<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for AILA Leadership Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ailaleadershipblog.org/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ailaleadershipblog.org</link>
	<description>This blog is by the elected leadership of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), to help focus the national debate on the real facts about immigration and the means to achieve a just and rational system.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:53:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Stateside Waivers: Some Families Still Left Out in the Cold by Khall</title>
		<link>http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2013/03/07/stateside-waivers-some-families-still-left-out-in-the-cold/comment-page-1/#comment-754</link>
		<dc:creator>Khall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ailaleadershipblog.org/?p=2982#comment-754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Aren&#039;t the provisional waiver guidelines stating that if the person had an interview scheduled prior to Jan 3, 2013, s/he is not eligible for the provisional waiver? My understanding is that simply paying the immigrant visa fees/starting the NVC process before 01/03/13  ( but not being scheduled for interview) does not disqualify from eligibility for the provisional waiver.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aren&#8217;t the provisional waiver guidelines stating that if the person had an interview scheduled prior to Jan 3, 2013, s/he is not eligible for the provisional waiver? My understanding is that simply paying the immigrant visa fees/starting the NVC process before 01/03/13  ( but not being scheduled for interview) does not disqualify from eligibility for the provisional waiver.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Need For A Realistic Pathway to Citizenship by LetsBeReasonable</title>
		<link>http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2013/02/22/the-need-for-a-realistic-pathway-to-citizenship/comment-page-1/#comment-753</link>
		<dc:creator>LetsBeReasonable</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:35:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ailaleadershipblog.org/?p=2976#comment-753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The notion that a pathway to citizenship must be part of the amnesty for the 11 to 20 million illegal aliens in the country is nonsense. What they want, and what will usher in all of the “good things” associated with amnesty is a “legal status in order to live and work in the USA without fear of removal” and citizenship is not required in order to achieve those good things.

Throughout our country’s immigration history, we have created many types of immigration options that do not lead to citizenship. Even long time permanent residents (Greencard holders) who immigrated legally to the USA are not required to become citizens and a great percentage of them never feel the need to do so as they are able to be fully functioning members of American society without being citizens.

After listening to the President’s speech, I also assume that you understand the only difference between the eligibility criteria the President proposes and the eligibility criteria already imposed on lawful immigrants is the imposition of an additional filing fee. Saying “They must take responsibility for their actions” sounds good, but in reality there is no significant difference and a pathway to citizenship sends the wrong message.

In reality, there is really not that much more we can add when it comes to the eligibility criteria for illegal immigrant applicants (when compared to the eligibility criteria for lawful immigrants). Instead, the only real difference and the only real opportunity to send a message is to instead adjust the benefit received…. To differentiate it from the benefits available to those who didn’t violate immigration law. 

The message is simple: Follow the immigration laws and you will have the opportunity to become a U.S. citizen one day if you choose to do so. Break the immigration laws by entering illegally and you don’t have the option to become a U.S. citizen.
 
I believe the chance for agreement between those in favor of amnesty and those opposed to amnesty will be increased with a pathway to legal status that does not lead to citizenship. This should help with the concerns of those who don’t want to see one political party get a windfall of new voters, and who understand how unfair it is to reward lawbreakers with the same status as those who have waited patiently in line for years to immigrate legally to the USA.

