#domestic violence visa processing time

[infopanelb2b]

Applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) Under the Domestic Violence Rule

Introduction

For those experiencing domestic abuse while on a partner or spousal visa in the UK, navigating the complexities of immigration can be daunting. The Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) under the Domestic Violence Rule provides a critical pathway for individuals to secure permanent residency without being tied to an abusive partner. This guide explores the process, eligibility criteria, required documentation, and important tips to consider when applying for ILR due to domestic violence.

1. What is ILR Under the Domestic Violence Rule?

Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) under the Domestic Violence Rule allows individuals on certain visas—such as spousal or partner visas—to apply for permanent residency if their relationship has ended due to domestic violence. This visa type is crucial for ensuring that victims of abuse can seek safety and independence without risking their right to live in the UK.

2. Eligibility Requirements

To qualify for ILR under the Domestic Violence Rule, applicants must meet specific criteria:

Visa Status: You must currently be on a spousal, partner, or similar visa that originally required a relationship with a British citizen, settled person, or someone with refugee status in the UK.

Relationship Status: The relationship with your partner must have broken down due to domestic violence.

Evidence of Abuse: Applicants must provide sufficient evidence of domestic abuse, which can include physical, emotional, or financial abuse.

3. Required Documentation

Providing robust documentation is essential to support your ILR application. The types of evidence typically required include:

Police Reports: Records of incidents reported to the police.

Medical Records: Documentation of any injuries or treatments received due to abuse.

Court Orders: Any relevant court orders, such as restraining orders or non-molestation orders.

Social Services Reports: Information from social services if they have been involved.

Support Letters: Letters from domestic violence charities, social workers, or other professionals who can attest to the abuse.

Having a variety of evidence strengthens your application and demonstrates the seriousness of the case.

4. Application Process

The process for applying for ILR under the Domestic Violence Rule is straightforward but requires careful attention to detail:

Complete the SET(DV) Form: The specific application form for this ILR category is called the SET(DV). It can be completed online or submitted in paper form.

Submit Evidence: Attach all relevant documentation to support your claim, ensuring that you include evidence of your immigration status and the abuse experienced.

Pay the Fee: The ILR application under domestic violence rules may require a fee, although fee waivers are available for applicants who can demonstrate financial hardship.

Attend a Biometric Appointment: You will need to provide biometric information (fingerprints and a photograph) as part of your application.

Await a Decision: The Home Office will review your application and supporting documents before making a decision. Processing times typically range from 6 to 12 weeks.

5. Tips for a Successful Application

Ensure Documentation is Comprehensive: Double-check that all pieces of evidence are included and well-documented. Missing information can result in delays or a negative outcome.

Seek Professional Guidance: Consulting with an immigration lawyer or support organization specializing in domestic violence cases can help strengthen your application and ensure that your rights are protected.

Apply for a Fee Waiver if Necessary: If you are unable to afford the application fee, apply for a fee waiver with sufficient evidence of financial hardship.

Conclusion

Applying for ILR under the Domestic Violence Rule is a critical option for victims of abuse to secure their future in the UK without dependence on an abusive partner. By understanding the eligibility requirements, submitting comprehensive evidence, and seeking professional support when needed, applicants can navigate the process with confidence and reclaim their independence.

[om-lawgroupp]

VAWA Immigration Lawyer: Advocating for Victims of Abuse

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted in 1994 to protect immigrant victims of domestic abuse. Many people in the U.S. on temporary or permanent visas find themselves in abusive relationships, making it difficult to seek help due to fear of deportation or losing legal status. This is where a VAWA immigration lawyer becomes a critical ally, providing legal guidance and support for victims, regardless of gender, who seek to escape abusive environments while maintaining their right to remain in the United States.

 

What is VAWA?

VAWA allows certain non-citizens who have experienced domestic violence or abuse by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) family member to self-petition for legal status without relying on their abuser. This provision empowers victims to gain independence and access to the benefits of lawful residency. A VAWA immigration lawyer helps clients navigate this self-petition process, ensuring that all necessary documentation and evidence are properly submitted to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Who Can Benefit from VAWA?

VAWA is not limited to women, despite its title. It provides protection for men, women, and children who have suffered abuse from a spouse, parent, or adult child who is a U.S. citizen or LPR. The act covers various forms of abuse, including physical, emotional, psychological, financial, and sexual. A VAWA immigration lawyer can help clarify eligibility criteria and determine whether an individual qualifies under the law.

Eligible individuals include:

Spouses (male or female) of U.S. citizens or LPRs who have been abused or subjected to extreme cruelty.

Children who have been abused by a U.S. citizen or LPR parent.

Parents of U.S. citizen children who have been abused by their adult child.

Role of a VAWA Immigration Lawyer

Navigating immigration law is challenging, especially for those dealing with the trauma of abuse. A VAWA immigration lawyer provides a range of services to help victims break free from their abuser and gain lawful status:

Confidential Legal Advice: The lawyer offers a confidential and safe space for clients to share their stories and concerns. Victims can trust that their situation will be handled with sensitivity and professionalism, which is essential when dealing with personal abuse cases.

Document Preparation: A successful VAWA petition requires evidence of abuse, including police reports, restraining orders, medical records, affidavits, or testimony from friends, neighbors, or counselors. The lawyer assists in gathering and organizing this evidence to build a compelling case.

Filing the Petition: The VAWA immigration lawyer ensures that the self-petition is filed correctly and in a timely manner. Any errors or omissions in the application process can lead to delays or denials, so professional guidance is crucial.

Representing Clients: If the self-petition is approved, the VAWA immigration lawyer will help the client apply for adjustment of status, ultimately leading to a green card. In cases where there are complications, such as a denial of the petition or additional requests for evidence, the lawyer will represent the client’s interests and work to resolve any issues.

Why You Need a VAWA Immigration Lawyer

Attempting to navigate the immigration system alone can be overwhelming and intimidating, especially for someone recovering from abuse. The process requires a strong legal understanding and the ability to present a case clearly and effectively. A VAWA Immigration lawyer near me expertise ensures that clients have the best chance of securing their immigration status while leaving behind a harmful situation.

Moreover, immigration laws are complex and frequently change. A lawyer who specializes in VAWA cases stays up to date with legal developments and knows the best strategies for success.

[murrayziel]

Trusted Legal Advisors In Meridian: Services Offered At Murray, Ziel, & Johnston, Attorneys

Murray, Ziel, & Johnston, Attorneys is your trusted legal advisor in Meridian. Our firm offers a wide range of services, including family law, immigration law, and criminal defense. With decades of experience, our team of skilled attorneys is dedicated to providing knowledgeable and personalized representation to every one of our clients.

One of our key services is family law. Our Family Law Attorney in Meridian is equipped with the expertise and compassion to help you navigate through the complexities of family law issues. Whether it’s a divorce, child custody dispute, or property division, our team has the experience and resources to guide you through the legal process and achieve a favorable outcome. We understand that family law matters can be emotionally challenging, and we strive to provide our clients with the support and guidance they need during this difficult time.

In addition to family law, we also specialize in immigration law. Our Immigration Attorneys in Meridian are well-versed in the constantly evolving immigration laws and regulations. We understand that the immigration process can be daunting and complex, which is why we are committed to providing our clients with comprehensive and personalized services. Whether you are seeking a visa, or green card, or facing deportation, our team will work tirelessly to protect your rights and help you achieve your immigration goals.

Last but not least, our firm also has a dedicated Criminal Defense Attorney in Meridian and surrounding areas. Being charged with a crime can be a frightening and overwhelming experience. Our experienced criminal defense team is here to help you navigate through the criminal justice system and ensure that your rights are protected. We handle a wide range of criminal cases, including DUIs, drug offenses, and domestic violence. Our attorneys have a deep understanding of the laws and procedures involved in these cases and will work diligently to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients.

At Murray, Ziel, & Johnston, Attorneys, we pride ourselves on our commitment to our clients and our results-driven approach. We understand that each case is unique, and we tailor our strategies to meet the specific needs and goals of our clients. Our attorneys have a reputation for being strong advocates in the courtroom, and we have a track record of achieving successful outcomes for our clients.

In addition to our legal expertise, we also prioritize communication and transparency with our clients. We understand that legal matters can be complicated, and we strive to ensure that our clients are fully informed and involved in the decision-making process every step of the way. We are committed to providing our clients with top-notch legal representation and achieving the best possible outcomes for their cases. Contact us today at (208)904-4444 to schedule a consultation and visit our website athttps://www.murrayziel.com/ to learn more about how we can assist you with your legal needs.

[rijallaw]

U Visa Bona Fide Determination: Is It Right for You?

Do you believe you may qualify for U Visa Bona Fide Determination ? Are you looking to immigrate to the United States in the manner that’s best for you and yours? If you’ve found yourself at the crossroads of having witnessed a crime and holding crucial information that could aid law enforcement, the prospect of obtaining a “U nonimmigrant visa status” might be within your reach.

Here at the Rijal Law Firm, we understand the complexities individuals like you face, contemplating the application for a U visa or awaiting this determination. Drawing from our extensive experience, we stand ready to use our expertise to assist you in your immigration journey.

Justice and Immigration At its core, the U visa helps victims of crime who collaborate with law enforcement by offering a pathway to legal immigration. Many crime victims, uncertain about the legality of their immigration status, may hesitate to assist law enforcement due to fears of potential repercussions, including deportation.

The U visa, however, acts as a safeguard, preventing such punitive measures and empowering crime victims to pursue lawful immigration to the United States.

U Bona Fide Determination Eligibility Criteria Eligibility for the U visa extends to those who have witnessed crimes such as felonious assault, trafficking, kidnapping, prostitution/sexual exploitation, domestic violence, sexual assault, torture, and other serious offenses.

Merely being a victim is not sufficient; applicants must actively contribute to law enforcement efforts by providing pertinent information about the crime. Additionally, applicants must demonstrate mental and/or physical suffering resulting from the crime. Crucially, none of the “grounds of inadmissibility” should be applicable to the applicant, and any queries regarding this can be clarified through our assistance.

We can guide you through every step of this application, so as to make the best case on your behalf.

Simplifying the Process As part of just what this process entails, applicants must complete the U visa application, incorporating the Petition, U Nonimmigrant Status Certification (completed by law enforcement), a comprehensive background check, biometrics, and a personal statement detailing the facts of the crime experienced.

That can be a lot, to say the very least. Our legal team can help. Throughout, we can take you through this intricate documentation process, ensuring the construction of a robust case to support your eligibility.

