Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise)

[abcx13]

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3A1A9E0A-FCD0-4826-8B4E-B732A337F618

[gcq]

30% high tech visas for every 70% high tech Americans employed? Are they planning to bring the limit down to 50k (30k for all and 20k for masters students)? If this is what is in store for high skilled people then I would want it to fail!

Durbin is a union guy. That makes him and Grassley ( an anti-immigrant) comrades when it comes to H1B and high skilled immigration. I doubt durbin's proposal will clear house or senate. He wants Irish special visa so Irish can find employment in US and hopefully reduce the bar for Irish, but restrict H1B, which is for high skilled labor.

[gs1968]

To gcq

From abcx13's link above

"Republicans are also mulling over hefty restrictions on companies that hire higher-skilled workers. An employer that hires an H-1B worker would need to certify they haven’t fired anyone 90 days before or after having that employee work at the site — a method to ensure companies aren’t firing U.S. workers and replacing them with foreign workers. Some GOP lawmakers could introduce a bill containing this language in coming weeks, several sources familiar with negotiations said."

H-1B restrictions are being strongly considered in both chambers and Sen.Grassley has already introduced a stand-alone Bill and House members are going to do the same

[rupen86]

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3A1A9E0A-FCD0-4826-8B4E-B732A337F618

The article seems to be stating that there are disagreements on low skill visa and agriculture issue has not been resolved. It also talks about H1B restrictions. And there might be a separate bill for that. I do not know what will come out of house gang of 8 then. Looks like it will only include items that are agreed upon and separate bills for not agreed items. So, it won't be comprehensive bill that will come out of gang of 8 in house.

[CleanSock]

Someone posted this link on trackitt. Finally one article which talks only about Legal Immigration. Points discussed in this article are 1) Higher wages for H1B workers 2) Higher filing fees for companies who have more than 30% H1B employees 3) Unlimited green cards to STEM graduates from US 4) Potential increase in H1B cap to 100,000.

But not everything is looking good. Some senators are against a lot of points mentioned in the article.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/senate-immigration-bill-would-boost-high-tech-visas-but-senators-at-odds-on-worker-protections/2013/04/09/a7b96322-a0e4-11e2-bd52-614156372695_story.html




The article seems to be stating that there are disagreements on low skill visa and agriculture issue has not been resolved. It also talks about H1B restrictions. And there might be a separate bill for that. I do not know what will come out of house gang of 8 then. Looks like it will only include items that are agreed upon and separate bills for not agreed items. So, it won't be comprehensive bill that will come out of gang of 8 in house.

[abcx13]

I am not against provision 2 assuming the percentages (for H1Bs as % of total employees) are reasonable before the higher fees/H1B ineligibility kick in and there's a minimum no. of employees cut off so as to avoid penalizing a 2 person immigrant start-up. The Indian IT outsourcers were clearly not the intended beneficiaries of the H1B program. That is labor cost arbitrage - plain and simple.

Anyway, I've never seen any of the Indian IT companies actually contribute lobbying dollars to one of these immigration bills (L1s and H1Bs seem to work just fine for them since it's not in their interest to get you a GC anyway). It's always the Google, MSFT and Intel types who lobby and they will have no problem clearing this threshold so I don't see what the kerfuffle is all about. Of course, NASSCOM will whine and bitch but who cares about them...

Interestingly, there has been no talk about a startup visa either - which I think would be a lot more beneficial to the economy. Even if it's slightly easier to immigrate unlimited STEM GC (hopefully they'll restrict the univs it applies to) you'll still leave out guys like Steve Jobs who don't have a STEM degree. So a startup visa is still required I think.

[abcx13]

To gcq

From abcx13's link above

"Republicans are also mulling over hefty restrictions on companies that hire higher-skilled workers. An employer that hires an H-1B worker would need to certify they haven’t fired anyone 90 days before or after having that employee work at the site — a method to ensure companies aren’t firing U.S. workers and replacing them with foreign workers. Some GOP lawmakers could introduce a bill containing this language in coming weeks, several sources familiar with negotiations said."

H-1B restrictions are being strongly considered in both chambers and Sen.Grassley has already introduced a stand-alone Bill and House members are going to do the same

This I think is a stupid restriction. So if you fire an US Citizen EE who doesn't know Ohm's Law and want to hire a German EE who designed the electronics on a space probe, you can't?

Ugh. If only Congress could get their head out of their behinds and implement a points-based system like every other developed country...

[abcx13]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/marco-rubio-chuck-schumer-immigration-plan-89868.html

[rupen86]

Someone posted this link on trackitt. Finally one article which talks only about Legal Immigration. Points discussed in this article are 1) Higher wages for H1B workers 2) Higher filing fees for companies who have more than 30% H1B employees 3) Unlimited green cards to STEM graduates from US 4) Potential increase in H1B cap to 100,000.

But not everything is looking good. Some senators are against a lot of points mentioned in the article.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/senate-immigration-bill-would-boost-high-tech-visas-but-senators-at-odds-on-worker-protections/2013/04/09/a7b96322-a0e4-11e2-bd52-614156372695_story.html

The article talks about increase in H1B and STEM green cards but silent on other things like Recapture, Not counting dependents and removing per country quota which is disappointing.