The reality is that no matter how the amnesty is designed, there will always be those who do not qualify and they will just illegally enter the USA so we are sure to face this same problem again one day. In the late 80s we gave amnesty to 3+ million illegal aliens and they were replaced with 11 to 20 million more. Keeping citizenship off the table is really the only sensible message to send to the millions who may contemplate illegal entry into the USA at some future date.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The notion that a pathway to citizenship must be part of the amnesty for the 11 to 20 million illegal aliens in the country is nonsense. What they want, and what will usher in all of the “good things” associated with amnesty is a “legal status in order to live and work in the USA without fear of removal” and citizenship is not required in order to achieve those good things.</p>
<p>Throughout our country’s immigration history, we have created many types of immigration options that do not lead to citizenship. Even long time permanent residents (Greencard holders) who immigrated legally to the USA are not required to become citizens and a great percentage of them never feel the need to do so as they are able to be fully functioning members of American society without being citizens.</p>
<p>After listening to the President’s speech, I also assume that you understand the only difference between the eligibility criteria the President proposes and the eligibility criteria already imposed on lawful immigrants is the imposition of an additional filing fee. Saying “They must take responsibility for their actions” sounds good, but in reality there is no significant difference and a pathway to citizenship sends the wrong message.</p>
<p>In reality, there is really not that much more we can add when it comes to the eligibility criteria for illegal immigrant applicants (when compared to the eligibility criteria for lawful immigrants). Instead, the only real difference and the only real opportunity to send a message is to instead adjust the benefit received…. To differentiate it from the benefits available to those who didn’t violate immigration law. </p>
<p>The message is simple: Follow the immigration laws and you will have the opportunity to become a U.S. citizen one day if you choose to do so. Break the immigration laws by entering illegally and you don’t have the option to become a U.S. citizen.</p>
<p>I believe the chance for agreement between those in favor of amnesty and those opposed to amnesty will be increased with a pathway to legal status that does not lead to citizenship. This should help with the concerns of those who don’t want to see one political party get a windfall of new voters, and who understand how unfair it is to reward lawbreakers with the same status as those who have waited patiently in line for years to immigrate legally to the USA.</p>
<p>The reality is that no matter how the amnesty is designed, there will always be those who do not qualify and they will just illegally enter the USA so we are sure to face this same problem again one day. In the late 80s we gave amnesty to 3+ million illegal aliens and they were replaced with 11 to 20 million more. Keeping citizenship off the table is really the only sensible message to send to the millions who may contemplate illegal entry into the USA at some future date.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The WHY?s of Immigration Reform 2013 by The_Objectivist</title>
		<link>http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2013/02/13/the-whys-of-immigration-reform-2013-2/comment-page-1/#comment-752</link>
		<dc:creator>The_Objectivist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 02:29:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ailaleadershipblog.org/?p=2934#comment-752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting points. BUT you have take a step back from passion and look toward a rational solution that will make both sides &quot;happy&quot;...AND makes sense to all parties involved. Check out this Plan:
http://www.squidoo.com/illegal-immigration-in-the-united-states-and-how-to-solve-the-situation]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting points. BUT you have take a step back from passion and look toward a rational solution that will make both sides &#8220;happy&#8221;&#8230;AND makes sense to all parties involved. Check out this Plan:<br />
<a href="http://www.squidoo.com/illegal-immigration-in-the-united-states-and-how-to-solve-the-situation" rel="nofollow">http://www.squidoo.com/illegal-immigration-in-the-united-states-and-how-to-solve-the-situation</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Time is Now for Immigration Reform by LetsBeReasonable</title>
		<link>http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2013/02/04/the-time-is-now-for-immigration-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-750</link>
		<dc:creator>LetsBeReasonable</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:25:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ailaleadershipblog.org/?p=2912#comment-750</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The notion that a pathway to citizenship must be part of the amnesty for the 11 to 20 million illegal aliens in the country is nonsense. What they want, and what will usher in all of the “good things” associated with amnesty is a &quot;legal status in order to live and work in the USA without fear of removal&quot; and citizenship is not required in order to achieve those good things.

Throughout our country’s immigration history, we have created many types of immigration options that do not lead to citizenship. Even long time permanent residents (Greencard holders) who immigrated legally to the USA are not required to become citizens and a great percentage of them never feel the need to do so as they are able to be fully functioning members of American society without being citizens.

After listening to the President’s speech, I also assume that you understand the only difference between the eligibility criteria the President proposes and the eligibility criteria already imposed on lawful immigrants is the imposition of an additional filing fee. Saying “They must take responsibility for their actions” sounds good, but in reality there is no significant difference and a pathway to citizenship sends the wrong message.

In reality, there is really not that much more we can add when it comes to the eligibility criteria for illegal immigrant applicants (when compared to the eligibility criteria for lawful immigrants). Instead, the only real difference and the only real opportunity to send a message is to instead adjust the benefit received…. To differentiate it from the benefits available to those who didn’t violate immigration law. 