Guidance from Seasoned Attorneys A successful bona fide application grants deferred action and makes you and your family members eligible for work authorization for a four-year period. However, it is essential to note that a bona fide determination does not guarantee automatic approval of the U visa. The subsequent process can be arduous, complex, and at times, frustrating. Our dedicated attorneys offer unwavering support, assisting you from the initial stages to the final outcome.

Of course, U Visa Bona Fide Determination is just one of the ways we can help folks like you to immigrate to America. To schedule a free case evaluation to see how we can help you, message us through our site or give us a call.

[cheerfulomelette]

AIUI, this post (and that gun analogy in particular) isn't even remotely close to accurate.

If GRA reform wasn't a devolved decision, it wouldn't have gone as far as it did without action from Westminster, who are hellbent on turning trans rights into what they hope will be a vote-winning culture war.

Westminster did raise complaints, but they couldn't pursue because it was completely within the Scottish remit. They looked at striking it down with some unused "executive nope" power, but seemed to decide it wasn't worth the risk of failure, suggesting it is (or is now) a devolved decision.

As for "it's like California banning guns":

The legal ramifications of GRA reform are minimal and personal - trans people can get new/amended birth certificates, and can marry and have their deaths registered as the correct gender.

That's it.

Nothing about prisons, changing rooms, public lavatories, hospital wards, or sexual and domestic violence services. The disinformation over the last six years has been appalling. When was the last time you had to show your birth certificate to use a public toilet or changing room? Do you even know where your birth certificate is? How relevant is it to your daily life?

And the enforcement of this is questionable at best, impossible at worst. If someone presents a Scottish birth/marriage/death certificate, how will an English service know if its been changed? Will they just decline Scottish birth certificates en masse? Will they add an additional requirement to show a GRC, if applicable? How would you enforce that?

And they're also going to be applying the same metric to any country with a more liberal GRC process than the (non-scottish) UK's. A literal step backwards on human rights.

Apart from getting married, an adult only seems to need a birth cert for applying for a driving licence, passport or visa, and/or a mortgage, maybe for claiming a state pension, but the gender marker doesn't matter for any of them (I don't think I used my birth cert to get my driving licence anyway, and you can change your name and gender on a driving licence and passport without a GRC).

The lack of reasons to show a birth certificate, the unenforceability of this idea and the general moral panic around GRCs make this whole thing a sop to the Torys' transphobic voterbase. That this posturing opposition to human rights is something they're even wasting time on, instead of addressing <gestures> literally everything else, should be damning

Ludicrous decision by the UK government who have announced they will refuse to recognise Scottish Gender Recognition certificates.

This will force trans people to apply for a separate GRC for the rest of the UK.

[mariacallous]

Thousands of people who fled the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan more than a year ago have yet to be resettled, and many are crammed into temporary housing while their kids go without school. Some refugees have been forced out of government-supported accommodations to make way for refugees from the war in Ukraine, and they cannot access their own bank accounts, which have been frozen by U.S. sanctions.

The collapse of the Afghan republic on Aug. 15, 2021, and the return to power of the terrorist-led Taliban sparked a chaotic evacuation by the United States and allies of people who feared retribution. Those fears were realized as the Taliban hunted down people who had worked with the Western-backed government and its security forces, civil society, and media. Many have been arbitrarily detained, tortured, killed, or forced to leave the country.

According to reports, more than 1 million Afghans have fled their country since the Taliban’s return. Many of the evacuees went to third countries to be processed for resettlement in the United States. In Britain, the government has been criticized for its lack of support for Afghan refugees, many of whom suffer deteriorating mental health amid rising domestic violence. They cannot work while their asylum applications are processed, and for many families, their children cannot go to school until they have been allocated housing. In Britain and Germany, Afghan refugees were forced to make way for people fleeing fighting in Ukraine. Lone women often face sexual harassment.

Horakhsh Amini just arrived in Canada after languishing for a year in a refugee camp in the United Arab Emirates, spending much of that time confined to one room with his wife and four young children, not even permitted to walk around the facility due, he said, to COVID-19 restrictions. “We never saw the sky,” he said. People literally went crazy “because of the uncertainty about how long they would be there.”

Amini, a doctor who was teaching surgery in a major hospital before the collapse of the republic, was entitled to resettlement in the United States after working as a medical translator with the U.S. military in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan. He said on the rare occasions U.S. officials visited the camp, all any of them could tell him was: “I’m sorry. I’m sorry. You have to complete the SIV [special immigration visa] process, and it takes two or three years.’”

Protests became regular events, Amini said, as the thousands of people at the facility called for, as he put it, “freedom.” No outside visitors were permitted, and none of the residents could leave the center, called the Emirates Humanitarian City, apart from medical emergencies. Neither UAE nor camp officials could be reached for comment.

His relief at escaping Taliban death threats soon evaporated, he said—until about a month ago, when he heard Canadian officials were interviewing people who wanted to resettle in Canada. Amini, 44, jumped at the chance, and within a week, he and his family were on a plane to Ottawa. “We have found a way to live again,” he said. This week, his three oldest children, all girls, started school. “It’s fall here, and the colors of the trees are beautiful. The kids love it,” he said.

Canada accepted around 1,000 people from the UAE facility at the request of the United States, and it is expected to take another 500 people who have ties to Canada, Reuters reported; more than 10,000 people from the camp have been relocated to the United States, the news service said. The figures could not be independently verified.

But not all refugees are processed equally. Those awaiting resettlement in the United States are processed largely while still in a third country; those who are resettled in Canada will be processed after they arrive in Canada. The time for processing is about the same for each country, according to sources in the humanitarian sector, but the waiting room is a whole lot different. Nevertheless, the U.S. immigration system has been plagued by staff shortages since policy changes introduced by the Trump administration, exacerbating the frustration of people waiting to be processed for resettlement out of interim housing.

A former Afghan government official, age 32, who has spent a year at the UAE camp and asked that he not be named to protect the safety of his family still in Afghanistan, said a total of 17,800 people were evacuated to the UAE between August and November last year. “Fifteen thousand have left for the U.S., Canada, and Europe, with 90 percent going to America,” he said. Of the 2,800 people still in the camp, many, like him, are former civil servants and include military personnel, judges, attorneys, and journalists.

U.S. and Emirati officials visited the camp this month in an effort to quell two days of protests, said the source, who has two degrees from Georgetown University and said he also worked with the U.S. government in Afghanistan for three years. A U.S. Embassy official made no promises about how much longer resettlement would take, though an Emirati official said the camp would be closed within three months.

“I’m not confident about these promises. If the U.S. charge d’affairs and the UAE official had both said three months, I would be 95 percent confident. But I’m worried that it is not going to happen,” the Afghan source said. The U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi could not be reached for comment.

With his relocation to Canada, Amini and his family have escaped the fate of many desperate people who fled the Taliban’s takeover, flown to countries they’d never visited, and billeted in hotels, often with large families squeezed into one room with a bathroom but no kitchen or other facilities. As the Western world agonizes over the Taliban’s violent treatment of women and girls, confined to their homes and essentially banned from secondary school, the children of many Afghan refugees are kept out of school by a tortuously slow bureaucracy that makes them feel unwanted and unwelcome. Until they are resettled, they cannot work, but U.S. sanctions on Afghanistan’s financial sector mean they cannot access their bank accounts and must rely on handouts.

Treatment of evacuees has varied widely. In sharp contrast to the alleged conditions in the UAE, Albania’s open-door policy enabled thousands of refugees from Afghanistan and other countries, including Pakistan, to live in comfortable seaside resorts while their applications for resettlement were processed, said aid worker Gonxhe Kandri. However, she said, costs—including flights, food, and medical care—were largely covered by American nongovernment organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy.

Many of the Afghans who arrived in Albania in 2021 have already resettled in the United States and Canada, she said. About 1,000 more who have arrived should be resettled in the United States by next June, she added.

Back in Emirates Humanitarian City, the 32-year-old Afghan sees no light at the end of the tunnel. “I was in the United States for five years. I studied for my B.A. and M.A. at Georgetown University, I worked with the Americans in Afghanistan for three years, and yet they have left me in prison for one year. Then I see the Taliban being flown around the world in private jets. It is difficult to bear.”

[mithliya]

Why tf are TRAs saying you got kicked out of the uk for domestic violence against your ex girlfriend?

this is going to be a long story but im gonna try to summarise it. basically, i was in a relationship and she was abusive towards me from literally the first week, it might’ve been the first day but my sense of time isn’t very good. i was v much in love and we we’re gonna get married and everything (i didn’t share that part online tho), but throughout the relationship she was very verbally & emotionally abusive, sometimes physically abusive, and also financially abusive. she Literally stole my wallet and lied to me about it & when i filed a police report & the cops described her she manipulated me into not looking into it further and said she’ll find the real culprit. while with her, my money was going missing and i was stolen from SEVERAL TIMES. so i was left in a foreign country (the UK) with no support and was desperate for money to be able to eat or get basic necessities on multiple occasions. i NEVER had that issue in my previous 3 years in the UK, but the year we were dating, i went thru it almost every month! part of it was on me bc i was supporting her w my allowance too, but she was also. literally stealing. anyways, eventually she finally got enough money for her nose job, she manipulated me into paying for it making me think that she needed money to pay off an urgent debt she had and that if i didn’t help, her car and other things would be taken to pay it off. then 2 days after, she suddenly was No Longer In Love With Me (a week before she said she’d kill herself if i left her), and 2 days after that she went to turkey to get a nose job. i got mad at her and my residence permit was expiring around that time too, which is part of why i was so angry: she could’ve gotten that nose job whenever but decided to get it when my permit was expiring in only a few days. anyways, i was processing our entire relationship and i looked into some things and then i realised she had been lying to me & manipulating me, and realised just how abusive she was. i looked into it and turned out, her debt was real but she didn’t pay it off at all and it wasn’t urgent whatsoever. so she used her real debt to create a false urgent situation where she needed my help, and used the money to get a nose job. i talked about my realisation of her abuse on my blog which she was obsessively checking (she doesn’t have tumblr) & she started sending me anon hate, bc she was mad i said i realised she was abusive and that she stole from me and lied to me (which she even admitted to in the msgs). i responded to some of it & bc we had each other blocked elsewhere, she was using anon hate to communicate to me & was trying to turn it around on me, despite the fact that ive never hit her, nor put her down, nor lied to her, etc which were all things she did to me. she even lashed out on me in the messages bc my other ex told my mom that m (the abusive ex) had randomly choked me out on multiple occasions. she said i was trying to look bad and seek attention, even tho i didnt tell my mom about that and even tho i would defend her to my friends when they expressed concern when i told them about that. she justified her abuse by saying i didn’t complain when we were in a relationship (i shouldnt have to complain that her randomly suffocating me until i throw up or until im about to blackout is bad, nor should i have to complain that her hitting or biting me randomly isnt ok, but w/e typical abuser tactics). to try to silence me, she even made a blog where she would post my full name and would threaten me and shit. i think i could find some of it if anyone is curious but she said some vile shit and was lashing out, which she would do to me a lot during our relationship as a way to keep me in line. anyways, tygress saw some of that shit ig and he decided to be a disgusting piece of shit and invent his weird story that i 1. was deported from the UK (lowkey racist and completely baseless, i left a few months after graduating bc my permit was expiring and it’s hard to get a work visa) 2. was an online scammer (also baseless, i asked for money bc i was being constantly stolen from by my ex & needed food. what i asked for was paid back) and 3. abused my ex (so he saw me talk about my ex abusing me and flipped it around to a claim where *im* the one who abused her, which is disgusting)..... and that’s why there’s 1 tra & his false identity on tumblr claiming i got kicked out of the UK for domestically abusing my ex.

