In their strive to automatize, the USCIS has introduced centralized lock box system. This system mirrors the system used by private companies, like utility companies who collect money. The personnel uses machines to collect fees, look at the petition to determine prima facia sufficiency, and prepare the case for adjudicators. However they also scan the documents for retrieval. They have been doing so for several years now.

They scan all forms and supporting documents. They also take out of the package any tabs, etc that we insert to arrange documents. If the file is too large, they only scan (completely arbitrarily) the first 50 pages.

The CIS wants to have I-140s into the lockbox systems. I-140s can be very thick petitions, especially for Outstanding categories, NIW, International Managers, etc. If the lock box system takes out tabs, etc, in the very least it will make life for the adjudicators very difficult.

In a recent meeting with AILA members at the Texas Service Center Mr. David Roark, the Director of the TSC objected to the removal of the tabs.

However, CIS, being the huge government bureaucracy that it is, will probably not listen to everyone in formulating policies. So even though they make be able to generate receipt notices faster, we will have slower adjudications, and maybe even denials if papers go missing from original petitions.

Contact Houston Immigration Lawyer, Annie Banerjee for more details

Houston-area immigration lawyer Annie Banerjee offers some insightful commentary in the wake of the passage and enactment of Arizona’s controversial anti-immigration law.

When Arizona’s Republican governor Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1070 into law last month, Houston-area immigration lawyer Annie Banerjee was not applauding. “The law is racist,” she says, “and will unfairly target people who don’t look white. Although Governor Brewer denies that it will be used as a tool for racial and ethnic profiling, I’d be amazed if it doesn’t do exactly that.”

Banerjee perceives the law as a knee-jerk reaction calculated to inflame passions and create polarization rather than as a legitimate measure suggestive of immigration reform. “It’s not rocket science. If you put all that extra authority in the hands of law enforcement, they’re going to see it as a way to harass people they don’t particularly like anyway. A phrase like ‘reasonable suspicion’ is just like a code-word for allowing a prejudiced authority figure’s worst instincts to surface,” Banerjee explains.

According to Banerjee, there is a way to prevent racial profiling with the implementation of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, although perhaps Banerjee is being facetious. “They could make the law fair,” argues Banerjee, “If the Arizona authorities were to stop and require every person – and I mean every person – to produce proof of citizenship – the law might just work out fine. Checkpoints could be set up all across Arizona, maybe at precise intervals. Going from A to B, a one hour trip would suddenly become a two hour trip if you got through the checkpoint that was in your way, without any trouble. Arizona residents would suddenly get to experience what Palestinians experience on a daily basis in the Occupied Territories, and I’m sure that they’d be thrilled to live just like those that they’ve heard about from an exotic land. It’d be like going to the Middle East without even needing a plane ticket.”

This kind of set-up might irritate a few Arizonians, but it would be worth it. “At least there wouldn’t be any racial profiling to worry about in that case,” Banerjee concludes.

Although her example might be a bit farfetched, and misses the point as far as proponents of the Arizona law are concerned – according to recent polls a majority of Caucasians not only in Arizona but in other states appear “okay” with the racial profiling of “people of color” and consider it to be a necessary evil – Banerjee vehemently disagrees.

To learn more, visit http://www.visatous.com.

Houston-area immigration lawyer Annie Banerjee definitely is not a fan of Arizona’s new immigrant-related law aimed at curbing the flow of “illegals.”

Annie Banerjee believes that most immigrants coming to America are hard-working individuals, often with families in tow, who obey the laws of their new land. Newcomers who wish to come here are often ineligible for special visas (like H-1B temporary visas) and still would obey U.S. law if they only had the chance. “People are human beings first and foremost,” Banerjee says, “But many are the victims of circumstances.”

She likes the idea of open borders, at least in principle, although she is cognizant of American security and economic concerns. “Does anyone remember what Benjamin Franklin said in 1775, ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.’ That Arizona law is really compromising everybody’s freedom, not just those who would be considered as being here unlawfully.”