The message is simple: Follow the immigration laws and you will have the opportunity to become a U.S. citizen one day if you choose to do so. Break the immigration laws by entering illegally and you don’t have the option to become a U.S. citizen.
 
I believe the chance for agreement between those in favor of amnesty and those opposed to amnesty will be increased with a pathway to legal status that does not lead to citizenship. This should help with the concerns of those who don’t want to see one political party get a windfall of new voters, and who understand how unfair it is to reward lawbreakers with the same status as those who have waited patiently in line for years to immigrate legally to the USA.

The reality is that no matter how the amnesty is designed, there will always be those who do not qualify and they will just illegally enter the USA so we are sure to face this same problem again one day. In the late 80s we gave amnesty to 3+ million illegal aliens and they were replaced with 11 to 20 million more. Keeping citizenship off the table is really the only sensible message to send to the millions who may contemplate illegal entry into the USA at some future date.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The notion that a pathway to citizenship must be part of the amnesty for the 11 to 20 million illegal aliens in the country is nonsense. What they want, and what will usher in all of the “good things” associated with amnesty is a &#8220;legal status in order to live and work in the USA without fear of removal&#8221; and citizenship is not required in order to achieve those good things.</p>
<p>Throughout our country’s immigration history, we have created many types of immigration options that do not lead to citizenship. Even long time permanent residents (Greencard holders) who immigrated legally to the USA are not required to become citizens and a great percentage of them never feel the need to do so as they are able to be fully functioning members of American society without being citizens.</p>
<p>After listening to the President’s speech, I also assume that you understand the only difference between the eligibility criteria the President proposes and the eligibility criteria already imposed on lawful immigrants is the imposition of an additional filing fee. Saying “They must take responsibility for their actions” sounds good, but in reality there is no significant difference and a pathway to citizenship sends the wrong message.</p>
<p>In reality, there is really not that much more we can add when it comes to the eligibility criteria for illegal immigrant applicants (when compared to the eligibility criteria for lawful immigrants). Instead, the only real difference and the only real opportunity to send a message is to instead adjust the benefit received…. To differentiate it from the benefits available to those who didn’t violate immigration law. </p>
<p>The message is simple: Follow the immigration laws and you will have the opportunity to become a U.S. citizen one day if you choose to do so. Break the immigration laws by entering illegally and you don’t have the option to become a U.S. citizen.</p>
<p>I believe the chance for agreement between those in favor of amnesty and those opposed to amnesty will be increased with a pathway to legal status that does not lead to citizenship. This should help with the concerns of those who don’t want to see one political party get a windfall of new voters, and who understand how unfair it is to reward lawbreakers with the same status as those who have waited patiently in line for years to immigrate legally to the USA.</p>
<p>The reality is that no matter how the amnesty is designed, there will always be those who do not qualify and they will just illegally enter the USA so we are sure to face this same problem again one day. In the late 80s we gave amnesty to 3+ million illegal aliens and they were replaced with 11 to 20 million more. Keeping citizenship off the table is really the only sensible message to send to the millions who may contemplate illegal entry into the USA at some future date.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Time is Now for Immigration Reform by Elizabeth</title>
		<link>http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2013/02/04/the-time-is-now-for-immigration-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-748</link>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:38:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ailaleadershipblog.org/?p=2912#comment-748</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am also an optimist, and agree that the time is NOW.  I also think that we would get more people on our side if we focus on &#039;a path to residency&#039; as opposed to &#039;a path to citizenship&#039; - it is just semantics.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am also an optimist, and agree that the time is NOW.  I also think that we would get more people on our side if we focus on &#8216;a path to residency&#8217; as opposed to &#8216;a path to citizenship&#8217; &#8211; it is just semantics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Let’s Get It Right This Time by membershipblog</title>
		<link>http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2012/11/15/comprehensive-immigration-reform-lets-get-it-right-this-time/comment-page-1/#comment-747</link>