[creepingsharia]

U.S. Congressmen and Women for (Terrorist) Hamas

Rashida Tlaib and ‘useful idiots’ on parade at anti-Israel AMP conference.

By Joe Kaufman

As Progressives continue to make the vilification of Israel a core issue for the Democratic Party, members of Congress continue to line up to embrace the hate. On Tuesday, September 15th, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) will be sponsoring an online virtual advocacy event (‘Palestine Advocacy Days’) featuring at least five US Representatives. But this is not just an exercise in demanding "Palestinian rights" or supporting the toxic BDS calls for boycotting Israel. AMP is rooted in Hamas, and its leadership does not shy away from its roots, so having numerous Congressmen and women involved in this type of event is beyond outrageous.

Created in 2006. AMP was the byproduct of now-defunct groups that made up the US Palestine Committee, a terror umbrella organization led by then-global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. As such, the group celebrates violence against Israelis. During its January 2018 ‘JERUSALEM IS A RED LINE’ rally, AMP repeatedly led chants of “Long live Intifada” – Intifada meaning Palestinian violent uprising. AMP’s Chairman, Hatem Bazian, who also founded Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), notoriously called for an American intifada, at an April 2004 rally in San Francisco. Citing uprisings in ���Palestine” and Iraq, he asked, “How come we don't have an intifada in this country?”

One AMP board member, Salah Sarsour, allegedly had involvement with Hamas, itself. According to a December 1998 Israeli Police memo, Salah’s brother Jamil Sarsour, in the course of an interview, claimed that Salah was involved with Hamas and did fundraising for Hamas via the Palestine Committee’s Holy Land Foundation (HLF). Jamil also claimed that Salah had plotted an attack on Israel, as revenge for the September 1998 killing of Salah’s friends – Hamas military wing Qassam Brigades leaders and brothers, Imad and Adel Awadallah – by Israeli soldiers. Previously, Salah had spent eight months in a Ramallah prison.

AMP is a part of the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). Sitting on the board of USCMO is Mazen Mokhtar, a former US-based administrator for qoqaz.net, a now-defunct al-Qaeda recruitment/financing site. Mokhtar, who has spoken at AMP events, has called Hamas acts “heroic” and suicide bombings “an effective method of attacking the enemy.” Also on the board is Siraj Wahhaj, a Brooklyn, New York imam who was cited by the US government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj has been linked to the bomb maker of the attack, Clement Rodney Hampton-El, and has praised the spiritual leader of the attack, Omar Abdel Rahman.

Representing AMP on USCMO’s Board of Directors and speaking at Tuesday’s virtual advocacy event is AMP Executive Director Osama Abu-Irshaid, who, last month, called Muslim leaders, who support UAE peace with Israel, “dirt bags” and “traitors.” Prior to AMP, he served as editor of Al Zaytounah, the official newsletter of the Palestine Committee’s Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). This past January, Abu-Irshaid stated at an AMP event, “Palestinians, if they don’t take what they want willingly, they will take it forcefully. We promise you this, we’re going to liberate our land and we’re going to liberate our people, whether they like it or they don’t like it. Well, they have picked the wrong enemy!”

Also speaking at the AMP’s virtual advocacy event is PLO Executive Committee Member Hanan Ashrawi. Under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, which is still law, the US government designated the PLO a terrorist organization and a threat to America. Ashrawi, herself, has been labeled an “apologist for terror.” During a November 1991 interview with the New York Times, Ashrawi dismissed Palestinian terror as “essentially a human voice” and a “cry from the heart.” She said, “Desperate people commit desperate acts.” In May 2019, Ashrawi’s American visa was rejected and she was denied entry into the US.

Another speaker at AMP’s event is Muslim activist and National Committeewoman for the Florida Young Democrats (FYD) Rasha Mubarak. Mubarak has made a number of statements claiming that Israel, a sovereign nation, has no right to self-defense, and she has attacked prominent figures on social media for saying otherwise. In November 2012, Mubarak tweeted, “Lies I’m tired of hearing, Israel has the right to defend herself.” She has posted pictures of Hamas celebrations, and she has had involvement in Hamas-related groups, CAIR and Islamic Relief. This past July, Mubarak retweeted an infamous call for violence in the US made previously by 60s radical, Kwame Ture.

One would expect people like Abu-Irshaid, Ashrawi and Mubarak to speak at such an incendiary event. They have all been associated with groups linked to terror. However, what you do not expect is for members of US Congress to be featured with them. Yet, this is exactly what is happening on Tuesday. At least five US Representatives will be featured at the AMP virtual advocacy event. They include: Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota), Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan), Donald Payne Jr. (D-New Jersey), Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan), and Judy Chu (D-California). While AMP is working to mainstream Hamas in America, these representatives are helping in the process.

It is no secret that many of these Congressmen and women embrace and enable Islamic extremism. This infiltration of Islamists into the highest levels of the US government – allowed by our nation’s representatives using their positions to sabotage American values – is a page taken straight out of the Muslim Brotherhood's playbook on how to destroy America from within. Non-Muslim leftist allies are pandering to their Muslim constituencies by working with pro-terror groups, like AMP.

In the interests of national security, these government officials need to cancel their speaking engagements for this event and, instead, denounce AMP and call for the group’s closure. They took a Congressional oath “to protect America from all enemies both foreign and domestic,” and they need to make clear to the American people whose side they are on. Choosing to speak at an AMP event says it all.

[xtruss]

With Nearly Half of U.S. Farmworkers Undocumented, Ending Illegal Immigration Could Devastate Economy

— By Meghan Roos and Alex J. Rouhandeh | April 21, 2021 | Newsweek

As heated conversations about U.S. immigration focus on migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, a quiet scenario plays out on farms across the country—thousands of undocumented workers tending and picking the crops put food on American tables and fill cargo ships that supply the world.

America's reliance on migrant agricultural workers is a secret hiding in plain sight.

In New York's Hudson Valley, a historic apple farm utilizes a legal process for hiring migrant workers—the H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers program. It enables Minard's Family Farm to legally hire migrants on a seasonal basis, and includes protections for both migrant and domestic workers that can result in fines if violations occur.

Jason Minard, whose family has run the farm since 1906, said he believes in the program despite its up-front costs and the risk of penalties.

"I don't look down on the program, I look at it as an asset," Minard told Newsweek. "It's a cost of doing business. It's an asset because of the bottom-line reality: Without these H-2A workers, these apples would not get picked."

H-2A workers prune Pink Lady apple trees at Minard's Family Farm.

A bill to reform the H-2A program, H.R. 1603, called the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2021, passed the House on March 18. It includes a path to citizenship for H-2A workers. Until or unless it is approved by both houses of Congress, agricultural employers are left to decide how best to employ workers for physically-demanding work that typically does not appeal to U.S. workers.

According to a 2018 report by the U.S. Department of Labor, 49% of the U.S. agricultural workforce is undocumented —a significant statistic for a country that along with China and India ranks among the top three agricultural producers in the world.

In 2019, U.S. agriculture contributed about $136.1 billion to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Agriculture alone makes up about 0.6 % of the country's GDP, but that number rises to about 5.2% when combined with related food industries, according to a 2019 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service report.

Agriculture and related food industries are also credited with providing nearly 11% of the country's jobs, according to the USDA's report, an estimated 2.6 million of which involve working directly on American farms.

Minard told Newsweek he realizes there are employers who don't take the same legal steps he does, and said that the complex legal process required, coupled with potential fines employers face for contract violations, may provide an explanation.

Fines for violations can range from $1,700 to $6,000. Fines for layoffs and improperly rejecting U.S. workers can reach $17,000. Violations of housing and transportation agreements can be as high as $59,000. The fines are based on individual workers, and are multiplied by the total number of workers whose contractual rights are deemed to have been violated.

These fees may deter some farms from getting involved with the program, especially when, by comparison, fines for hiring undocumented workers range from just $600 to about $4,000 for first-time offenders.

Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the Migration Policy Institute at New York University School of Law, described the penalties as a "slap on the wrist."

"Hiring unauthorized people has become part of the business model for a lot of employers," Chishti told Newsweek. "The consequences are so minimal that it is worth taking the risk."

From the migrant workers' point of view, U.S. agricultural employment serves as what former President Donald Trump's Ambassador to Mexico Christopher Landau described as a "pull factor." Migrants from Central America comprise a large percentage of those traveling to the U.S. in the hope of starting a new life, and while factors like violence at home and climate-driven weather events can serve as a "push" to seek refuge elsewhere, job opportunities also draw them to the U.S.

Agricultural workers from Bud Farms harvest celery for both American and export consumption on March 26, 2020 in Oxnard, California.

Landau told Newsweek he believes the U.S. should address some of those pull factors before trying to change the push factors in other countries, which he said would likely require a "multi-generational effort."

"I think, ultimately, the United States is making a terrible mistake by thinking that the answer for our country lies in trying to fix other countries," he told Newsweek. "We don't have a great track record in terms of nation-building. It seems to me the answer is much closer to home. I don't see how we can't get our own employers to stop hiring people illegally."

The H-2A program employers like Minard use today has a history dating back to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which created the H-2 temporary visa program for foreign workers, and was refined in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which created the H-2A and H-2B programs for agricultural and nonagricultural workers, respectively.

Before the H-2A program existed, the Bracero program was used widely among agricultural employers between the 1940s and 1960s. The Bracero History Archive estimates that about 4.6 million temporary worker contracts were signed during that time period. But the archive notes the program was riddled with problems rooted in employers' unwillingness to abide by its worker protection rules, which contributed to its demise and eventual replacement with the H-2 program.

