If you do not try, you never know. - Hilary Clinton
促使俺對此問題關注的, 主要是陳丹紅律師的文章“09年6月份職業移民印度排期倒退將會影響中國申請人”. 因此俺寫了前兩貼: “改變遊說策略: 剩餘名額的使用也應有上限. 事不宜遲”
http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=immigration&MsgID=477446
以及“爭搶剩餘名額的戰鬥已經打響, 請來聽俺煽煽情”
http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=immigration&MsgID=477985
目的是想讓大家知道當前中國出生的申請人在名額分配上的尷尬境地, 呼籲大家一起以信件和EMAIL的方式進行遊說, 來為中國爭名額. 值得不值得一做, 是個見仁見智的問題. 老實講, 俺並沒有必贏的信念. 政策這東西在美國從來不是靠認識哪個大人物說句話就能解決問題的, 政治力量都是從最初的政治鼓動開始積累起來的, 不能隻想到水到渠成的那一刻. 大家看一下總統選舉就知道了. 俺認為, 這事做了對自己(比如, 萬一差一點兒今年就拿到了)和對以後的人都是負責任的, “俺們曾經爭取過”, 沒什麽可遺憾的, 不用多想老美看咱象阿三還是阿四.
有人也許要問, iCall如此“喪心病狂”的卯足了勁要跟老印幹, 是不是跟老印有什麽深仇大恨. 深仇大恨倒談不上, 但是在公司裏老印一旦得勢, 非常跋扈, 對老中尤其不友好. 可以告訴大家, 老中肯定比老印能幹, 但老印肯定比老中爬得快, 原因就不討論了, 將來一定是老印欺負老中. 嗨! 扯遠了, 還是談談鬥爭策略吧.
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)
遊說目標
House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=ctc&lang=&commcode=hjudiciary_immigration
Congress VIP (already included in above link, but I list them here for your focus)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) [Chairman]
Phone: 202-225-3072
Fax: 202-225-3336
Email Form: http://forms.house.gov/lofgren/webforms/contactzipauth.html
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member]
Phone: 202-225-4426
Fax: 202-225-3193
Email Form: http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.ContactForm
Senate Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/subcommittees/immigration.cfm
Senate VIP (already included in above link, but I list them here for your focus)
Charles E. Schumer, New York (Chairman)
Contact Form
http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm
John Cornyn, Texas (Ranking Member)
Contact Form
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
PHONE: 202.456.1111.
當前, 俺需要肯出力的朋友繼續尋找有價值的遊說目標. 再好的策略, 也要有人實施, 實施的人不是別人, 正是我和你. 如同大家一起出資買Lottery, 不是機會更大一點嗎?
如何協調
俺們這是集體行動, 要做一點點協調, 俺提議分單雙號, 單日發郵件的, 發給民主黨議員, 雙日發郵件的, 發給共和黨議員. 發給白宮的沒有限製. 凡是發過的議員, 請在置頂區第一貼上加一跟貼”XXXX年XX月XX日發EMAIL給XXX.XXX”, 做個跟蹤, 其他人也可再發同一人. 這樣, 俺們就能把主要版麵留給有問題需要解答的朋友. 要是版主能幫助開辟一遊說專欄更好.
不同意見
本壇也有人不同意俺呼籲的, 不要緊, 不頂就是了. 但把中印比作"本是同根生"就比較可笑. 俺就想為以後中國多得名額, 也是希望中國人將來少受印度人的氣. 僅此而已.
怎樣心態
如果你的案子受阻, 你是否會有找第一夫人找議員的衝動? 不如這樣, 把你的Energy用到這地方來. 權當玩lottery, 中了人人有份. 再說, 國會設這些網站, 就是為了傾聽來自各方麵的意見的, 不提白不提. 要比把意見寫在文學城有用, 俺們沒有投票權, 還沒有互聯網的使用權嗎? 就是真的有幸去玩 immigration lottery, 不是也要填個表嗎? 去那些網站填個FORM吧, 可以用化名, 也可以堂堂正正的留下真實姓名, 就象EBAY注冊那麽簡單. 幹吧.
