m*******l
发帖数: 12782 | 1 ☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jwe (Mike) 于 (Tue Sep 6 13:32:37 2011, 美东) 提到:
最新研究成果公布在NIU中文网 http://www.niunational.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=552
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cnus (会飞的猪) 于 (Tue Sep 6 14:06:47 2011, 美东) 提到:
辛苦，感谢。我一直感觉组织把太多精力放在一个有争议，很多技术环节还没弄透的项
目上。 ２７％是多么简单的项目，几乎所有的宣传和讨论集中在其他方面，有那么多
时间和精力吗。为何不把公众的注意力和力量先用在简单易搞受益快的27%项目上？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
EBer (光脚不怕穿鞋的) 于 (Tue Sep 6 14:25:19 2011, 美东) 提到:
辛苦了.
不过还是泼点凉水.
谁去承担这个修改的风险?
这不让行政部门自己在脖子上拴根绳子,然后把绳子交别人手上.
没有重大利益诉求,行政部门是不会轻易动的.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
RoseOfSaron (RoseOfSaron) 于 (Tue Sep 6 15:03:10 2011, 美东) 提到:
好了,好了,给congressman 写了信了.
什么总统请愿签名啊,说一声啊.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
acectl (磨) 于 (Tue Sep 6 15:20:14 2011, 美东) 提到:
don't quite get it. The lawyer's link posted still requires adding a few
sentences to the law, which needs to go through congress, then what's the
difference? If it needs to go through congress anyway, why not simply strike
out the sentence that says "submission can be done only when a visa number
is immediately available? " That would solve all the problems. And this
requirement makes no sense.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jwe (Mike) 于 (Tue Sep 6 15:37:13 2011, 美东) 提到:
That's CFR, Code of Federal Regulation/政府行政法规，不是联邦法，不需要通过
国会。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
voice2007 (The Voice) 于 (Tue Sep 6 22:34:27 2011, 美东) 提到:
writting letters to congressmen, starting petitions on the whitehouse
website... all good ideas/initiatives...
However sometimes we might need to go out to the street, to the whitehouse,
the congress building, even your local immigration offices to make sure we
are not only being heard, but being seen too..
Almost on daily, see a group of people (union workers, ilegal students...etc
) walking/protesting to pursue their interests. Never seen Chinese students/professional standing out for their interests.
..
Maybe it is time for us to do so...
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Helsinki (跑步然后桑拿) 于 (Tue Sep 6 23:02:58 2011, 美东) 提到:
2007年大潮的时候，很多人递交了I-485，难道他们都有 "an immigrant visa is
immediately available to him at the time his application is filed."？
答案是明显的：不，没有an immigrant visa is immediately available to them. 这
些人中很多人等了很久，甚至等到现在2011年了还是没有an immigrant visa is
immediately available to them.
技术上没有违法不等于事实上没有违法，只要PD早于VB，就算visa number immediately available？是可以被起诉的，PD应该反映visa number immediately available，而不是决定visa number immediately available，
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Macrosoft (无) 于 (Thu Sep 8 00:47:01 2011, 美东) 提到:
不出意外,DOS/DHS应该开始研究收485跟VB分开的事情.收485是为更好地估计排期,制定
VB.自07/07以来,一直是485跟VB同步,是因为有大量的DEMAND存在.而今,EB2已经到了重
建新的DEMAND的时候了.还是那句话,机会在这里,是沿用老方法,CURRENT,还是分期分批
地收新485,完全看DOS/DHS如何操作了. |
|