Despite the existing legal options, the avenues for attaining these visas remain tight.

The H-2A visa process requires employers to follow a three-step process dictated by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS). It starts with employers filing a temporary labor certification with the U.S. Department of Labor. Then, they must file an I-129 petition to hire a "nonimmigrant worker" to USCIS. Once completed, the prospective worker then applies for the H-2A visa at a U.S. embassy before journeying to the United States.

Though the steps sound simple, each part contains multiple sub-steps, which can be time-consuming and confusing. Minard's farm has experienced the complexity of the process firsthand.

"It's costly, there're a lot of regulations, a lot of record keeping," Minard told Newsweek. "For your average farmer, it may seem like a lot.

Because jobs requiring H-2A workers must also be offered equally to American workers, employers like Minard need to advertise the job opportunity locally, and must continue to do so until the H-2A workers complete at least half the time on their contract.

Minard says the American workers at his farm generally last only a few days. Nonetheless, he must hire eligible Americans when they apply.

Along with this regulation, Minard says a mandate requiring employers to offer paid hours during 75% of the duration of the H-2A contract, known as the "three-fourths guarantee," presents a logistical risk. On apple farms, for example, a frost might wipe out portions of the crop, calling for increased hours one week and virtually no hours the next. Farms who hire workers through the H-2A program must be equipped to pay their workers through the duration of their contract, even if weather conditions reduce the expected revenue yield from a crop.

"I think a lot of employers say, 'Well, what the heck, why should I bother to comply with the law, if my competitor down the road is hiring illegals and getting away with it?'" former-Ambassador Landau told Newsweek. "This is basically a way to get around a lot of the laws we put in place to protect workers in this country."

Undocumented agricultural workers face multiple forms of exploitation. In some cases, they encounter unsafe, dirty workplace conditions. In other cases, they face high productivity expectations that may result in long days under the sun with few breaks. However, even if the conditions and schedule mirror a law-abiding U.S. workplace, there are further risks.

Employers may tell undocumented workers their wages will be less due to their lack of legal status. Workers may feel compelled to stay silent after facing harassment by their supervisor. Workers who are qualified for full-time staff positions may be contracted for freelance or temporary work, devoid of employee protections and insurance options, due to their status.

Agricultural workers from Bud Farms harvest celery for both American and export consumption on March 26, 2020 in Oxnard, California. These agricultural workers are mostly migrant Spanish-speakers. They earn just above minimum wage, and in a good six-day week working 10 hours a day, they can earn around $1100.

"Are (those examples) as bad an exploitation as a sweatshop worker being chained to the assembly line?" Chishti said to Newsweek. "No, but it's exploitation made only by the status of the worker. All these things have been happening on the side while Congress has been vacillating on immigration reform."

The Farm Worker Modernization Act could provide a key step toward change in the agricultural sector. However, Chishti said for immigration policies to realize their full potential, they must coincide with comprehensive reform. He said in order for the country to have a successful immigration system, new avenues toward legal immigration, mandatory E-Verify, and overhauls to the H-2A program must be implemented together.

One element of the proposed legislation suggests expanding and requiring use of E-Verify, which cross-references an employee's I-9 form with records available to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to confirm employment eligibility. The program was created in the mid-1990s, and has evolved to enable U.S. employers—about 967,000 of whom use it—to check a worker's employment eligibility online within seconds.

"E-Verify to me is the lynchpin of an effective immigration reform proposal," Chishti told Newsweek.

Chishti warns that if the nation cannot implement these reforms together, both employers and immigrants will find ways around the missing components. Without a reformed H-2A program or alternate legal method for employment, people will continue to illegally cross the border in search of work.

They may bring fake documents to prove their qualification for the job, and these qualifications may be approved without a mandatory, improved employment verification system. And without a clear path toward citizenship, those workers who do make it through are likely to face exploitation and miss out on the chance to and fully participate in American society.

"What I see as our choice is: Do we want as a country to have the people who live and work here be here legally, or illegally?" Landau told Newsweek. "I don't think that should be a hard choice."

[cyberneticpeoplespolis]

Understanding Unequal Exchange: How does trade imperialism affect the global working class?

This article originally appeared on Anticonquista, an Anti-Imperialist Media outlet for the Latin American and Caribbean Diaspora. This is my attempt to write an accessible explainer on the issue of Unequal Exchange, using some examples from the Pacific and New Zealand to illustrate the sometimes equation-heavy theory.

I was initially inspired to write this explainer by Abdul Nasir’s reexamination of Dependency Theory. It is wonderful to see the fruitful and diverse theories of Imperialism of the late 20th century being revived and discussed on Anticonquista. We must do all we can to resume the important debates that were muted by the collapse of global workers’ institutions at the close of the last century, and overcome the grey orthodoxy that has reasserted itself in radical critiques of imperialism.

Unequal exchange was once considered one of the most important new developments in imperialism studies of the 20th century. The theory, first proposed by French-Greek theorist and resistance fighter Arghiri Emmanuel in the 1960s, was quickly taken up by many of the underdevelopment and imperialism theorists of the day, from Walter Rodney to Samir Amin. Dependency theorists like Andre Gunder Frank had proven that the imperialism had developed to a point where empire was best understood not in terms of capital exports from the core (as in Hobson, Bukharin, Hilferding and Lenin’s models), but in terms of the wealth extracted from the periphery. However, they were not always clear on how this wealth was generated. Emmanuel was the first to propose an original theory of where exactly that extracted wealth came from. This was the theory of unequal exchange, the idea that the bulk of imperialist superprofits stemmed not from monopolies, noncompetition or securing captive markets, but rather from the difference in wages between nations.

To Emmanuel, Marx’s factors of production were not only fixed quantities of labour and material inputs, they also represented the stake each class holds in the total surplus value produced by a society (whether this stake is recognised is another matter). A given quantity of labour hours invested in production represents a stake workers hold over an end product, while a given quantity of raw materials or fixed capital represents the stake a capitalist holds.

In pre-capitalist artisanal production, the labourer is the only one who holds a stake over the end product of their labour. The labourer controls both the tools and the resources required for production, and can work whenever they choose. The labourer can move freely between industries, and will move to whichever one yields the best prices. Many artisans will move into an industry if the prices are very high, and begin producing greater quantities of that commodity, forcing prices down. In pre-capitalist production, the market will reward labourers for fulfilling particular needs, and that reward falls in relation to the degree that need is met, and so wages and profitability both equalise freely.

All that changes in a society with two classes involved in production. Under capitalist production, both the labourer and capitalist have stakes in the final product, and thus the degree to which wages and prices equalise depends on different factors. When capital moves freely between industries, this tends to equalise the rate of profit. When labour moves freely between industries, this tends to equalise wages. Both wages and profitability must be considered when setting prices.

This is all well and good in the context of individual countries. In most countries, labour and capital moves freely between industries, and so wages, profitability, and prices are all relatively consistent between towns and cities in one country.

On an international level however, wages, profitability and prices are often completely inconsistent, especially between richer and poorer countries. This is because capital often moves freely between the core and the periphery, shifting to wherever has the highest rate of profit, while labour is constrained. Workers cannot move between countries due to militarised borders, repressive governments, and migration quotas. In the end, the rate of profit slowly equalises between countries, while wages only become more and more dissimilar between countries due to different levels of unionisation, and other “historical and moral determinants” like the degree of reactionary violence, market suppression and underdevelopment.

At the end of the day, a situation is produced wherein, as Charles Bettleheim explains, “on the world market the poor nations are obliged to sell the product of a relatively large number of hours in order to obtain in exchange from the rich nations the product of a small number of hours of labour.”

This inequality in trade can be further explored in a number of ways. In the past, unequal exchange has been explained through equations and figures, but this topic is too important to be bound up in academic language and convention. What follows is my attempt to explore the consequences of unequal exchange through the eyes of two fictional workers in countries separated by a small stretch of South Pacific ocean.

An example: Natia and Tim

Unequal Exchange can be hard to understand in human terms. By its nature it deals with abstract transfers of wealth in the spaces between nations, never really connecting with our human experience of work and life. But it does have a human dimension, and it extends outwards from a web of interconnected human experiences and struggles. Compare Natia and Tim. Natia works at a copra plantation in Savai’i, in Samoa. She spends her day collecting coconuts, halving them, and leaving them out to dry in the sun in large batches. Sometimes she helps at the kilns, where the sun-dried coconuts are fully dried, and the desiccated meat is crushed into oil and meal. It is a hard process, and sometimes whole batches develop mold and have to be thrown out. The market for the meal is shrinking, as the New Zealand farmers who used to buy it as animal feed have now shifted to Palm Kernel Expeller, much of it grown by debt slaves in Malaysia.

In the end, Natia gets about $350 USD per month for her full-time labour. It’s considered a decent wage in Samoa. Her employer has few ongoing costs aside from her low wages. However, considering the need to compete with PKE and other copra producers, the employer can only sell the copra meal for a very low price: just above the amount needed to pay for Natia and the other workers’ labour.

3,000 kilometres away from Natia, Tim is just starting his shift. He works at a plastics factory in Auckland, New Zealand. The factory is designed to turn mineral oil into a range of commodity plastics and tupperware, and while Tim works hard, his productivity is mostly due to the wide variety of factory machines at his disposal. Tim is able to produce a large amount of plastic products in just one hour, and the market for the products is always high, since the factory is generally able to out-produce and out-compete its smaller competitors.

Tim has been working at the company for a while, and has always participated in his union. The most recent strike was 2 years ago, when the union representatives were able to secure a new collective bargaining agreement that raised Tim’s wages to $3,150 USD per month. It’s nowhere near as much as his many managers get, but Tim is pretty thankful, since it’s considered a living wage by New Zealand standards. The company fought tooth and nail against the pay increase, but in the end it didn’t hurt business too much, and they were able to compensate by raising prices, thanks to their healthy market share.

The products of Natia and Tim’s labour are often exported around the Pacific. A handful of New Zealand farmers still import Pacific copra meal, while stores in Savai’i often stock the tupperware containers and commercial plastics Tim produces. The problem is that the products of their equivalent labour hours are sold at wildly different prices. The amount of tupperware that Time produces in one labour hour gets sold for enough to pay for nine hours of Natia’s work.

Is Tim’s labour itself worth nine times more than Natia’s? Not really; if Natia went to New Zealand and performed similar agricultural work, she would be paid at a rate much more comparable to Tim, if only due to labour laws and the higher cost of living in New Zealand. The product of her labour would also be exchanged at a vastly higher rate, even without additional machinery to help her. The real problem is that Natia could only access those wages if she won a visa through the ballot system, and only a few were given out each year, even before it was shut down entirely due to Covid.