一些問題
Q: 為什麽不考慮遊說其他內容, 比如增加移民總量?
A: 除非總量倍增或完全放開國家限製, 否則對中國職業移民幫助不大. 這是由使用餘額的次序決定的. 但總量倍增或完全放開國家限製是不可能的. 事實上, 隻要餘額使用合理, 中國不夠的部分很容易消化掉. 這對現有的體係衝擊最小.
Q: 有多大的把握議員能聽到俺們的聲音?
A: 俺估計信件和EMAIL都是由秘書處理的, 如同找工作簡曆到達用人部門前先要由Recruiter和HR過濾一樣. 為了使你寫的東西能從千百篇裏脫穎而出, 寫作要求簡潔又不失重點, 有特點. 最後是運氣. 增大運氣需要三“多”. 發送的人多, 發送的目標多, 發送的版本多. 這就為什麽需要大家參與.
Q: 是不是每個人都去議員網站上發EMAIL效率最高?
A: 這裏有兩種不同的工作既Write/Revise和Search/Send, 俺的感覺, 同時做這兩件事, 腦筋不易轉換. 最好是有人做W/R, 有人做S/S. 但參與者各自為政, 是做不到這一點的. 所以, 先看一看參與者再說. 最理想是大家以接力的形式參加, 而不是全程參與.
Q: 假如下月排期全部為C了, 還值得不值得一幹?
A: 下月為C不等於以後都為C. 再說老中與老印之間的競爭遠超移民範疇. 為將來職場鬥爭做一點防患於未然的事, 未嚐不可.
Q: 其他問題和建議可在回貼裏提.
A: 應注意節省版麵 (不互相攻擊, 少說氣話).
最後, 咱們來唱一首歌
起來, 不願多排期的人們, 把我們的遊說築成我們新的名額, 中國移民到了, 最關鍵的時刻, … 我們萬眾一心, 冒著敵人的炮火, 前進, 前進, 前進, 進!
促使俺對此問題關注的, 主要是陳丹紅律師的文章“09年6月份職業移民印度排期倒退將會影響中國申請人”. 因此俺寫了前兩貼: “改變遊說策略: 剩餘名額的使用也應有上限. 事不宜遲”
http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=immigration&MsgID=477446
以及“爭搶剩餘名額的戰鬥已經打響, 請來聽俺煽煽情”
http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=immigration&MsgID=477985
目的是想讓大家知道當前中國出生的申請人在名額分配上的尷尬境地, 呼籲大家一起以信件和EMAIL的方式進行遊說, 來為中國爭名額. 值得不值得一做, 是個見仁見智的問題. 老實講, 俺並沒有必贏的信念. 政策這東西在美國從來不是靠認識哪個大人物說句話就能解決問題的, 政治力量都是從最初的政治鼓動開始積累起來的, 不能隻想到水到渠成的那一刻. 大家看一下總統選舉就知道了. 俺認為, 這事做了對自己(比如, 萬一差一點兒今年就拿到了)和對以後的人都是負責任的, “俺們曾經爭取過”, 沒什麽可遺憾的, 不用多想老美看咱象阿三還是阿四.
有人也許要問, iCall如此“喪心病狂”的卯足了勁要跟老印幹, 是不是跟老印有什麽深仇大恨. 深仇大恨倒談不上, 但是在公司裏老印一旦得勢, 非常跋扈, 對老中尤其不友好. 可以告訴大家, 老中肯定比老印能幹, 但老印肯定比老中爬得快, 原因就不討論了, 將來一定是老印欺負老中. 嗨! 扯遠了, 還是談談鬥爭策略吧.