[rupen86]

Someone posted this link on trackitt. Finally one article which talks only about Legal Immigration. Points discussed in this article are 1) Higher wages for H1B workers 2) Higher filing fees for companies who have more than 30% H1B employees 3) Unlimited green cards to STEM graduates from US 4) Potential increase in H1B cap to 100,000.

But not everything is looking good. Some senators are against a lot of points mentioned in the article.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/senate-immigration-bill-would-boost-high-tech-visas-but-senators-at-odds-on-worker-protections/2013/04/09/a7b96322-a0e4-11e2-bd52-614156372695_story.html

The article talks about increase in H1B and STEM green cards but silent on other things like Recapture, Not counting dependents and removing per country quota which is disappointing.

[idiotic]

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3453280c7b001bfa7ddd84aeeb215221

[geeaarpee]

The article talks about increase in H1B and STEM green cards but silent on other things like Recapture, Not counting dependents and removing per country quota which is disappointing.

CIR will not help EB. Its gonna create more mess for EB.

STEM may reduce some backlog, but even STEM is controversial if it is included part of EB - For Instance, MBA degree is not part of STEM but Multi-national managers are part of EB - RIDICULOUS!

[gs1968]

An update
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/immigration-bill-delayed-likely-not-ready-until-next-week/

[immitime]

An update
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/immigration-bill-delayed-likely-not-ready-until-next-week/

gs1968,

Please remember the quote in the above article.

Sessions said, “I guess he wasn’t ready. They didn’t seem to be interested in doing that,” he told reporters. “I didn’t get the impression there was any interest to get that done today [among the gang of eight]. The impression I got was that they hoped to be able to do it next week.”

The problem is this.. nobody is really interested to give amnesty to 11 million people.. they last done an amnesty around 1985-86.. within 28 years 11million illegal... so not to have much expectation from CIR.

Now the President can do an executive order.. as a politician he may do it only just before 2014. until that he will chant bipartisan mantra!.. This is a political show off.. just for fun we can see the news.. that is it. Again I will be surprised if anything in the Executive Order for Legal immigrants!. We have been beaten again and again by all these people . AILA, Senators, WH, USCIS, the so called chappus **. I am not pessimistic. But to accept the truth it takes long long time.. only experience will tell the taste of Sugar.

Folks they are showing carrots.. next is going to be stick after an year of debate, after that the famous words of 'WE TRIED BUT BECAUSE OF SO AND SO IT NEVER EVER HAPPENED" WE TRIED AND executive order for illegals will give them votes and winning time. Still We Legals will be waiting.. waiting and waiting.......

[seahawks2012]

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3453280c7b001bfa7ddd84aeeb215221

Thanks for sharing the link. This is significant news!

[gcq]

http://news.yahoo.com/immigration-debate-query-skilled-worker-shortage-122424152--sector.html (http://news.yahoo.com/immigration-debate-query-skilled-worker-shortage-122424152--sector.html)

[vizcard]

Thanks for sharing the link. This is significant news!

I read this last night and I think its great. But there are people that already have heartburn about the fact that theres only one hearing.

[vizcard]

gs1968,

Please remember the quote in the above article.

Sessions said, “I guess he wasn’t ready. They didn’t seem to be interested in doing that,” he told reporters. “I didn’t get the impression there was any interest to get that done today [among the gang of eight]. The impression I got was that they hoped to be able to do it next week.”

The problem is this.. nobody is really interested to give amnesty to 11 million people.. they last done an amnesty around 1985-86.. within 28 years 11million illegal... so not to have much expectation from CIR.

Now the President can do an executive order.. as a politician he may do it only just before 2014. until that he will chant bipartisan mantra!.. This is a political show off.. just for fun we can see the news.. that is it. Again I will be surprised if anything in the Executive Order for Legal immigrants!. We have been beaten again and again by all these people . AILA, Senators, WH, USCIS, the so called chappus **. I am not pessimistic. But to accept the truth it takes long long time.. only experience will tell the taste of Sugar.

Folks they are showing carrots.. next is going to be stick after an year of debate, after that the famous words of 'WE TRIED BUT BECAUSE OF SO AND SO IT NEVER EVER HAPPENED" WE TRIED AND executive order for illegals will give them votes and winning time. Still We Legals will be waiting.. waiting and waiting.......

I dont think anyone in the political circles wants amnesty but everyone seems to be getting on board with the "path to citizenship" concept. The reason there's not a lot of press about green cards is that there seems to be consensus among what to do about green cards. There's a lot of debate and politicking in the illegal immigration space including the 40% of people who overstay their visas.

[vizcard]

This I think is a stupid restriction. So if you fire an US Citizen EE who doesn't know Ohm's Law and want to hire a German EE who designed the electronics on a space probe, you can't?

Ugh. If only Congress could get their head out of their behinds and implement a points-based system like every other developed country...

As written its a bullshit bill and will never pass. There's a valid concern that US citizens are replaced with foreigners. I do think your example is a little extreme though.You cannot fire somone without cause even if someone "better" comes along (your rocket scientist). There better be a damn good reason otherwise the company will be sued. I don't think companies do this in general - atleast most mid to large companies. I think this legislation is aimed towards smaller businesses especially privately owned companies where they try to get a wage arbitrage using foreigners.

BTW when I say "you" I dont mean you personally.

[gs1968]

Gun control Bill cloture invoked and so no Senate action till Monday unless items of unanimous consent.
This clears the stage for possible CIR announcement this afternoon (I Hope!!)