The disparity between the two only becomes more extreme as time goes on. Thousands of other workers produce commodities that are traded between New Zealand and Samoa, and all of them have very similar wages to Natia and Tim. Samoa is limited in how many New Zealand imports it can buy, since its products are worth nine times less than New Zealand’s by default. Meanwhile, New Zealand exporters are making a killing: their products could buy nine times their own value in Samoan commodities! Over time, Samoan industry becomes more and more specialised and export-oriented, and less able to supply domestic consumers with cheaper local goods, processes covered by Samir Amin in Unequal Development. Instead, imported western goods become the norm, and Natia is forced to spend much more on necessities. Competition in the animal feed market threatens to force Natia’s wages down further, or even put the plantation out of business entirely.

Meanwhile, Tim’s wages are enough to buy plenty of consumer goods. He can’t always afford the boutique local brands, but he can afford as much imported produce as he could ever need. Over time, his wages are supplemented by these cheaper goods, and he can afford to save. In addition, the state mandates access to a superannuation fund for workers, and Tim’s contributions are invested in all sorts of foreign industry and international trade futures. Tim doesn’t ever have enough to stop working for a living, but he has enough to perhaps retire comfortably, or even to ensure that his kids don’t have to work as hard as he did. He is secure in the knowledge that in the long run, things seem to be getting better.

Workers like Natia represent the bulk of the global working class, labouring in low-paid labour producing much of the world’s most basic commodities. Their conditions are deteriorating due to the increased dependency, specialisation, and export-orientation of industry in the global periphery, as this means there is less local industry devoted to local needs. They are unable to save, or move to countries with better conditions. Their main hope is an increase in the total global mobility of labour, which might equalise wages and prices between countries. For them, freedom of migration is liberation, as even if they don’t migrate themselves, the resulting wage equalisation benefits everyone.

Workers like Tim represent a minority in the global working class: he is at the bottom end of a labour aristocracy. As we have seen, Tim’s conditions aren’t wonderful, or somehow post-scarcity, but he has the ability to save, to move between industries freely, to invest his surplus wages, and to send his kids to be educated. These are all rights Tim ought to enjoy, ones which he fought hard to keep, but the institutions which enable those rights are also unwittingly contributing to global inequality.

In rich countries, prices and wages are caught in an upward death spiral. Since prices are determined by the interrelationship between wages and profitability, and wages tend to gravitate around the ability to purchase a fixed number of commodities, we can see how wages might push prices higher and vice versa. Other factors push wages and prices higher, including the efforts by unions to stay ahead of the cost of living, and increases in the overall standard of living enabled by external debt.

To break out of that spiral means acting internationally, securing better wages for all workers up and down the supply chain. An alternative approach would involve pressuring western governments to impose price ceilings: a hard limit on the cost of living set in a fixed number of commodities. Theorists like Emmanuel singled out western unions as a major cause of unequal exchange, and it is certainly true that many cannot be relied upon, but it is not necessarily unions themselves so much as the underlying upward spiral of prices and wages. A world with fewer unions, even the most compromised ones, is nonetheless one in which workers wield less power, and have less potential energy to turn towards international organisation.

The global consequences of Unequal Exchange

The relationship between Natia and Tim is just one tiny part of the global problem of unequal exchange. The true scale of unequal exchange has only been explored relatively recently thanks to the work of Zak Cope, in his book The Wealth of (Some) Nations, as well as recent studies that have built upon his findings.

Much of Cope’s recent work is devoted to quantifying and exploring various forms of imperialist superprofits (or the Imperial Transfer of Value). In Cope’s analysis, unequal exchange is not the sole form of imperialist superprofits, but it does constitute a majority. By measuring wage differentials between core and peripheral countries, and comparing those wages to a midpoint (the global median wage), Cope was able to find the total value gained each year through unequal exchange: roughly 2.8 trillion dollars per year.

To put this in perspective, the value gained through unequal exchange is 53.8% of all superprofits flowing from the periphery to the core. It is also 31.5% of the core’s profits available for reinvestment (calculated as the core’s GDP multiplied by rate of savings), in other words, nearly a third of all profits in the core are purely the result of being able to sustain higher wages.

Decades ago, Samir Amin predicted that as the rate of profit fell in core industries, unequal exchange would slowly come to be the dominant source of profits for western capitalists, locking the periphery into a permanent state of dependency in order to prop-up the decayed husk of domestic industry in the core. In many of the world’s richest nations, that prediction is being borne out today.

Shifting the locus of value creation from the core to the periphery means that the core relies less and less on the unprofitable exploitation of its own workers. Instead, many core workers are increasingly being placed in menial office and managerial jobs which produce little to no real value. Such workers are ostensibly there to increase the value of other labourers’ work – so-called “reflexive” labourers – but in practice this is economically impossible, and many of these managers, administrators, and functionaries are simply paid consumers, shifting and manipulating various forms of debt, sitting at the heights of increasingly top-heavy finance and tech juggernauts.

As the core systematically underdevelops itself, taking away its own ability to autogenously produce value, the periphery stands at a crossroads. Many nations are now choosing to promote trade between peripheral partners, effectively disengaging from the predatory trade imperialism of the core. This too has dangers, in that it risks imperialist intervention, and some peripheral nations still side with the core out of fear of repercussions, out of a bribed ruling class, or out of a lack of alternatives.

Workers in the core are still able to organise against trade imperialism directy, even if such activism will always be opposed by sections of the labour aristocracy. Pushing for increased migrant quotas and rights is one proven way to mitigate global wage inequality, as remittances and competition tend to raise peripheral average wages. To return to our Pacific example, compare Samoa with the Cook Islands: both nations were colonised and dominated by New Zealand imperialism, but the Cooks have at least gained an average wage more comparable to the core, entirely thanks to the ability to migrate to a core nation.

Another step would be to encourage labour organisation across national boundaries. As we have seen, a narrow-minded focus on only improving the wages of core workers can actively harm peripheral workers by encouraging greater differences in wages. If the entire supply chain of an industry can be organised, not only would workers exercise greater control over their workplaces by influencing the factors of production, they would also be able to raise the lowest-paid workers up to a greater standard.

One of the greatest lessons we can draw from recent advances in unequal exchange theory is that business-as-usual activism can have unintended consequences. Do we fight to perpetuate labour aristocracy, wealth extraction, and the further stratification of our class? Or do we fight to bring about unity between workers of all nationalities, no matter their position in the hierarchies of industry and empire?

Further Reading

Arghiri Emmanuel, Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade, 1972 Emmanuel’s most rigorous examination of Unequal Exchange is still highly relevant reading today, even if sections on Organic Composition of Capital have been questioned by later writers. It also includes an interesting debate between Emmanuel and his mentor Charles Bettleheim.

Zak Cope, The Wealth of (Some) Nations: Imperialism and the Mechanics of Value Transfer, 2019 Cope’s most recent book builds on his ideas from 2013’s Divided World, Divided Class into one of the most rigorous analyses of imperialist value transfer yet attempted. Cope’s analysis of Unequal Exchange is limited to two small chapters, but the rest of the book is well worth a read and covers an enormous swathe of leftist and colonial history.

Anthony Brewer, Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey, 1980 Brewer’s book is a great overview of theories of imperialism, from Marx to Emmanuel and Amin. He takes particular interest in charting the development of Unequal Exchange discourse, and makes a few of his own additions to the theory.

Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, 1974 Rodney was one of the first writers in the colonised world to pick up the idea of Unequal Exchange, and wove it into his masterful history of European colonisation in Africa, which also serves to discredit the “whiggish history” of perpetual progress in the colonised world.

Samir Amin, Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism, 1976 Amin was one of the first writers able to explore the various international implications of Unequal Exchange rather than having to develop his own economic framework from scratch. As such his work is often more holistic than the narrow economic focus of Emmanuel. His theory of development is excellent, even if his autarkic conclusions are sometimes flawed.

Esteban Ezequiel Maito, The historical transience of capital: the downward trend in the rate of profit since the 19th century, 2014 Maito’s study represents a rigorous effort to analyse the declining rate of profit. Crucially, Maito accounts for the rate of turnover, something similar studies sometimes fail to do. Maito identifies three separate rates of profit, the core, peripheral, and China, and demonstrates that these are all equalising as they decline. This confirms many of the assumptions of the Unequal Exchange theorists.

[immergityimmigratonconsultant]

Spousal Sponsorship Canada

The common-law/spousal sponsorship Canada immigration program is a part of the Family Class category, through which Canada welcomes a substantial number of new permanent residents annually.

This sponsorship is not about 1 person. Hence, both the sponsor as well as the applicant (the person being sponsored) must be approved by the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

Spousal sponsorship applications are a lengthy process which require certain responsibilities as well as financial undertakings on part of the sponsor as well as the applicant, hence such applications require a lot of due diligence and a lot of attention to detail. The most important aspect of any spousal sponsorship application is to demonstrate to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) that your marriage or partnership is genuine and not “a marriage of convenience - entered into primarily for immigration purposes.” If a marriage is determined to be entered into for immigration purposes, then you risk being turned away or even deported from Canada if your application was made inland. For this reason, your relationship and supporting documentation will be scrutinized by the officer reviewing your application.

Who can be a SPONSOR?

First and foremost, you need to be a Canadian Citizen or Permanent Resident in order to be eligible to sponsor your spouse/partner.

What other criteria needs to be met? The sponsor must be:

At least 18 years old

Residing in Canada (if you are a Canadian citizen living outside Canada, you must show that you plan to live in Canada when your spouse or partner becomes a permanent resident. You can’t sponsor someone if you are a permanent resident living outside Canada.) If you reside in the province of Quebec, you must also satisfy Quebec’s additional requirements.

File the sponsorship application with a complete set of documents and forms

Accept the undertaking obligations

Not be the subject of a removal order

Have no criminal convictions inside or outside Canada in the following areas:

Bodily harm toward current or former family members (domestic violence)

Sexual abuse

Significant violence

Not being an undischarged bankrupt and have enough income to provide for basic needs of any grandchildren (dependent children of a dependent child) of the principal applicant.

Not in receipt of social assistance unless because of disability

Debt free to the federal government of Canada

Not under a five-year ban (If you were sponsored by a spouse or partner, you may not be a sponsor yourself until five years have passed since you became a permanent resident.)

Not under an undertaking ban (If you have already sponsored a spouse or common-law partner to Canada, you may not sponsor another spouse or common-law partner while the current undertaking duration is not over.)