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)
遊說目標
House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=ctc&lang=&commcode=hjudiciary_immigration
Congress VIP (already included in above link, but I list them here for your focus)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) [Chairman]
Phone: 202-225-3072
Fax: 202-225-3336
Email Form: http://forms.house.gov/lofgren/webforms/contactzipauth.html
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member]
Phone: 202-225-4426
Fax: 202-225-3193
Email Form: http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.ContactForm
Senate Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/subcommittees/immigration.cfm
Senate VIP (already included in above link, but I list them here for your focus)
Charles E. Schumer, New York (Chairman)
Contact Form
http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm
John Cornyn, Texas (Ranking Member)
Contact Form
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
PHONE: 202.456.1111.
當前, 俺需要肯出力的朋友繼續尋找有價值的遊說目標. 再好的策略, 也要有人實施, 實施的人不是別人, 正是我和你. 如同大家一起出資買Lottery, 不是機會更大一點嗎?
如何協調
俺們這是集體行動, 要做一點點協調, 俺提議分單雙號, 單日發郵件的, 發給民主黨議員, 雙日發郵件的, 發給共和黨議員. 發給白宮的沒有限製. 凡是發過的議員, 請在置頂區第一貼上加一跟貼”XXXX年XX月XX日發EMAIL給XXX.XXX”, 做個跟蹤, 其他人也可再發同一人. 這樣, 俺們就能把主要版麵留給有問題需要解答的朋友. 要是版主能幫助開辟一遊說專欄更好.
不同意見
本壇也有人不同意俺呼籲的, 不要緊, 不頂就是了. 但把中印比作"本是同根生"就比較可笑. 俺就想為以後中國多得名額, 也是希望中國人將來少受印度人的氣. 僅此而已.
怎樣心態
如果你的案子受阻, 你是否會有找第一夫人找議員的衝動? 不如這樣, 把你的Energy用到這地方來. 權當玩lottery, 中了人人有份. 再說, 國會設這些網站, 就是為了傾聽來自各方麵的意見的, 不提白不提. 要比把意見寫在文學城有用, 俺們沒有投票權, 還沒有互聯網的使用權嗎? 就是真的有幸去玩 immigration lottery, 不是也要填個表嗎? 去那些網站填個FORM吧, 可以用化名, 也可以堂堂正正的留下真實姓名, 就象EBAY注冊那麽簡單. 幹吧.
一些問題
Q: 為什麽不考慮遊說其他內容, 比如增加移民總量?
A: 除非總量倍增或完全放開國家限製, 否則對中國職業移民幫助不大. 這是由使用餘額的次序決定的. 但總量倍增或完全放開國家限製是不可能的. 事實上, 隻要餘額使用合理, 中國不夠的部分很容易消化掉. 這對現有的體係衝擊最小.
Q: 有多大的把握議員能聽到俺們的聲音?
A: 俺估計信件和EMAIL都是由秘書處理的, 如同找工作簡曆到達用人部門前先要由Recruiter和HR過濾一樣. 為了使你寫的東西能從千百篇裏脫穎而出, 寫作要求簡潔又不失重點, 有特點. 最後是運氣. 增大運氣需要三“多”. 發送的人多, 發送的目標多, 發送的版本多. 這就為什麽需要大家參與.
Q: 是不是每個人都去議員網站上發EMAIL效率最高?
A: 這裏有兩種不同的工作既Write/Revise和Search/Send, 俺的感覺, 同時做這兩件事, 腦筋不易轉換. 最好是有人做W/R, 有人做S/S. 但參與者各自為政, 是做不到這一點的. 所以, 先看一看參與者再說. 最理想是大家以接力的形式參加, 而不是全程參與.
Q: 假如下月排期全部為C了, 還值得不值得一幹?
A: 下月為C不等於以後都為C. 再說老中與老印之間的競爭遠超移民範疇. 為將來職場鬥爭做一點防患於未然的事, 未嚐不可.
Q: 其他問題和建議可在回貼裏提.
A: 應注意節省版麵 (不互相攻擊, 少說氣話).
最後, 咱們來唱一首歌
起來, 不願多排期的人們, 把我們的遊說築成我們新的名額, 中國移民到了, 最關鍵的時刻, … 我們萬眾一心, 冒著敵人的炮火, 前進, 前進, 前進, 進!
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