The senate is in recess between 1230 to 230 with no activity and this could be the ideal time

[abcx13]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE93A00W20130411

Hopefully Durbin's H1B issues will be resolved soon as well.

[gs1968]

To abcx13
Thanks for the link and I do hope the other issues are resolved as well.
The problem is that these closed-door deals do not seem to have broader support and although there is initial enthusiasm,there also seems to be regret/remorse later.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/businesses-immigration-visa-plan-89917.html

They are obviously revisiting this as the current W-visa plan will not pass the House

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/293319-business-groups-ample-visas-needed-in-immigration-bill

[abcx13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/politics/bipartisan-group-of-senators-agrees-on-outline-of-immigration-bill.html?hp&_r=0&_r=0&pagewanted=all

And they apparently have a deal! I guess H1B was resolved?

We are assuming that all the EB provisions are uncontroversial and let's hope that proves to be the case. For the record, here's my want list:

1. Remove country quotas
2. Stop counting dependents
3. Recapture
4. Special STEM GC
5. Increase in overall EB numbers from 140k.

Let's see how many we get.

BTW, now that the AP doesn't use the term illegal immigrant, did anyone see the Jay Leno about how they are all undocumented Democrats instead? Hilarious, I tell you.

ETA: Greg Siskind's blog is also good. http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/

He says McCain says bill won't be out for a few days. So hopefully early next week? Let's hope the House gets their shit together too.

[gs1968]

Next Tuesday hopefully

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/senate-immigration-announcement-89965.html

[gs1968]

Why is McCain changing his mind?
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/11/mccain-wants-multiple-hearings-on-immigration-bill/

To abcx13
This from an article in The Hill
"Interests advocating for an increase in STEM visas — for immigrants with advanced science, technology, engineering and math backgrounds — are likely to be pleased with the legislation.

A person familiar with the talks said that while there are strict caps — lower than Republicans wanted — on many types of worker visas, STEM visas will not count against the quota."

[abcx13]

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/04/11/senior-gop-congressman-ted-poe-once-immigration-hardliner-softens-stance/

Sounds positive for the house.

I'm curious whether anyone here was around for the 2007 CIR effort and whether this time seems different in some way?

[abcx13]

Why is McCain changing his mind?
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/11/mccain-wants-multiple-hearings-on-immigration-bill/

To abcx13
This from an article in The Hill
"Interests advocating for an increase in STEM visas — for immigrants with advanced science, technology, engineering and math backgrounds — are likely to be pleased with the legislation.

A person familiar with the talks said that while there are strict caps — lower than Republicans wanted — on many types of worker visas, STEM visas will not count against the quota."


Let's see - there are 8 in the Gang and 18 members on the committee. Assume all 8 vote against ALL amendments as one of the articles suggested they are planning to do. Then they just need another 1 or 2 votes to preserve the Bill. I think they can probably get those from Feinstein or Leahy if not the other Democrats. If they stick together, I have a hard time seeing why this won't pass the Committee. So Grassley can get as many hearings as he wants and whine and moan, but how is he going to get support for an amendment?

Let's hope the STEM GC is retroactive and won't require new PERMs. Would defeat the whole purpose...

[rupen86]

Let's see - there are 8 in the Gang and 18 members on the committee. Assume all 8 vote against ALL amendments as one of the articles suggested they are planning to do. Then they just need another 1 or 2 votes to preserve the Bill. I think they can probably get those from Feinstein or Leahy if not the other Democrats. If they stick together, I have a hard time seeing why this won't pass the Committee. So Grassley can get as many hearings as he wants and whine and moan, but how is he going to get support for an amendment?

Let's hope the STEM GC is retroactive and won't require new PERMs. Would defeat the whole purpose...

All 8 are not part of the committee. But still, I think there will be enough votes to pass the committee.

[abcx13]

All 8 are not part of the committee. But still, I think there will be enough votes to pass the committee.

Whoops! Elementary mistake. Sorry!

[abcx13]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/immigration-restrictionist-groups-hope-launch-grassroots-revolt-against-190447654--election.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/us/politics/house-democrats-present-immigration-overhaul-plan.html?_r=0 - Some details on what we can expect for EB immigration. Hopefully the actual bill is better. This doesn't sound like a good deal.

[abcx13]

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/11/immigration-activists-unlikely-to-praise-senate-deal-on-citizenship/

These illegals really are a bunch of ingrates. They are getting provisional legal status and a green card and they're still whining about citizenship.

[rupen86]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/immigration-restrictionist-groups-hope-launch-grassroots-revolt-against-190447654--election.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/us/politics/house-democrats-present-immigration-overhaul-plan.html?_r=0 - Some details on what we can expect for EB immigration. Hopefully the actual bill is better. This doesn't sound like a good deal.

"Among proposals to reduce backlogs is a plan to accelerate green card applications of foreigners living legally in the United States who have been waiting to receive their documents for 10 years or more. "
Who comes under this? EB3-India ? They seem to be indicating that 10 year wait is reasonable wait.

After 10 years, it plans to implement new merit based system with 138,000 green cards. This looks like what is available with EB now. But new system will include everyone in that. High-skill, low-skill and illegals. If that is the case, it would be a mess bigger than current one.

[CleanSock]

I agree. Things may be slightly better as they would be removing dependents from quota but then if they are going to include all the categories, as you said it'll be a bigger mess.

