 members and on another chapter last communication is on Dec 2010 with 9 members.
Local chapters need to be as active as IV forum to engage their members to take part actively.
Local chapters need to be as active as IV forum to engage their members to take part actively.
more...
n_2006
06-15 10:16 AM
Receipts only recieved by lawyer? Will benefeciary get any updates?
Hey all,
Got the receipt notice today...
Application date 06/01
RD 06/05
Service Center - NSC
My lawyers received the receipt number through mail. You guys should be getting is soon.
Hey all,
Got the receipt notice today...
Application date 06/01
RD 06/05
Service Center - NSC
My lawyers received the receipt number through mail. You guys should be getting is soon.
2010 Valentine#39;s Day flowers are
arunkotte
07-02 09:26 AM
Arrival at Unit, July 02, 2007, 1:58 am, LINCOLN, NE 68508
Enroute, July 01, 2007, 8:46 pm, OMAHA, NE 68108
Enroute, June 30, 2007, 4:35 pm, MEMPHIS, TN 38101
Acceptance, June 30, 2007, 10:56 am, GERMANTOWN, TN 38138
Enroute, July 01, 2007, 8:46 pm, OMAHA, NE 68108
Enroute, June 30, 2007, 4:35 pm, MEMPHIS, TN 38101
Acceptance, June 30, 2007, 10:56 am, GERMANTOWN, TN 38138
more...
Powersa
07-08 10:40 AM
even if AILF wins in say 2 years:
0. there are people with 2006/2007 India PDs, for whom I-485 filing is going to take 4 years or so, and this ruling, even if it comes in 2 years, cuts down the time by half!
1. USCIS wont f@ck with future generations the way they did with us. We wont have to eye the VB with suspicion everytime its published.
2. Its delayed, but its atleast justice and puts blame where it should lie. If this goes unchallenged, then essentially what USCIS did would be right/correct when people look back on this.
Precisely. Hopefully it will lead to some positive things for "future us".
0. there are people with 2006/2007 India PDs, for whom I-485 filing is going to take 4 years or so, and this ruling, even if it comes in 2 years, cuts down the time by half!
1. USCIS wont f@ck with future generations the way they did with us. We wont have to eye the VB with suspicion everytime its published.
2. Its delayed, but its atleast justice and puts blame where it should lie. If this goes unchallenged, then essentially what USCIS did would be right/correct when people look back on this.
Precisely. Hopefully it will lead to some positive things for "future us".
hair Through Valentine#39;s Day you
gc_chahiye
10-08 01:11 PM
Being a 2001 PD myself I fully sympathize with you for your trauma and support your notion that the Immigration System should give weightage to the number of years in the US, I do not support the notion of ending retrogression. Given that there are only a finite number of visa quotas, ending retrogression will make the GC a game of Inky-Pinky-Ponky. Either they give it to everyone (all the 800000 that applied) or they do FIFO based on date of entry in the US. If not, the present system of retrogression at least ensures that a person who came into the US in 2007 does not win the Inky-Pinki-Ponky game before a person like me in the queue since 2001. I agree that some extremely unfortunate people like you lose out, but it is still fairer than having no retrogression with the quota limitations in place, as that would be totally unfair.
I totally miss your point: why is ending retrogression bad? Because all 800K people might get the GC within 6 months? Whats wrong with that? Its not fair to those who have waited longer than others? Dont be a member of the "just because I suffered I want everyone else to suffer" That makes you no different from that talkshow host (who is now a citizen) on the radio channel recently who said he waited 10 years to get his GC, so everyone else also should, otherwise its not "fair"
Or, are you mixing up ending retrogression with making dates current? No thats not what we want. We want dates made current after the visa supply = demand. Just making all VBs like the July VB is pointless, and does lead to lots of uncertainties. By ending retrogression I mean making sure we have enough visa numbers for all who have been qualified by DOL (LC) and USCIS (I-140), by:
- ending per-country quota
- not counting dependents
- recapturing wasted visa numbers.
I totally miss your point: why is ending retrogression bad? Because all 800K people might get the GC within 6 months? Whats wrong with that? Its not fair to those who have waited longer than others? Dont be a member of the "just because I suffered I want everyone else to suffer" That makes you no different from that talkshow host (who is now a citizen) on the radio channel recently who said he waited 10 years to get his GC, so everyone else also should, otherwise its not "fair"
Or, are you mixing up ending retrogression with making dates current? No thats not what we want. We want dates made current after the visa supply = demand. Just making all VBs like the July VB is pointless, and does lead to lots of uncertainties. By ending retrogression I mean making sure we have enough visa numbers for all who have been qualified by DOL (LC) and USCIS (I-140), by:
- ending per-country quota
- not counting dependents
- recapturing wasted visa numbers.
more...
GKBest
10-12 05:06 PM
"PublicAffairs, CISOmbudsman" <CISOmbudsman.Publicaffairs@dhs.gov>
I'll ask my lawyer to do this since he still has some clients who are still waiting like us.
I'll ask my lawyer to do this since he still has some clients who are still waiting like us.
hot Valentines Day Flowers
desi3933
08-03 06:34 PM
Did you send out the latest letters...I am getting a positive feed back ..that approximately at least 500 letters have gone out..we started to make noise.. and we will see the results eventually...More action items will follow in comming weeks..Dont forget the high five though campaign though ;)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20452
How do you know that 500 letters have gone out?