Who is an eligible applicant (for Canadian Immigration purposes)?

Spouse: a spouse is a partner with whom you are legally married. This includes both opposite- and same-sex relationships.

Common-Law Partner: a common-law partner is not legally married to you but has been living with you for at least 12 consecutive months. Any time spent apart – for work/family related matters or any other reasons, must have been short or temporary.

Conjugal Partner: a conjugal partner is a person outside Canada who has had a binding relationship with you for at least one year, but could not, for some reason(s), live with you. Individuals living in Canada are not eligible to be sponsored as conjugal partners.

The person you are sponsoring must:

Be at least 18 years old;

Pass all background, security and medical checks.

Both the Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and the foreign national must be approved by IRCC before the sponsored person can receive a visa.

There are certain factors that may disqualify you from being a sponsor or from being sponsored. For example, you may not be eligible to be sponsored if you:

Have been convicted of certain crimes;

did not meet the terms of a sponsorship agreement in the past; or

did not pay court-ordered alimony or child support, or if you are in receipt of government financial assistance (for reasons other than being disabled).

As well, some examples of why you may not be eligible to be sponsored include:

if you are under 18;

if you were married to someone else at the time of your marriage to your sponsor; or

your sponsor has sponsored another spouse in the past and five years have not passed since that person became a permanent resident.

These lists are not exhaustive, and every application will depend on its specific circumstances.

What are the financial obligations of a sponsor in Canada?

Sponsorship of a spouse in Canada involves a commitment to provide financial support to the sponsored person, including any dependent children. As a sponsor, you will be required to sign an undertaking that promises to provide for the basic needs of the sponsored person.

These basic needs include:

Housing, including utility bills;

Food and personal hygiene products;

Clothing and other items necessary for daily living;

Medical expenses not covered by public health insurance, such as dental and eye care.

Your commitment as a sponsor comes into force the moment the undertaking is in effect. The length of the undertaking is 3 years from the day your spouse, common-law or conjugal partner becomes a permanent resident.

You cannot cancel or withdraw an undertaking, even if your personal or financial situation changes, once the sponsorship application has been approved by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

So, what happens if I do not want to sponsor someone anymore?

Well, the only light at the end of this tunnel is that you are able to withdraw your application as long as the person you are sponsoring has not received their Permanent Resident status in Canada. You may even be eligible for a refund if IRCC hasn’t actually started processing your application.

What about after the person has become a Canadian Permanent Resident? What if the relationship fails once they are Permanent Residents?

As is the case in every relationship, there may be some discord and two people might not want to stay together anymore. In such cases, the sponsor still needs to uphold their end of the undertaking of being responsible for the person they sponsored for the duration of 3 years. On the same principle, you cannot sponsor another person until the end of the 3-year undertaking even if you are legally divorced/separated from the person you sponsored and are now re-married.

The person being sponsored however, also cannot sponsor another spouse/partner for a duration of 5 years from the date of becoming a permanent resident. This holds good even if you have now remarried.

Spousal sponsorship applications can be submitted Inside Canada as well as Outside Canada. These are called INLAND sponsorships and OUTLAND sponsorships respectively.

Inland Sponsorship: Under this category - both spouses need to live together in Canada and the foreign spouse or partner must have temporary status in Canada as a worker, student or visitor.

The sponsor and the applicant spouse are required to live together in Canada for the duration of the processing of the application. This type of sponsorship application is filed in Canada.

Outland Sponsorship: As the name suggests, this program allows a Canadian citizen or permanent resident to sponsor their spouse/common-law partner for permanent residence, regardless of where the spouse is currently residing. Such applications are usually processed through a visa office serving the applicant's country of origin or in which the applicant has been legally residing for at least one year.

Applying for a spousal sponsorship is a long, complex, and costly process, and you don’t want to take any chances with the immigration of a loved one.

Let us simplify the application process for you. Get in touch now.

[implicatures]

Why would i vote for Joe Biden when he’s just Trump with a D by his name???

(Lol, it took me so long to write this response that  @ofgeography ’s original post has been deleted, but I learned a lot and so could you!)

Here’s what Joe “Basically just Trump” Biden wants to do if he’s elected. It’s on his website, you can read about it!

• END THE MUSLIM TRAVEL BAN

• Stop stealing money from federal programs to fund a border wall

• END FAMILY SEPARATION of migrants at the border

• Create a path to citizenship for more undocumented immigrants

• Increase the number of visas available for survivors of domestic violence

• Expand labor protections for undocumented immigrants

• Spend $50 billion in the first year of his presidency to rebuild and repair crumbling infrastructure like bridges and highways

• Earmark funds to improve infrastructure specifically in marginalized communities

• Invest in research and technology to make electric vehicles more efficient and affordable

• Invest hundreds of billions of dollars in biofuels and other clean energy technology in order to reach net-zero emissions by 2050

• Invest in high-speed rail to reduce pollution and commute times

• Encourage energy efficiency and solar infrastructure among businesses and in residences using tax credits and targeted deductions

• Double federal investments in clean drinking water and infrastructure in communities like Flint, MI that have unsafe tap water

• Monitor water systems for lead and other pollutants so we can hold polluters accountable and protect drinking water

• Bring broadband internet access to the more than 20 million Americans that don’t have it

• Invest $100 billion in school infrastructure and technology

• Fund “anchor institutions” like hospitals, universities, and government offices in distressed communities

• Develop low-carbon manufacturing programs across the country that will provide good blue-collar jobs while lowering emissions

• Impose stronger penalties on union interference by corporations and executives

• Prevent corporations from illegally misclassifying employees as independent contractors by significantly increasing the number of labor enforcement investigators

• Protect the collective bargaining rights of all public sector workers

• Ban “right to work” laws that weaken unions

• Support the passage of the Fairness for Farmworkers Act and the Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights so that agricultural and domestic workers have more protections and the ability to organize

• Allow independent contractors to organize and bargain collectively

• INCREASE THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE TO $15, including farmworkers who don’t even make the current minimum

• Extend overtime pay to millions of workers

• Eliminate no-compete clauses so workers have the freedom to move to better jobs or negotiate better pay

• Reinstate OSHA requirements that companies report workplace injuries and increase the number of safety inspections at workplaces

• End mandatory arbitration clauses so that employees can sue their employer

• Introduce a constitutional amendment to get private money out of federal elections (that is, overturn Citizens United)

• Further restrict superPACs from coordinating with candidates and parties

• Prohibit dark money groups from anonymously spending millions of dollars on political issues

• Prohibit lobbyists from donating to the people and organizations they lobby

• Ban corporate PAC contributions to candidates

• Require that all candidates for federal office release 10 years of tax returns

• Require all elected officials to publicly disclose all meetings they take with lobbyists

• Prohibit all lobbying from foreign governments and their agents

• Guarantee 2 years of free community college for all students

• Invest $50 billion in workforce training, including apprenticeships

• Cut in half the payments on federal student loans, and forgive all loans after 20 years

• Simplify and expand loan forgiveness for public servants

• Crack down on predatory for-profit education programs

• Offer a PUBLIC OPTION for healthcare

• Make sure all Americans from pay no more than 8.5% of their income for health insurance

• Ban all surprise medical bills by preventing providers from charging out-of-market rates when the patient doesn’t have control over what doctors they see or when a doctor is out-of-network at an in-network hospital

• Allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices

• End the abusive over-pricing of prescription drugs

• End TAX BREAKS that pharma companies get on advertisements for their products (I had no idea this was a thing and it is disgusting)

• RESTORE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD

• END THE ‘GLOBAL GAG RULE’ that bars the federal government from supporting any global health programs that contain information on abortion

• Implement nationwide the California policies that halved the maternal mortality rate there

• Double funding for community health centers

• RE-ENTER THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

• Push for a worldwide ban on fossil fuel subsidies

• Establish equal rights under the law for all LGBTQ+ people

• Protect LGBTQ+ people from employment discrimination

• Reverse the military ban on trans people

• Protect the ability of LGBTQ+ people to adopt and foster children

• Prevent people from claiming religious freedom in order to discriminate against LGBT+ people

• Simplify the process for trans and nonbinary Americans to obtain IDs that match their gender identity

• Guarantee access to appropriate bathrooms, sports activities, and locker rooms for trans students

• Fund programs that reduce LGBTQ+ youth homeless and insecurity

• BAN CONVERSION THERAPY nationwide

• Invest $20 billion in programs to lower incarceration rates

• Eliminate mandatory minimums for non-violent crimes

• Eliminate all mandatory minimums at the federal level

• Make pre-K education available for all children

• Triple federal funding for low-income school districts

• Expand funding for mental health services

• Fund training in de-escalation tactics for police departments, and training for handling interactions with disabled and neurodiverse people

• DECRIMINALIZE THE USE OF CANNABIS and expunge the records of people with cannabis-use convictions

• End incarceration for drug use

• ELIMINATE THE DEATH PENALTY

• END THE CASH BAIL SYSTEM and stop jailing people for being too poor to pay court fees and fines

• End federal private prisons and the use of any privately-owned federal detention facility

• Work towards ensuring housing for all formerly incarcerated people when they rejoin society

• Fully fund educational opportunities and mental health programs in prisons

• Hold gun manufacturers civilly liable for gun violence

• Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines

• Create a buy back program for assault weapons and mandate the registration of all remaining assault weapons in the country

• REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR ALL GUN SALES

• Prevent anyone convicted of a hate crime from buying a firearm

• Prevent anyone with an arrest warrant from buying a firearm

• Incentivize states to create gun licensing programs

• Make it a federal crime to buy a weapon for someone who couldn’t pass their own background check

• Invest more than $5 trillion across federal, state, local, and private-sector entities to fight climate change

• Reverse Trump’s regressive tax cuts

These are probably not your dream plans, but they are SO MUCH BETTER than what we have now.

If you can’t find anything on that list that you think is worth voting for, then I genuinely don’t believe you care more about people than you do about ideological purity, and that sucks.

[wicisita]

Travel To Austria

The immigration authorities in Austria are very strict concerning the eligibility of the taxpayers to get a visa waiver. However, if you're eligible for a visa waiver, then you may nonetheless have the ability to receive a tourist visa despite having a criminal record in some states round the world.

https://ja.ivisa.com/austria-etias

If you're an eligible foreign national who is a holder of a permanent visa for Austria and you are not a citizen of another country, you may be eligible to apply for Austria Etias. So as to be eligible for the application, you should have lived in Austria for three or more years past to your program. The length of time has to be more than the maximum stay permitted by the immigration authorities for a specific visa category. This program can also be referred to as the migration program. In order to apply for the immigration benefits of Austria, you need to get hold of the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and look for additional directions.