One of the articles mentioned not counting against cap spouses and minor children and expediting the process for those waiting for more than 10 years. Many people in EV3 I have children who aged out. What about those people? Aren't they entitled to same benefits as DREAMers? Just because they became an adult staying legally in this country doesn't mean that they be treated inferior to those who came as children illegally.




"Among proposals to reduce backlogs is a plan to accelerate green card applications of foreigners living legally in the United States who have been waiting to receive their documents for 10 years or more. "
Who comes under this? EB3-India ? They seem to be indicating that 10 year wait is reasonable wait.

After 10 years, it plans to implement new merit based system with 138,000 green cards. This looks like what is available with EB now. But new system will include everyone in that. High-skill, low-skill and illegals. If that is the case, it would be a mess bigger than current one.

[gcq]

"So far, the kind of outrage that doomed immigration reform in 2007 seems scarce. Since the November presidential elections, where President Barack Obama drew 71 percent of the Hispanic vote against Republican Mitt Romney, key GOP leaders have insisted the party must embrace reform in order to become more competitive among Hispanics."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/immigration-restrictionist-groups-hope-launch-grassroots-revolt-against-190447654--election.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/immigration-restrictionist-groups-hope-launch-grassroots-revolt-against-190447654--election.html)

[rupen86]

I agree. Things may be slightly better as they would be removing dependents from quota but then if they are going to include all the categories, as you said it'll be a bigger mess.

One of the articles mentioned not counting against cap spouses and minor children and expediting the process for those waiting for more than 10 years. Many people in EV3 I have children who aged out. What about those people? Aren't they entitled to same benefits as DREAMers? Just because they became an adult staying legally in this country doesn't mean that they be treated inferior to those who came as children illegally.





The article was talking about removing dependents from the quota for green card holders. I hope, it applies to EB categories also.

[Spectator]

I don't know about you guys, but as the release of detailed proposals gets closer, I for one am not particularly looking forward to wading through 100s of pages to understand exactly what they mean to EB.

There will be headlines, but I have found from previous experience that the devil is in the detail, or that good items were not considered headline worthy.

The way Bills are written they talk about deleting this and inserting this to the existing law and sometimes it only becomes clear what the true effect is when you reconstruct the the whole.

It's interesting that recent leaks have talked about a "merit based system" for employment. That almost suggests an overhaul of the current Categories.

[gs1968]

To Spectator
The time to review the legislation would be in December after the conference report is approved by both houses (if it gets that far).

[Spectator]

To Spectator
The time to review the legislation would be in December after the conference report is approved by both houses (if it gets that far).gs1968,

Personally, I would want to know what both the House and the Senate were proposing at the time they release their proposals and understand the differences and the agreements.

I would not want to wait to analyze what came out of conference, otherwise how can you lobby for what is important to EB in the conference discussions, or understand what might have been lost in those proceedings?

[kd2008]

I don't know about you guys, but as the release of detailed proposals gets closer, I for one am not particularly looking forward to wading through 100s of pages to understand exactly what they mean to EB.

There will be headlines, but I have found from previous experience that the devil is in the detail, or that good items were not considered headline worthy.

The way Bills are written they talk about deleting this and inserting this to the existing law and sometimes it only becomes clear what the true effect is when you reconstruct the the whole.

It's interesting that recent leaks have talked about a "merit based system" for employment. That almost suggests an overhaul of the current Categories.

Spec, from what I understood the merit based system would go into effect much later in the decade. Please correct me if I understood it incorrectly. Undocumented folks who maintain status will join with others to compete for the green card in the merit based system.

Who knows what they are thinking. Most of the decision makers are unsympathetic and clueless for EB situation in general. This is in spite of heavy lobbying by the tech industry. But then again we are talking about 500K or so people while the undocumented represent 11 million. So it is obvious where their priorities lie.

[Pedro Gonzales]

gs1968,

Personally, I would want to know what both the House and the Senate were proposing at the time they release their proposals and understand the differences and the agreements.

I would not want to wait to analyze what came out of conference, otherwise how can you lobby for what is important to EB in the conference discussions, or understand what might have been lost in those proceedings?
I'm with Spec on this. I intend to read and analyze the bills as soon as they come out just as I did with HR3012. That helps to a) understand the gains or losses to folks like us (I'm assuming there are no gains or losses to me directly as I should get my GC before this comes to fruition), b) dispel rumors / falsehoods that will be propagated about the bills as we saw happen with HR3012, and c) if necessary, lobby for changes.

[geterdone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/technology/tech-firms-push-to-hire-more-workers-from-abroad.html?pagewanted=2&src=recg

Several lobbyists and advocates who have spoken to Senate staff members say they are optimistic about at least two items high on their wish list: a fast-track green card line for math and science graduates like Mr. Sankhla, no matter which country they come from, and a near doubling of the visas for temporary workers.

The Senate is considering eliminating the per-country quotas for those who graduate from United States universities with math, science and engineering degrees.

[rupen86]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/technology/tech-firms-push-to-hire-more-workers-from-abroad.html?pagewanted=2&src=recg

Several lobbyists and advocates who have spoken to Senate staff members say they are optimistic about at least two items high on their wish list: a fast-track green card line for math and science graduates like Mr. Sankhla, no matter which country they come from, and a near doubling of the visas for temporary workers.