		<dc:creator>membershipblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ailaleadershipblog.org/?p=2800#comment-747</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[AILA&#039;s definition of &quot;comprehensive reform&quot; doesn&#039;t include enforcement, as witness the statement &quot;these urgently needed changes cannot be held hostage by the empty phrase of “controlling our borders first.&#039; ” At least the organization is consistent in its bias and stupidity. How can AILA urge others to &quot;get it right&quot; when it can&#039;t follow its own advice and be objective and open to compromise? AILA -- about as fair and balanced as FOX News.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AILA&#8217;s definition of &#8220;comprehensive reform&#8221; doesn&#8217;t include enforcement, as witness the statement &#8220;these urgently needed changes cannot be held hostage by the empty phrase of “controlling our borders first.&#8217; ” At least the organization is consistent in its bias and stupidity. How can AILA urge others to &#8220;get it right&#8221; when it can&#8217;t follow its own advice and be objective and open to compromise? AILA &#8212; about as fair and balanced as FOX News.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Analysis: The GOP at the Real American Crossroads by membershipblog</title>
		<link>http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2012/11/08/analysis-the-gop-at-the-real-american-crossroads/comment-page-1/#comment-744</link>
		<dc:creator>membershipblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:16:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ailaleadershipblog.org/?p=2785#comment-744</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We agree. We look forward to a bill that secures our border and doesn&#039;t grant a blanket amnesty; the first steps necessary for any change to our immigration laws.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We agree. We look forward to a bill that secures our border and doesn&#8217;t grant a blanket amnesty; the first steps necessary for any change to our immigration laws.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The H-1B Slow Dance: US Businesses Deserve Better by RobGinChicago</title>
		<link>http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2012/09/26/the-h-1b-slow-dance-us-businesses-deserve-better/comment-page-1/#comment-743</link>
		<dc:creator>RobGinChicago</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:14:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ailaleadershipblog.org/?p=2742#comment-743</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This was inevitable, and was predicted at the time that Premium Processing Services were initially proposed.  The extra fee would become the defacto required fee, and would be used to effectively subsidize the production and proliferation of maddenly obtuse RFEs. There may be a legitimate argument for private industry to offer two different levels of service at two different pricing points, but these arguments don&#039;t hold up for providing government services, and lead, inevitably, to this nonsense.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This was inevitable, and was predicted at the time that Premium Processing Services were initially proposed.  The extra fee would become the defacto required fee, and would be used to effectively subsidize the production and proliferation of maddenly obtuse RFEs. There may be a legitimate argument for private industry to offer two different levels of service at two different pricing points, but these arguments don&#8217;t hold up for providing government services, and lead, inevitably, to this nonsense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on “Dreamers” Deferred Action Has Candidates Talking about Immigration by David Chapman</title>
		<link>http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2012/08/29/dreamers-deferred-action-has-candidates-talking-about-immigration/comment-page-1/#comment-742</link>
		<dc:creator>David Chapman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:14:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ailaleadershipblog.org/?p=1984#comment-742</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Greta does make a point on malpractice.  However, I also agree with this blog.  The way to avoid the issue Greta raises is information.  Tell your client about the risk and let them decide.  If you deliberately do not tell them then I agree with Greta.  If you don&#039;t see the issue, I agree with Greta.  If you do your job then the risk pointed out by Greta is avoided.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greta does make a point on malpractice.  However, I also agree with this blog.  The way to avoid the issue Greta raises is information.  Tell your client about the risk and let them decide.  If you deliberately do not tell them then I agree with Greta.  If you don&#8217;t see the issue, I agree with Greta.  If you do your job then the risk pointed out by Greta is avoided.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Do DREAMers really need a lawyer? by Robert Kolken</title>
		<link>http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2012/08/03/do-dreamers-really-need-a-lawyer/comment-page-1/#comment-741</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Kolken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:19:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ailaleadershipblog.org/?p=1894#comment-741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear Laura,  Thank you for taking the time to write this blog.  Bob]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Laura,  Thank you for taking the time to write this blog.  Bob</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
