不妥之處
俺的上一貼也有不慎之處, 最好還是不要和反移民團體同流合汙. 他們除了反對, 是不會花心思弄清合法移民和非法移民, 中國職業移民和印度職業移民的區別的. 另外, 不可在中國人以外宣傳這件事以尋求其他國家的支持, 以免挑起種族衝突, 反而不利於集中精力幹我們的事. 大家默默的幹就是了. 總原則是“悄悄的進村, 打槍的不要”.
寫作要點
第一, 大家發EMAIL要避免種族問題, 要多談多元化.
第二, 少談中國, 多談其他國家, 必要時也可把中國印歸在一類, 當一回ROW. 達到目的更要緊. 可用你們的英文名署名.
第三, 給老美的數字的數字要直接引用, 不要任何運算, 不要太多.
第四, 寫得一定要簡潔, 不要長篇大論. 別人都明白的道理就不要寫了.
兩個樣本(不介意別人照搬俺的樣本, 不過希望大家寫得更好)
(Example 1)
Dear President/Senator/Congressman,
I am an immigrant from the rest of the world. Like many other employment based immigrants, I am subject to per-country quota, and therefore I am still in waiting for green card right now. However, I would not complain about diversity policy because this policy makes people, ever from small their countries, still have opportunities. Under this policy, each country in each category can only take at most 7% of the total number of that category.
But, did you notice that India born EB2 immigrants took the 21% of total EB2 numbers while almost all countries EB3 even did not reach 7% ceiling when all visa numbers are consumed? This fact totally defeated diversity policy and is unacceptable by people from other countries. The reason is that each category is allowed to use unused numbers that are carried from the up-level category WITHOUT LIMITATION. Totally 22,076 were carried over from EB1 to EB2 in FY 2008. India born EB2 immigrants used 11,561 ones out of 22,076.
What about EB3? There are more people from more countries waiting in this category. They got NOTHING from 22,076 carry-over visa numbers from EB1. This is a diversity hole in that each EB category country theoretically has only 2,805 (7%) per-country cap before carry-over while one country acquired 11,561 carry-over visas.
I strongly solicit law makers to pay attention to this issue. It makes more sense to set a PROPER LIMITATION of using carry-over visa numbers from up-level category for each country of each category, such that carry-over visa numbers may be distributed over more countries. Diversity may be abided by.
Thanks for your consideration.
(Example 2)
Dear President/Senator/Congressman,
My name is XXXXXX, and my story is simple. I am one of the numerous people who immigrated to the United States in search of a better life for myself and my family. As many others who are here on work visas, I am subject to a per-country quota when filing for permanent residency. Still, I believe in the diversity policy because it provides an opportunity for people from every nationality to live in and subsequently contribute to this country.
Under this policy, prospective permanent residents filing under the EB category, which is further subdivided into three categories, from one country can have at most 7% of the entire allowance of that category. However, in the EB2 category, Indian immigrants took 21% of the total EB2s granted in fiscal year 2008 and China took 9.9%. None of any other countries reached 7% cap.
How did this inequity occur? EB1’s unused quotas trickled down to EB2 without regard to the nationality of the applicants. In fiscal year 2008, a total of 22,076 quotas were carried over from EB1 to EB2. Without the discretion established by the diversity policy, 11,561 of 22,076 green cards (52.4%) were awarded to Indian immigrants. Furthermore, despite that most of the EB applicants were in the EB3 category, they did not share the rollover quotas from EB1. EB2 alone consumed the 22,076 remainder in fiscal year 2008. What resulted was that applicants in EB3 that did not reach the 7% ceiling, sharing the plight of waiting.
To resolve this crisis, I strongly urge lawmakers to reform the current practice of distributing unused EB1 visas. I feel that it is reasonable to set a proper restriction on using carry-over visa numbers so that immigrants from traditionally underrepresented countries and of neglected EB categories can have an equal claim to the American Dream.
I deeply appreciate your time and consideration.