The Senate is considering eliminating the per-country quotas for those who graduate from United States universities with math, science and engineering degrees.

If STEM graduates do not count towards cap, I do not know what is the point in removing per country quota only for them. It is so disappointing to see that there is even a discussion to remove per country quota only for STEM graduates. This gives me feeling that if EB immigration just gets STEM and double the H1s, it will worsen the situation of people who do not have US degree.

[kd2008]

Spec, could you please interpret in plain English, how this might affect EB backlogged cases including those who have not yet filed their I-485s?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/us/politics/house-democrats-present-immigration-overhaul-plan.html?_r=0


Among proposals to reduce backlogs is a plan to accelerate green card applications of foreigners living legally in the United States who have been waiting to receive their documents for 10 years or more.

Any immigrants who have been working legally in this country for 10 years would also move rapidly to receive green cards, either through the current system or later through the new merit system.

The plan would also free up additional green cards by eliminating a category of foreigners who are now eligible for those visas: siblings of United States citizens.

The bill would also remove annual limits on the number of green cards for a different category, spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents. The senators estimate that 800,000 immediate family members will move through the backlog and gain green cards over the next decade as a result of that change.

At the end of 10 years, the bill would create a program offering 138,000 merit-based visas each year to foreigners based on their work skills, but also on other considerations including family ties. Green cards will be offered to workers in three categories: high-skilled foreigners in technology and science, employees with a middle range of white collar skills, and low-wage workers. Farmworkers are not included, as they will come under a separate program.

Immigrants who will be eligible for merit green cards would include those formerly here illegally, if they have remained in good standing, learned English and passed other requirements, and remained employed for 10 years.

But other migrants would be eligible for those green cards as well, including agricultural guest workers who had been legally employed in this country for 10 years, and other temporary visa holders. There would be no special, dedicated path to citizenship for immigrants who had once lived in the country illegally.

My interpretations are as follows:


Any immigrants who have been working legally in this country for 10 years would also move rapidly to receive green cards, either through the current system or later through the new merit system.

If you can document this. You are golden! You get a green card. Would some one like me who was on F-1 visa for 6 years and worked on an assistantship count that time towards the 10 yr limit? I hope so.

Next more EB green cards will be available by this change,
"The plan would also free up additional green cards by eliminating a category of foreigners who are now eligible for those visas: siblings of United States citizens."

The most difficulty I has was with this,
"The bill would also remove annual limits on the number of green cards for a different category, spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents. The senators estimate that 800,000 immediate family members will move through the backlog and gain green cards over the next decade as a result of that change."

The above can be true if and only if dependents are excluded from numerical limits. I hope so this is true.

[rupen86]

'Full Marco' on Sunday.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/immigration-reform-gets-the-full-marco-on-sunday-shows_b174826

[abcx13]

I don't know about you guys, but as the release of detailed proposals gets closer, I for one am not particularly looking forward to wading through 100s of pages to understand exactly what they mean to EB.

There will be headlines, but I have found from previous experience that the devil is in the detail, or that good items were not considered headline worthy.

The way Bills are written they talk about deleting this and inserting this to the existing law and sometimes it only becomes clear what the true effect is when you reconstruct the the whole.

It's interesting that recent leaks have talked about a "merit based system" for employment. That almost suggests an overhaul of the current Categories.

I agree. Bills are a PITA to understand but I was hoping the usual suspects - Gotcher, Matthew Oh - would do the hard work for us.

Based on what I've read so far, there are a LOT of negatives as you guys have covered. I've summarized them here (am I missing anything?):

1. Only removing per-country quotas for STEM MS. In fact, it's not like they are 'removing' per country caps as much as there is NO cap. Not removing per country quotas is unjust and discriminatory.

2. Dependents are only being excluded from family visas so far it seems.

3. The 140k merit based system that will supposedly come into force 10 years from now will be woefully inadequate. It seems worse than what we have now since it will have categories for lower skilled workers. Though I guess we already have EB3 Unskilled - maybe the reporter was confused and it's not a major change from the existing system?

4. If H1Bs go up without a concomitant increase in GCs we will have even larger backlogs (maybe that's what our corporate overlords want anyway). However, that said, I think the US STEM MS GC could potentially go a long way in alleviating those. At that point, it would be HUGELY beneficial to get a MS degree if you don't have one already. I guess people whose companies refuse to file in EB2 will still be stuck. Or if you don't have a US MS...

5. The acceleration for people who've been waiting for 10 years is way too slow. Which other country takes 10 freakin' years to grant permanent residency?! And apart from a few EB3I guys, who would qualify for this? And it puts EB3 on the same timeline as illegals, which is fundamentally unjust.

6. No one has mentioned this but I think it's silly not to index immigrant visas to population growth. I haven't seen any of the genius Senators talk about this.

[qesehmk]

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/12/17721303-laurene-powell-jobs-on-immigration-reform-steve-jobs-private-legacy?lite

Yesterday zuckerberg and today laurene powell jobs.... this is powerful. Good signs for immigration reform.