Thanks and Good Luck!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20452
How do you know that 500 letters have gone out?
Thanks and Good Luck!
more...
house Valentines Day
GCSeekerCT
05-11 07:35 PM
Vivek Ahuja, you and afew others are able to see the light of the day, and not have been blinded by false facade of the Obama administration. THis is a far far left amdnistration, which will never do anything to incourage Skilled immigrant population, because they need dumb masses to follow them like a herd of cattle...
While I agree with your statement, isn't that the goal/view of probably most ruling parties ?
they either will think we are too dumb to understand, or they actually way too smart in manipulating/tweaking/influencing the masses.
While I agree with your statement, isn't that the goal/view of probably most ruling parties ?
they either will think we are too dumb to understand, or they actually way too smart in manipulating/tweaking/influencing the masses.
tattoo Valentine#39;s Day Flowers
abhijitp
07-10 01:34 AM
Can someone give me Michael Moore's contact and I can gaurantee you that his next movie will be on USCIS and DOS.
I dunno if you were kidding or serious. Here is the email address: mike@michaelmoore.com
Copied from http://www.michaelmoore.com/email/index.php
Contacting Michael
If you have something you want to tell Michael directly, contact him at:
mike@michaelmoore.com
Michael gets thousands of emails and does his best to personally answer as many of them as possible. Occasionally his email box "overflows" and you may get an error when trying to contact him. Please be patient and try sending your message to Michael again at a later date.
I dunno if you were kidding or serious. Here is the email address: mike@michaelmoore.com
Copied from http://www.michaelmoore.com/email/index.php
Contacting Michael
If you have something you want to tell Michael directly, contact him at:
mike@michaelmoore.com
Michael gets thousands of emails and does his best to personally answer as many of them as possible. Occasionally his email box "overflows" and you may get an error when trying to contact him. Please be patient and try sending your message to Michael again at a later date.
more...
pictures the flowers
cool_desi_gc
08-18 06:37 PM
Sushilup...I am in the same boat.Filed on Jul 10th and no signs of approval.
dresses While Valentines Day
desi3933
07-10 09:15 AM
INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner 1aa/ may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,
(2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.
[Emphasis added]
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=6778c6078a6f941bf84dd5cec7c73 772
___________________
Not a legal advice.
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner 1aa/ may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,
(2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.
[Emphasis added]
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=6778c6078a6f941bf84dd5cec7c73 772
___________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
makeup Valentines Day Background With
kannan
05-19 04:39 PM
Called 3/14 the first time and was told that FP would be scheduled. Never heard so called again on 5/9 and this time was told to callback after 60 days from the initial call.
I spoke with one rep who said that they are processing "June 29th" applications so you have to wait for your "Biometrics Appointment". I am kinda lost on this one.
What is the best number to reach the right Customer Service department alongwith the options to reach a live person to speak with who can actually schedule the Biometrics Appointment.
Am a July 2nd Filer - Actual Application filed on Sep 10th.
Cheers,
On May 2 nd I called Customer Service Center and told them that I did not get FP and Biometrics .I used the words that I was depressed ,worried and all others who applied after me got FP but I did not get it ,my son going to be 21etc .......Finally Male IO scheduled FP immediately for me and my family on May 16.I saw LUD on Friday itself and another Lud on sunday ,I got the letter on next wednesday and i finished my fp on may 16 .
Options That I choose
1-800-375-5283
1
2
2
6
1
R.no
1
3
4
I spoke with one rep who said that they are processing "June 29th" applications so you have to wait for your "Biometrics Appointment". I am kinda lost on this one.
What is the best number to reach the right Customer Service department alongwith the options to reach a live person to speak with who can actually schedule the Biometrics Appointment.
Am a July 2nd Filer - Actual Application filed on Sep 10th.
Cheers,
On May 2 nd I called Customer Service Center and told them that I did not get FP and Biometrics .I used the words that I was depressed ,worried and all others who applied after me got FP but I did not get it ,my son going to be 21etc .......Finally Male IO scheduled FP immediately for me and my family on May 16.I saw LUD on Friday itself and another Lud on sunday ,I got the letter on next wednesday and i finished my fp on may 16 .
Options That I choose
1-800-375-5283
1
2
2
6
1
R.no
1
3
4
girlfriend Lollipop Flowers
akhilmahajan
02-09 05:23 PM
Thanks a lot Rajeev and coolpal.
Grand Total - $599
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
Grand Total - $599
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
hairstyles Petite Valentines Bowl
jfredr
08-13 01:56 PM
Mine also reached there at the same time through fedex and brok woltstead signed for it.chacks not cashed yet.waiting for recipts eagerly.let me know who signed for you and when you receive your receipts.best of luck
Signed by R.MICKELS at 9:01 on 2nd JuLY no luck yet
Signed by R.MICKELS at 9:01 on 2nd JuLY no luck yet
gc28262
07-19 07:56 PM
My thoughts:
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
czarseattle
05-03 07:14 PM
More conservatives are backing our cause than liberals. Seems counter initutive to me. Mid-western, southern red state senators are supporting high-tech immigration while I dont seem to hear anything from coastal blue state senators except about illegal immgirants. Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment