The new section on mental health issues argues for using credibly sourced diagnoses instead of labels. Saying someone was “diagnosed with schizophrenia” instead of schizophrenic, for example.

And that discussion about labeling people, instead of behavior, led us back to “illegal immigrant” again. 

We concluded that to be consistent, we needed to change our guidance. 

So we have.

May be we can revise judge to be just a verb and use "a person who has the authority to judge" for someone !

Jay Leno's suggested term : "Undocumented democrats" .

I was discussing this with a colleague the other day. If you are in Mexico thinking about crossing the border in the next year or two, what will you do ? Will you do it now and try to take advantage of the immigration reform bill or will you wait till next year ? That is also brought up in this WaPo article on the new urgency to cross the border.

“Mexico was beautiful,” he said, “but man, it sucks to be poor.”

Somebody is starting to pay attention to the - "going to the back of the line" -  rhetoric in the immigration debate. Daniel M. Kowalski is trying to explain the myths about the immigration line in Washington Post. This is something I mentioned sometime ago in the post about the what is left unspecified in the proposal to address the illegal immigration. Daniel is an immigration lawyer, so knows what exactly he is talking about. The key point is the lines are too long and there is quota of how many people can get a green card every year. A reform that doesn't address the quota is impractical.

For comprehensive immigration reform to work, Congress will have to substantially increase the number of green cards available each year in every visa preference. This may mean, for example, allowing a one-time surge of visas to wipe out the backlog, then doubling or tripling some quotas.

When the broader immigration reform does not address which line illegal immigrants will get into (employment based or family based), the proposal to include same-sex couples certainly looks like family-based lines. Both lines are useless without changing the quotas.

The immigration reform is gaining some traction. Here is the proposal. The key piece is

Once the enforcement measures have been completed, individuals with probationary legal status will be required to go to the back of the line of prospective immigrants.

What is left unsaid, missing in most commentary and something that most people don't know is there is a quota of how many employment based green-cards can be granted every year (about 140K). Then each country gets a 7% share of that, irrespective of the population. Assuming more than half of the 11 million illegal immigrants are from Mexico the 10K visas per year is not very useful.

If one considers all the 225K visas for the family based green-cards to go to illegal immigrants, still the wait will be more than a decade. The "agriculture loophole" solves this problem for 3% of the illegal workers.  Relaxing the quota once can be easily branded as amnesty. However, any solution that doesn't address the quota of visa will not be practical.

Am I missing something ?

USCIS is considering EAD for H4 visa holders. Instead of doing it for every H4 visa holder they allow it for a H4 visa holder when the corresponding H1 has exceeded 6 years and when they have already started green card application. Do they know the chances of getting a job when you are out of  job for few years ? Strange rules.

Canon PowerShot SX50 12.1MP 50x Optical Zoom Black Digital Camera (Google Affiliate Ad)

Can the events in New Delhi vindicate the decision to leave ?
or

Do they just expose the lack of drive to contribute ?

or

Neither.

Samsung 8GB Galaxy Tab 2 Wi-Fi Tablet - GT-P3113TSYXAR (Google Affiliate Ad)