[gs1968]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/business-labor-reach-foreign-farm-workers-visa-deal-immigration-90020.html?hp=r3

It is interesting to note Sen.Hatch's role in this negotiation as he would not have taken part in it if he did not have positive vibes to CIR in general. Hopefully some of the I-squared Act of his will get added to the Bill in Committee in return

[rupen86]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/business-labor-reach-foreign-farm-workers-visa-deal-immigration-90020.html?hp=r3

It is interesting to note Sen.Hatch's role in this negotiation as he would not have taken part in it if he did not have positive vibes to CIR in general. Hopefully some of the I-squared Act of his will get added to the Bill in Committee in return

"The proposal would set a cap of 112,000 visas per year for three-year visas, essentially allowing for 337,000 over a three-year period"
"The plan would allow foreign farm workers to apply for green cards in a five-year timeframe"

Looks like everyone is eligible to apply for green card. We have yet to see an article which would say green card numbers would increase significantly.

[gcq]

This is from **:

Have we not shared already, multiple times, that the bill will contain -

1.) Recapture (from unused GC since 2001)
2.) Elimination of per-country limits
3.) Exemption for dependents
4.) Exemption for US STEM graduates
5.) Ability for H-4 to work (if your country of origin reciprocates the same)
6.) 60 days Grace period on H1

When reading these news reports, take it with a lot of salt as many of these reporters cannot differentiate between legals and illegals, H1B and green cards. Will know the actual details when the bill comes out.

For the 2007 CIR, all applicants in the current system were to be flushed out immediately by approving them. Only after approving the current legal applicants, could they approve illegals. Otherwise they would end up giving preference to law-breakers over law abiding legal applicants.
I am surprised to hear the news that current backlog will be eliminated only over a period of 10 years. There is something fishy about these reports/leaks.

[gcq]

http://blog.pe.com/multicultural-beat/2013/04/02/immigration-reform-numbersusa-optimistic-about-defeating-bill/
.................................................. .................................................. ................
The coalition in favor of immigration reform with a path to citizenship includes organizations that typically don’t agree on most issues. Beck predicted that once legislation is introduced, the details will divide those groups.
“Think of all the things in there someone can oppose,” he said.
Different groups and politicians have widely varying ideas on how long illegal immigrants would have to wait for legal residency and then for citizenship, and how the process should work, Beck said.
.................................................. .................................................. ................
.................................................. .................................................. ................

[pessimist]

i met with sen.hatch's office during the advocacy event and his office has been very supportive about eb provisions. they do have a soft corner for religious worker visas for UT but that has not impacted their general support for eb backlog removal.

[gs1968]

If they have shared that multiple times already-how come it was not posted in any of these forums thus far. These are provisions in the I-squared Act and may be a return gift to Senator Hatch.I had also read earlier that the I-squared Bill was a marker Bill and some provisions would be rolled into CIR.

[kd2008]

I think I V has deliberately chosen to be quite to media but very visible to political circles. Media still jumbles up high skilled & low skilled and people label it more GCs for all. People have animus towards H-1B and media will harp onhow these h-1bs are now clamoring for more GCs.

I-squared act was all that was needed to be the bargaining chip for us. A full blooded bill that captured all our demands. It made gang of 8's task a lot easier.

On I V's facebook page they posted snippets of white house meeting. There was also a thread on their forums about it.

[gs1968]

I still visit Mr.Gotcher's forum ( I know other forum members here have mixed views about that) and I quote below his post from yesterday AM

"Everything that I've heard and read points to a realignment of quota priorities, with visas being taken from family based and given to employment based applicants. Again, this is only rumor, but what I'm hearing is that F2A beneficiaries will become "immediate relatives" (quota exempt), and all other family based categories, except possibly F1, will be eliminated. I have no idea how they will handle cases already in the pipeline.

We should see the text of the Senate bill next week, at the latest. The Judiciary Committee is holding their first hearing on it on Wednesday and I imagine they will need actual text to work with. At that point, we can see what they propose to do with the EB quota. I've heard that they are going to decouple dependents from the quota. This would more than double the numbers available. Also, I've heard that visa recapture will be included. This would add more than 300,000 visas to the quota immediately. If dependents are not counted, that would be the equivalent of adding more than 600,000 visas back into the quota. Finally, there are strong rumors that some groups (EB1a, STEM advanced degree holders) will be quota exempt and also that the main EB quota itself will be expanded considerably. I should add that it is a foregone conclusion that the single state limit will be eliminated. "

This aligns with what gcq has posted above. I have mentioned before the expanding support for the I-squared Act and the current sponsor & co-sponsor count now stands at 26. Obviously Grassley/Sessions/Vitter etc are not part of the list. Also the benefit of such a Bill is that the wait times of all countries will be reduced dramatically and will eliminate the heartache/ill-feelings that HR 3012 provoked last year

[qesehmk]

KD - I would respectfully state that I doubt that. My first hand experience with that organization has been terrible to say the least. They grabbed all credit they could from my blog and never supported 1 % the idea that number crunching actually helps anyone.

On the other hand many ideas came out of this blog including but not limited to -
A) country backlog is the real problem in EB immigration.
B) Family numbers from EB should be counted towards FB quota.

I have no respect for them whatsoever because they don't know how to respect others nor they know how to respect a dialog. If they cared so much for immigrants why did they spread lies about me and this blog when I stopped writing there and started writing on my own blog?

All this crap about them having inside access to any office is BS. It's a BS organization with BS leadership that doesn't know politics nor they know organization nor they know advocacy.

I think I V has deliberately chosen to be quite to media but very visible to political circles. Media still jumbles up high skilled & low skilled and people label it more GCs for all. People have animus towards H-1B and media will harp onhow these h-1bs are now clamoring for more GCs.