To be qualified for the visa, you will need to obtain an Austria OE card. This card serves as your proof of identity while traveling inside the country and it'll be needed for employment, registration and naturalization purposes. Then you'll have to submit a formal written declaration that says that you meet all of the eligibility requirements for the program and which you intend to live in Austria. The declaration should include the information stated above, in addition to any files that can support your claims that you will be eligible for employment, residence and naturalization.

Citizens of global relations may also use the registered office of the International Organisation for Migration (OIM) as a stage of ahead entrance when applying for visa. The OIM is an agency of the United Nations which is made to help nations away from the Europe Union develop quicker and safer methods to meet their demands. The application form for Austria may be downloaded in the dedicated Austria Immigration site.

If you wish to see Austria, you may also be eligible for a visa. You need to satisfy the following requirements: you have to be an EU citizen; you must have a passport that has a photo; and you must have obtained a non-immigrant entrance visa. You can apply for the visa directly or via the German Federal Office for Development Cooperation (Bundesamt). To be able to cut down the processing time to your visa, it is advisable to submit your application as soon as possible. Your visa will be approved within 90 days.

The immigration authorities in Austria are very strict concerning the eligibility of their citizens for a visa waiver. However, if you are eligible for a visa waiver, you may nonetheless be able to receive a tourist visa despite a criminal record in some countries round the world. In Austria, there are three kinds of criminal offences that aren't taken into account for a visa waiver: terrorism, domestic violence and sexual offences.

If you're planning to go to Austria, the very first thing you need to do is to contact an proper Austrian representative office to acquire all the information regarding visa and immigration requirements. If you're eligible for a visa, you will be required to complete an application form which includes the detailed explanation of your intentions, along with necessary documentary evidences that can confirm those objectives. After submitting this form to the Office of Immigration at Vienna, you'll be given a registration number by email. You'll also receive a registration card which can be used to get the specialised visa services throughout the country.

[rijallaw]

U Visa Bona Fide Determination: What You Should Know

Have you been the victim of a crime and provided assistance to law enforcement in the prosecution of that crime? Do you wish to immigrate to the United States? If so, you may be eligible for a U visa. This visa was specifically created to protect the victims of certain crimes and benefit law enforcement. A U-Visa attorney from Rijlaw Law Firm can walk you through the U Visa bona fide determination process, so as to help you to arrive at the best possible outcome for your situation. What follows are some of the most common questions we are asked in the regular.

Am I Eligible For A U Visa?

In addition to having been a victim of a qualifying crime and having agreed to assist law enforcement in the investigation of that crime, you also have to have suffered an appreciable degree of mental and/or physical abuse as a result of the crime. Additionally, the crime has to have occurred in America or, alternatively, it has to have violated American laws. As you can see, these eligibility standards can be, in many ways, complex. That’s just one more reason that we recommend you reach out to an attorney with U visa experience.

What Crimes Are Considered “Qualifying” In The Context Of A U Visa?

There are many crimes that are considered to be “qualifying.” The full list is available at our site, but they include felonious assault, domestic violence, murder, abduction, abusive sexual contact, being taken hostage, prostitution, stalking, torture, and other very serious, violent crimes. However, it’s important to note that violent crimes are not the only crimes that are qualifying. For example, perjury is qualifying, as is witness tampering, peonage, obstruction of justice, and even fraud in foreign labor contracting.

I Was The Victim Of A Crime That Isn’t On The List Of “Qualifying Crimes.” What Do I Do?

If you believe that you were the victim of a qualifying crime, even if it wasn’t mentioned at our site, it’s worth it to reach out to us. It may come under the heading of “Other related rimes,” an activity where the elements of the crime are substantially similar. The worst thing that can happen is we may tell you that we don’t see a case, but you may qualify for a U visa.  

How Can Rijal Law Firm Help With U Visa Bona Fide Determination?

If you look at the “frequently asked questions” page on the official USCIS site for the “U Visa and Bona Fide Determination Process,” you’ll find that there are references to Form I-918, Form I-765, and many other forms of documentation. This particular process can be very complex and challenging, even if you are highly qualified. We understand how challenging all of this can be, so we are devoted to helping our clients through every step of the process. From filing the paperwork properly and on time, to advising you throughout, we can be here for you. For a free case evaluation, message us through our contact form here or give us a call.

[citationilola]

Immigration Law Office of Los Angeles

Green Card Through Marriage: When a U.S. citizen  marries a foreign national, the foreign  spouse   may qualify  for a marriage-based green card and become a lawful permanent resident or a conditional permanent resident. Immigration Law Office of Los Angeles Getting a green card by marrying  a US Citizen allows the foreign spouse to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR)  depending upon if the foreign spouse legally entered the United States even if the foreign spouse became out of status subsequently. When the foreign spouse is in the United States, the foreign spouse may apply for a green card by submitting an application through USCIS without having to leave the United States if they entered legally.  This process is called filing for an adjustment of status (I-485). After filing for an adjustment of status, the alien spouse can legally reside and work in the United States once an employment authorization document also known as an EAD is issued, as they will become eligible for an employment authorization  90 days after filing for an adjustment of status. In the U.S. the “immediate relative” classification (including spouse) allows a foreign national to apply for an immigrant visa without having to worry about preference categories or priority backlogs, since an immigrant visa will always be available to him or her. However, the green card marriage process  can be complicated and requires in depth analysis by an experienced attorney to present evidence of a bona fide marriage and to prepare for the green card interview by being advised of possible green card marriage interview questions. 90 days prior to the Three Years anniversary of when the beneficiary spouse became a Lawful Permanent Resident,  the beneficiary spouse may be eligible to apply to become a US citizen if certain conditions are met.

In  order to apply for a green card marriage, the U.S. Citizen or U.S permanent resident marrying a foreign national must submit a green card through marriage petition (I-130)  to USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) to petition for his/her spouse. The U.S. Citizen petitioning for the spouse is referred to as the petitioner or sponsor, and the immigrant spouse who is marrying a green card holder or U.S. Citizen is referred to as the beneficiary.   H1B Denial:  At the Immigration Law Office of Los Angeles, attorney Michael Piston has extensive experience in Federal litigation, and can help you overcome the erroneous decision made on your H1b application by filing a Federal Lawsuit and get results by forcing the government to adjudicate cases that have been unlawfully delayed or overturn H1B extensions and H1B transfer arbitrary denials. Federal Court Litigation may be an effective way of resolving government’s H1B denials and errors.  In well over 90% of the cases we file, the government reverses itself within 2-4 months of the case being filed.  i 751 Form and i 751 waiver:  If you received your green card by applying to the green card through marriage process (formally known as Adjustment of Status), and your marriage was less than 2 years when your green card was approved, what you received is a conditional green card, known as CR1 visa (Conditional permanent residency). The conditional green card is valid for only 2 years. After this period, if you wish to remain as a permanent resident in the U.S. you need to remove the conditions of your green card. This is done by submitting the form I 751 petition to remove conditions on residence. If you successfully submit this form and it gets approved, then you will move from the conditional permanent resident status to the permanent resident status, and your green card will be valid for 10 years.To remove the Green Card conditions you must: - Submit a Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence (Form I-751). - Prove to USCIS that your marriage is a bona fide marriage. - Submit the application within 90 days prior to your conditional green card expiration date. - File jointly, meaning that both you and your spouse must file together. Although, if this is not possible, you may still be able to remove the conditions of your residency by filing an I-751 waiver. Now, what happens when this is not an option? What if due to different circumstances you are no longer together with your spouse? The answer is that you might still be able to remove the conditions of your residency by filing a waiver.There are basically 4 circumstances by which a waiver is possible:   - Divorce:  If you (the green card applicant) and the U.S. citizen divorce before two years of marriage, you can still file the Form i 751 Petition to Remove conditions on green card to continue to live in the U.S. The process will be a little more complicated though, since you will have to request for a waiver of the joint filing requirement. In the case of a divorce, your task is to compile substantial documentation showing that the marriage was a good-faith marriage, or bona fide, and was not just an “easy” way to get a green card. This could include proof that you have children together, evidence of shared resources, a family home, shared insurance and estate documents, photographs together, gifts offered, correspondence between the applicant and the U.S. citizen, etc. Another task is to prepare evidence of the reason the marriage ended, to prove it was not your fault. For instance, the applicant can provide evidence of having attempted marriage counseling. Nonetheless, it seems important to mention that it’s best if the divorce took place during your conditional residence. Also, the longer the marriage lasts, the better to prove it was a bona fide marriage.  - Death of Spouse:  Under the unfortunate event of the U.S. citizen passing away, the applicant may still apply to remove the conditions on his/her green card. In order to do this, the applicant must file the waiver based on the death of the petitioning spouse. If this is your case, you would have to submit a copy of your spouse’s death certificate. On top of this, other evidence is still required, such as evidence of the marriage being a good faith marriage when started. - An abusive Marriage:  If you were a victim of violence, were battered or subjected to extreme cruelty, you can waive the requirement of the joint filing of the i 751 form. In order to submit this waiver, you will have to submit evidence of the abuse. If you ever reported domestic violence events, if you ever made a record of injuries (medical reports for example), these can be used as evidence. - Extreme hardship if put into removal proceedings:  It applies if you think that by not obtaining permanent residency and being put into removal proceedings (eventually deported) you will face extreme hardship or extenuating circumstances in your home country. K1 Fiance visa:  A fiancé(e) visa, also known as a K-1 visa is used to bring a foreign fiance to the United States so that the couple can marry and apply for a green card for the foreign partner.  The process for bringing a fiance to the United States involves several agencies from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State: (1) United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), (2) the National Visa Center (NVC), (3) the U.S. Department of State/U.S. embassy/consulate (DOS), and (4) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  The steps you need to follow are:  Step 1: File fiance visa petition with USCIS Step 2: Once the petition is approved USCIS sends it to the NVC for further processing and submission of additional required documentation. Once processing is completed the NVC forwards the approved visa petition to the U.S. Embassy or consulate where your fiance will apply for issuance of the fiance visa.  Step 3: The U.S. Embassy or consulate schedules the visa interview for your foreign fiance. At the interview the DOS consular will determine whether your fiance qualifies for the fiance visa. If approved the consular officer will issue the visa. Step 4: Your fiance enters the U.S. with their visa. The CBP officer at the port of entry might ask your fiance a few questions: such as where they intend to live in the U.S., some questions relating to the U.S. citizen fiance and the intention to marry within 90 days. The CBP officer will also take your fiance’s fingerprints and sealed documents previously received with the visa issued by the DOS. After the CBP officer finalizes their review, a stamp will be placed in the passport allowing your fiance to stay in the U.S. for 90 days. Nanny Green Card:  For an application for labor certification to be approved under PERM for Nanny Positions, an Employer must do 6 things: 1. Offer a non citizen a “permanent” job effective no later than the date the non citizen becomes a permanent resident. 2. Request a prevailing wage determination (PWD) from U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Typically, it takes about 4 months for the DOL to issue a prevailing wage. 3. Endeavor in good faith to recruit a U.S. worker to fill the job offered to the noncitizen by conducting the following recruitment activities: Place a notice describing the job in detail, including the offered wage, for 10 consecutive business days at the place the noncitizen will work (hereinafter “Job Posting). Advertise two times (2x) at a major newspaper (Sunday edition). Place a job order with the State Workforce Agency (SWA) for a minimum of 30 days. In the State of California, the SWA is Caljobs. 4. Prepare a written statement explaining why any U.S. worker who applied (if any) for the job was rejected only for lawful job related reasons.e) File the application with the ETA Application Center.f) The employer may be required to respond to further requests for documentation of his recruitment efforts to the Certifying Officer. The above will take approximately 3 -4 months from the time we receive the completed questionnaires from you and your prospective employee. Naturalization:  Naturalization is the process laid out by the United States government, which allows foreign citizens or nationals to obtain U.S. citizenship providing they meet the requirements established in the Immigration and Nationality.  You may qualify for naturalization if you have been a permanent U.S. resident for at least 5 years, or you have been married to a U.S. citizen for at least 3 years, (thus qualifying to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen), or you have qualifying service in the U.S. armed forces. Providing you meet one of those qualifications, the basic requirements for obtaining naturalization are: - Having physically lived in the United States for either 2 1/2 years as a permanent resident or 1 1/2 years if married to a U.S. citizen, - Having not spent more than 12 months (of your 5 years or 3 years) outside the U.S., - Having resided at your current address for at least 3 months, - Being at least 18 years old, - Being of good moral character, - Being able to speak, read and write basic English, - Being able to pass a test showing basic knowledge of U.S. history and government, - Agreeing to support the Constitution of the United States, and - Taking an oath of allegiance to the United States. E-2 visa:  Certain countries have trade treaties with the U.S., which allow for immigration for foreign nationals from these countries to seek a visa. A Treaty Trader can gain an E-2 visa when the individual is involved in substantial trade, such as trade in services or technology between the treaty country and the USA, or involved in the development and direction of substantial capital with regard to trade.  The investment in the U.S. must be substantial. It must be of an amount that is of high enough value to ensure the success of the venture. The venture must be an operating enterprise, not a speculative or non-functioning investment. O-1 visa: The  O-1 visa is designed for an alien who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, or who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry and their essential support personnel. The alien must demonstrate extraordinary ability by sustained national or international acclaim and must be coming temporarily to the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. Extraordinary ability means a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Regarding the sponsor, any U.S. employer, a U.S. agent, or a foreign employer through a U.S. agent can petition for you. However, the petitioner must at least be in the artist’s field of expertise. This also means, that a U.S. citizen, who is in the artist’s field may petition for them as long as there is a legitimate reason why the petitioner requires the artist to work in the United States. EB-1:  EB-1 is an employment-based, first-preference visa open to those who exhibit extraordinary ability, is an outstanding professor or researcher, or is a multinational executive or manager. Each of these categories is defined as follows: - Extraordinary Ability: Individuals who qualify demonstrate extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, and are nationally or internationally recognized. Extensive documentation must be provided as proof of achievements. Offer of employment is not a requisite. - Outstanding Professor or Researcher: Individuals who qualify are recognized for outstanding achievements in their respective fields, in which they must have at least three years experience of teaching or research. In exchange for permanent residency, they must pursue a tenure or tenure track or comparable research position at an institution of higher education. - Multinational Manager or Executive: Individuals who qualify have been working outside of the United States in a managerial or executive position for at least one.