Banerjee really detests Senate Bill 1070 made manifest. “Years ago, I read somewhere that Daniel Ellsberg and Peter Dale Scott recommended that all Americans read Defying Hitler by Sebastian Hafner. Of course, even the last Administration with Bush and Cheney weren’t really so Hitlerian except perhaps for a superficial resemblance in their policies, but as, the Tea-Party people are showing us, the madness of our crowds is increasing, and a good case can be made that this dreadful law is a symbol of that madness. It’s a slippery slope, not just the influx of so many immigrants, admittedly, some of them here in the country unlawfully, but a disregard for basic human rights and dignities. There’s a certain hypocrisy in place at the Federal level – President Obama came out against the Arizona law but he doesn’t seem to have any issues with the 287-g policy that is rife with similar abuses – but at least there’s an official outcry against racial and ethnic profiling. That gives me a little hope.”

But unfortunately, only a little hope, and it’s far from eternal. “What we really need are comprehensive immigration reforms – and they’re long overdue,” Banerjee explains, “In Arizona, this new edict is more of what used to be called a ‘sunset’ law in the Deep South – thinly disguised.”

To learn more, visit http://www.visatous.com

The 2010 Arizona Senate Bill 1070 recently passed and signed into law seems in some ways like a descendant to California’s Proposition 187 – passed into law in that state in 1994 but since declared unconstitutional.

To many neutral political observers, the recent passage and enactment of the controversial Arizona measure referred to as Senate Bill 1070 is strikingly reminiscent of a law enacted sixteen years ago in California – Proposition 187, which was also named by some proponents at the time as the “Save Our State” initiative, designed with perhaps even more aggressive intent to prohibit illegal immigrants’ access to social services, health care, and public education, and later declared to be unconstitutional. Like that controversial law would have, the Arizona anti-immigrant reform measure is likely to enhance a spiraling “chilling effect” in the desert – driving undocumented immigrants further underground while diminishing Hispanic cooperation with law enforcement by shutting down meaningful communications even in instances of genuine criminal activity that might well be occurring.

Although unintended, if the new Arizona law is not ruled unconstitutional like its California predecessor, the result might turn out to be precisely the opposite of what its proponents in their naiveté intended – creating a furtive and hidden sub-culture that will thrive in a climate of subversion, conflict, and confusion. This divisiveness is likely to have far-reaching effects, not merely geographically and politically but economically and sociologically. Such a “line newly drawn in the Arizona sand,” in assuming illegality while fostering racial and ethnic profiling – not only among residents of Arizona who might be brown-skinned – but likely extending to virtually any person of any age who is not “a normal-looking” Caucasian and thus above “reasonable suspicion.”

With Arizona suddenly loitering in such a murky ambivalence as newly driven by legal mandate, drug trafficking, kidnapping, sex crimes, and other infractions may actually increase exponentially, as precious law enforcement resources in Arizona are unnecessarily diverted to the often unwarranted apprehensions of “suspicious persons” who may not be guilty of anything more than the “crime” of expressing their humanity in the habits of existence.

Sometimes people receive exactly what they think they want – and it’s nothing like what they had in mind.

A. Banerjee is a Houston immigration lawyer in Texas. Before selecting an immigration lawyer in Houston Texas, contact the Law Offices of Annie Banerjee by visiting their information filled web site at http://www.visatous.com.

I am a eight year old girl in Mexico. My mother is working in your country illegally. My father was never in the picture. My mother had 2 other children. She had no education, she could not find a job. She had to either watch her children die from hunger, or come to the US illegally and work.

Unlike you, she works any and all jobs. She works very hard. There are no benefits, no WIC, no food stamp, no safety net. And then she send money home.

Yes, she is not following US laws, but there is a higher law, that of evolution. All species have built in survival instincts built into them, an instinct that propels a mother to do anything to save her children. And that natural law does not make earning a living a crime. When we as a species decided to live in society, we bound ourselves into law, the law of live and let live.

I know that most people who criticize my mother in your country do not believe in evolutionary or natural law. But you do believe in God. Does your religion allow you to bring a child into this world, and then not care of that child? “Refrigerator Mother” is only a coinage of the Western World. I don’t know what it means. I only know that my mother is doing whats best for me. And if you have people to do the work that my mother is doing, why do you hire my mother?

Mom, I know that on this Mother’s day, you will do your work, and then come home in fear, and go to sleep in your shanty apartment. I know you will not get a kiss from me, or even a gift. But I love you. Happy Mother’s Day.

For more information contact Houston Immigration Lawyer or Houston Immigration Attorney, Annie Banerjee