I-squared act was all that was needed to be the bargaining chip for us. A full blooded bill that captured all our demands. It made gang of 8's task a lot easier.

On I V's facebook page they posted snippets of white house meeting. There was also a thread on their forums about it.

[qesehmk]

pessimist - thank you for writing on this blog. Did you actually meet with hatch or did you visit the office and couldn't see him?

i met with sen.hatch's office during the advocacy event and his office has been very supportive about eb provisions. they do have a soft corner for religious worker visas for UT but that has not impacted their general support for eb backlog removal.

[kd2008]

KD - I would respectfully state that I doubt that. My first hand experience with that organization has been terrible to say the least. They grabbed all credit they could from my blog and never supported 1 % the idea that number crunching actually helps anyone.

On the other hand many ideas came out of this blog including but not limited to -
A) country backlog is the real problem in EB immigration.
B) Family numbers from EB should be counted towards FB quota.

I have no respect for them whatsoever because they don't know how to respect others nor they know how to respect a dialog. If they cared so much for immigrants why did they spread lies about me and this blog when I stopped writing there and started writing on my own blog?

All this crap about them having inside access to any office is BS. It's a BS organization with BS leadership that doesn't know politics nor they know organization nor they know advocacy.

Q, I certainly sympathize with your experience. There is no doubt you were wronged. But the truth is there for all to see. I have made many trips to Senators and house reps. They know I V. They know also I V is backed by Tech companies. There are facebook posts showing I V invitation to White house. When bills are announced, legislators mention I V.

I V by no means is a perfect organisation. But they are certainly not BS as you say. You were wronged and you have animus for them and that is understandable. But for them, nobody would be banging legislators doors for attention. They certainly know politics way better than most organisations that lobby in DC.

Once you are over your slight, you may be able to see that there are good people in that organisation who had nothing to do with how you were treated and are helping EB backlog cause.

I hope that this is the end of this discussion and we can focus on matters at hand.

[gs1968]

To pessimist
Thanks for the information based on personal experience.We are well aware that Sen.Hatch is very supportive of legal immigration especially employment based.In addition to the I-squared Act we should also be thankful for his leadership role in formulating and passing AC21 Act in 2000. However we should not assume that his support extends to other aspects of the proposed legislation as noted below

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0413/Immigration-reform-Farm-worker-compromise-brings-bill-a-step-closer-to-Senate-floor

"Senator Hatch emphasized that, for his part, getting one piece in place doesn’t guarantee his “yes” vote on an eventual bill being crafted by the so-called “gang of eight” in the Senate.
"While I understand this [farm-worker provision] will be included in the Gang of 8 proposal, no one should assume that I'm backing their overall plan," Hatch said in his statement.

[qesehmk]

kd .. thanks for a civil reply. All I can say is I hope you are right and I am wrong.
Q, I certainly sympathize with your experience. There is no doubt you were wronged. But the truth is there for all to see. I have made many trips to Senators and house reps. They know I V. They know also I V is backed by Tech companies. There are facebook posts showing I V invitation to White house. When bills are announced, legislators mention I V.

I V by no means is a perfect organisation. But they are certainly not BS as you say. You were wronged and you have animus for them and that is understandable. But for them, nobody would be banging legislators doors for attention. They certainly know politics way better than most organisations that lobby in DC.

Once you are over your slight, you may be able to see that there are good people in that organisation who had nothing to do with how you were treated and are helping EB backlog cause.

I hope that this is the end of this discussion and we can focus on matters at hand.

[gs1968]

Such an important week and everybody is so quiet on this forum!
Hopefully the Republicans don't read the liberal LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-legal-immigration-20130414,0,5787920.story

Also the House Bill may be unveiled on Thursday and steal some of the Senate's thunder

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/citizenship-now/albor-ruiz-much-touted-immigration-reform-bill-disappointment-article-1.1314521

[rupen86]

Such an important week and everybody is so quiet on this forum!
Hopefully the Republicans don't read the liberal LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-legal-immigration-20130414,0,5787920.story

Also the House Bill may be unveiled on Thursday and steal some of the Senate's thunder

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/citizenship-now/albor-ruiz-much-touted-immigration-reform-bill-disappointment-article-1.1314521

I guess we need to see more positive news and the actual bill having positive things for EB. So far, we have not seen that except ** claiming that those things will be there in the bill.

[abcx13]

They seem to be slipping again. Judiciary hearing is now on Fri instead of Wed.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/15/17762007-drafters-rush-to-wrap-up-senate-immigration-reform-language?lite

[pessimist]

Completely Agree. and therein lies one one of the biggest challenges. But apart from the posturing in the statement above which is understandable ...I think there are plenty other offices that we really need to be worried about rather than Hatch.
And btw, completely agree with KD2008's points as well. I was honored to get to go to the WH with the team and I think it took quite a bit of traction and credibility and to pull that off. I will leave it at that and not comment further since I understand the sentiments here.

However back to the actual discussion, more than the senate what i was pleased to hear about was the 3-track path to citizenship that the House gang came up with...because my impression about the situation in the House was more disconcerting since not every there office seemed to be on board with CIR.
Overall, there is a lot of posturing/rhetoric going on and it is eventually the "give and take" that will follow the revealing of the bill that will really determine who stands where wrt CIR.