(精力有限, 這兩篇寫得不夠好, 請高手指正)
俺的上一貼也有不慎之處, 最好還是不要和反移民團體同流合汙. 他們除了反對, 是不會花心思弄清合法移民和非法移民, 中國職業移民和印度職業移民的區別的. 另外, 不可在中國人以外宣傳這件事以尋求其他國家的支持, 以免挑起種族衝突, 反而不利於集中精力幹我們的事. 大家默默的幹就是了. 總原則是“悄悄的進村, 打槍的不要”.
寫作要點
第一, 大家發EMAIL要避免種族問題, 要多談多元化.
第二, 少談中國, 多談其他國家, 必要時也可把中國印歸在一類, 當一回ROW. 達到目的更要緊. 可用你們的英文名署名.
第三, 給老美的數字的數字要直接引用, 不要任何運算, 不要太多.
第四, 寫得一定要簡潔, 不要長篇大論. 別人都明白的道理就不要寫了.
兩個樣本(不介意別人照搬俺的樣本, 不過希望大家寫得更好)
(Example 1)
Dear President/Senator/Congressman,
I am an immigrant from the rest of the world. Like many other employment based immigrants, I am subject to per-country quota, and therefore I am still in waiting for green card right now. However, I would not complain about diversity policy because this policy makes people, ever from small their countries, still have opportunities. Under this policy, each country in each category can only take at most 7% of the total number of that category.
But, did you notice that India born EB2 immigrants took the 21% of total EB2 numbers while almost all countries EB3 even did not reach 7% ceiling when all visa numbers are consumed? This fact totally defeated diversity policy and is unacceptable by people from other countries. The reason is that each category is allowed to use unused numbers that are carried from the up-level category WITHOUT LIMITATION. Totally 22,076 were carried over from EB1 to EB2 in FY 2008. India born EB2 immigrants used 11,561 ones out of 22,076.
What about EB3? There are more people from more countries waiting in this category. They got NOTHING from 22,076 carry-over visa numbers from EB1. This is a diversity hole in that each EB category country theoretically has only 2,805 (7%) per-country cap before carry-over while one country acquired 11,561 carry-over visas.
I strongly solicit law makers to pay attention to this issue. It makes more sense to set a PROPER LIMITATION of using carry-over visa numbers from up-level category for each country of each category, such that carry-over visa numbers may be distributed over more countries. Diversity may be abided by.
Thanks for your consideration.
(Example 2)
Dear President/Senator/Congressman,
My name is XXXXXX, and my story is simple. I am one of the numerous people who immigrated to the United States in search of a better life for myself and my family. As many others who are here on work visas, I am subject to a per-country quota when filing for permanent residency. Still, I believe in the diversity policy because it provides an opportunity for people from every nationality to live in and subsequently contribute to this country.
Under this policy, prospective permanent residents filing under the EB category, which is further subdivided into three categories, from one country can have at most 7% of the entire allowance of that category. However, in the EB2 category, Indian immigrants took 21% of the total EB2s granted in fiscal year 2008 and China took 9.9%. None of any other countries reached 7% cap.
How did this inequity occur? EB1’s unused quotas trickled down to EB2 without regard to the nationality of the applicants. In fiscal year 2008, a total of 22,076 quotas were carried over from EB1 to EB2. Without the discretion established by the diversity policy, 11,561 of 22,076 green cards (52.4%) were awarded to Indian immigrants. Furthermore, despite that most of the EB applicants were in the EB3 category, they did not share the rollover quotas from EB1. EB2 alone consumed the 22,076 remainder in fiscal year 2008. What resulted was that applicants in EB3 that did not reach the 7% ceiling, sharing the plight of waiting.
To resolve this crisis, I strongly urge lawmakers to reform the current practice of distributing unused EB1 visas. I feel that it is reasonable to set a proper restriction on using carry-over visa numbers so that immigrants from traditionally underrepresented countries and of neglected EB categories can have an equal claim to the American Dream.
I deeply appreciate your time and consideration.
(精力有限, 這兩篇寫得不夠好, 請高手指正)
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