[alexsmitposts]

Journalists that are Allowed to Exercise Freedom by the US and those Who Cannot It is quite well known that the US government applies double standards to freedom of the press issue. Despite the fact that “freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment” to the US Constitution, information available to the public is not necessarily free of government interference. It would appear that everything that does not align with policies of the current US elites is excluded from the mainstream, such as reports by journalists, viewed as troublemakers, and by alternative media outlets According to a survey, conducted by the Cato Institute (a US public policy research organization) and publicized on July 22, 2020, “nearly two-thirds—62%—of Americans” questioned “say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive”. There are numerous mechanisms at the US government disposal to filter out information deemed unnecessary, thus preventing it from reaching a wider audience. And such policies are being pursued on the domestic front as well as abroad. There are also regulations governing the work of foreign media outlets operating in the United States. For example, this year, the US State Department designated “five Chinese news agencies as foreign government entities”, which were from then onwards to be officially treated “as extensions of China’s government, subjecting employees to similar rules that foreign diplomats operate under”. US companies have, on a number of occasions, taken down content posted by foreign media outlets from their platforms and social media networks for various reasons. For example, in May 2020, YouTube (a video sharing company) deleted the accounts of Crimea’s TV channel Krym-24 as well as ANNA News (the Abkhazian Network News Agency) and News Front from its platform. A month earlier, Russian News Agency TASS reported that “the Federal News Agency said earlier that Google had blocked its account, as well as its YouTube account”. The New Eastern Outlook accounts on Facebook and Twitter have been blocked. The official Twitter accounts of the President and government of Russia and a number of prominent Russian media received special, McCarthy-style labels. The list goes on. Restrictions have been imposed on RT and Sputnik news agencies and their staff. In March the US Department of State made a decision to cap “the number of US-based employees of Xinhua News Agency, China Global Television Network, China Radio International and China Daily Distribution Corp at 100 from 160 currently”. In May, the US Department of Homeland Security imposed new visa restrictions “against Chinese nationals working as journalists in the United States”. In fact, the effect of censorship is being felt not only by foreign but also domestic media outlets in the United States. For example, the Committee to Protect Journalists, an organization based in New York, has continuously reported about physical attacks on journalists working in the United States. At times, media outlets have been sued for publishing reports critical of certain individuals or agencies. Journalists have also been pressured to reveal their confidential sources and to quit their jobs.  In July, journalist Bari Weiss published a scathing resignation letter that she sent to Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, in which she talks about unlawful discrimination and the illiberal work environment at the newspaper. Editorial page editor James Bennet resigned after admitting that an op-ed in the New York Times, calling for the deployment of federal troops into major American cities amid nationwide protests and riots, should not have been published blaming “a break down in the editorial process for the blunder”. It would seem that any perceived transgression by a reporter can result in imposition of restrictions or even repression. Jon Caldara who worked for The Denver Post since 2016 and wrote about “a range of issues, especially those related to political and economic freedom” lost his job for stating that “sex is binary”. Yet another notable example of limitations on freedom of the press imposed in the United States is the case instigated against Julian Assange (an activist and founder of WikiLeaks) by the US government, which formally requested his extradition. He is currently serving his 50-week prison sentence in the United Kingdom. In order to discourage alternative media outlets from publishing reports critical of the US government, the US Department of Justice charged Julian Assange on 18 counts. If convicted, he could receive a sentence of up to 175 years in prison. And in such an unhealthy environment, instead of defending the freedom of the press in the United States and protecting the rights of Julian Assange and journalists who have been wronged, Washington has, surprisingly, chosen to launch propaganda campaigns against violations of press freedom in other nations. These campaigns appear to target countries whose governments have imposed restrictions on work of journalists, who have been trained in the United States to shape public opinion via foreign media outlets. For example, US Ambassador to Uzbekistan Daniel Rosenblum, who assumed office in May 2019, has recently “joined this fight for justice” by expressing “deep concern” about the case of Uzbek journalist Bobomurod Abdullayev, who was detained by Kyrgyz authorities at Tashkent’s request. “The governments of both Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan should respect Mr. Abdullayev’s freedom of movement and allow him to depart the Kyrgyz Republic to his destination of choice,” tweeted the diplomat on August 13. So why has Daniel Rosenblum not been urging the UK to release Julian Assange and allow him to travel to a destination of his choosing (and not the United States)? At this point in the article, the author would like to explain to his readers why the US Ambassador has been pushing for the release of Bobomurod Abdullayev. On August 9, 2020, the journalist was detained by the Kyrgyz state security service in Bishkek at Tashkent’s request on “suspicion of anonymously criticizing the government on social media”.  In September 2017, Uzbek authorities arrested Bobomurod Abdullayev on charges of “conspiracy to overthrow the constitutional regime” “for writing critical articles on various platforms, including social media, under the pseudonym Usman Khaknazarov”. In March 2018, Bobomurod Abdullayev admitted “that he had used a pseudonym to publish critical articles, but that he was not the author of materials calling for violence”. The author suspects that such reports must have been written with help from the outside. On May 7, 2018, “the Tashkent City Criminal Court found Abdullayev guilty of committing an offence under article 159, paragraph 1 (b) of the Criminal Code (offences against the constitutional order of Uzbekistan” and “sentenced him to three years of correctional labor”. In February 2020, Bobomurod Abdullayev travelled to Kyrgyzstan for a four-month study program at the American University of Central Asia in Bishkek, but was unable to leave the country due to Coronavirus restrictions. In fact, Bobomurod Abdullayev might have been influenced to become a journalist who strives to shape public opinion via media outlets in Central Asia by well-known organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Open Society Foundations (established by George Soros) and USAID (the United States Agency for International Development). The aforementioned organizations have been accused of having ties with US intelligence agencies, of attempting to instigate color revolutions in Central Asia and of destabilizing communities with the help of national media outlets. Incidentally, the fairly new Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Daniel Rosenblum, could be uniquely poised to promote color revolutions because of his vast experience in working with non-profit organizations. “From 2014 to 2019, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs,” which deals with US foreign policy and US relations with the countries of these regions. His experience in the region must have been the reason why he was appointed as the Ambassador to Uzbekistan. The country has been of great interest to the United States lately because of recent developments in Afghanistan and around it; the need to influence the political landscape in Uzbekistan and Central Asia as a whole in a manner beneficial to the United States, and the desire to drive a wedge between the aforementioned nations and China and Russia, thus bringing them closer to the USA with the help of journalists capable of shaping public opinion. And Bobomurod Abdullayev is among such reporters, which is why Daniel Rosenblum is so concerned about his arrest.