[gs1968]

I found this information interesting.I hope abcx13 does not feel incensed by this knowing his viewpoint on higher education related immigration

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/15/source-point-system-in-immigration-bill-would-favor-family-ties-over-skills/

[abcx13]

This is a somewhat bizarre article and if everything that is implied comes true it would result in a truly moronic system. The merit based system that mixes family and employment based immigration is less than ideal (as it is the US has the lowest ratio for EB immigration as a % of total immigration) and clearly insufficient if it is intended as a replacement for the EB system which seems to be the case - if instead it replaces the DV and is in addition to the current EB system, then I guess it's okay... I guess we'll also have to wait till tomorrow to see how the backlog is eliminated.

Some more here: http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2013/04/senate-bill-to-be-introduced-on-tuesday.html

And on the House bill:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/house-immigration-gang-of-eight-finalizing-own-overhaul/

[rupen86]

I found this information interesting.I hope abcx13 does not feel incensed by this knowing his viewpoint on higher education related immigration

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/15/source-point-system-in-immigration-bill-would-favor-family-ties-over-skills/

Even though, it may be correct, merit based system is supposed to be implemented after 10 years. ILW article that
abcx13 posted is suggesting that merit based system is replacement of diversity visa program. If that is the case, then it is not a big deal. So, for us, we have to see how they change the current EB system.

[rupen86]

This is a somewhat bizarre article and if everything that is implied comes true it would result in a truly moronic system. The merit based system that mixes family and employment based immigration is less than ideal (as it is the US has the lowest ratio for EB immigration as a % of total immigration) and clearly insufficient if it is intended as a replacement for the EB system which seems to be the case - if instead it replaces the DV and is in addition to the current EB system, then I guess it's okay... I guess we'll also have to wait till tomorrow to see how the backlog is eliminated.

Some more here: http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2013/04/senate-bill-to-be-introduced-on-tuesday.html

And on the House bill:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/house-immigration-gang-of-eight-finalizing-own-overhaul/

It is interesting to see that ilw article talks about all points other than EB

[abcx13]

Even though, it may be correct, merit based system is supposed to be implemented after 10 years. ILW article that
abcx13 posted is suggesting that merit based system is replacement of diversity visa program. If that is the case, then it is not a big deal. So, for us, we have to see how they change the current EB system.

This article suggests 4 years if I understand it correctly.

[immi2910]

From Trackitt http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/1218855333/immigration-bill-boosts-green-cards-for-forei/page/last_page

They cite: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/15/immigration-bill-boosts-green-cards-for-foreign-employees/?print=1

Spouse and kids to be exempted from 140K cap. Also, EB1 exempt from the cap and PHD STEM holders

Here is the excerpt from the article:

The nation’s current immigration law allocates a green card not only to each incoming employee, employee’s spouse and their young children. The new law would expand the number of employee Green Cards by exempting several categories of immigrants from the 140,000 annual cap, including the spouses and children of new green card recipients.

The new law would also exempts certain categories of employees, including “multinational executives and managers if they been employed at least one year,” according to the text read to TheDC by Jenks.

The bill also exempts “outstanding researchers and professors,” as well as people with doctorates in the very broad section of “science, technology engineering and math.”

This “STEM” field includes physicists and chemists, engineers, biologists and computer experts.

[gs1968]

This is the official stand of numbersUSA

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/april-15-2013/gang-eight-bill-would-swell-annual-legal-immigration-levels.html

I am pinching myself as the leaked details seem too good to be true. I hope the House will take a sympathetic view of the proposals.

However the GOP whip has said that the House will not be prodded into action by the Senate Bill and work on its own Bill at their own pace

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345663/mccarthy-house-will-follow-regular-order-immigration-reform-robert-costa

And then there is a third track
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/forget-working-groups-house-judiciary-moving-immigration-on-its-own-20130415

[abcx13]

Interesting...it doesn't say STEM MS. Let's hope by STEM doctorate they also mean STEM MS and it was just an omission.

Also, I just realized that excluding dependents is a given. If they are removing quotas for spouses and unmarried kids of GC holders from the FB categories, then it would be inconsistent not to remove from EB. Otherwise you could get an EB GC and then immediately petition under FB (though this would mean that the EB petitioner would have to be "kind enough" not to clog up EB numbers and use uncapped FB).

So EB1 would be exempt, as would dependents, as would STEM PhD. That should free up at least 100k (40k from EB1, at least 70k dependents @ 2/GC, and then some STEM - but I'm double counting...) I think? Then you'll have to split that based on SOFAD to EB2 and EB3.

[rupen86]

Interesting...it doesn't say STEM MS. Let's hope by STEM doctorate they also mean STEM MS and it was just an omission.

Also, I just realized that excluding dependents is a given. If they are removing quotas for spouses and unmarried kids of GC holders from the FB categories, then it would be inconsistent not to remove from EB. Otherwise you could get an EB GC and then immediately petition under FB (though this would mean that the EB petitioner would have to be "kind enough" not to clog up EB numbers and use uncapped FB).

So EB1 would be exempt, as would dependents, as would STEM PhD. That should free up at least 100k (40k from EB1, at least 70k dependents @ 2/GC, and then some STEM - but I'm double counting...) I think? Then you'll have to split that based on SOFAD to EB2 and EB3.

It is possible that they might have excluded MS. One of the articles earlier mentioned removing per country quota for STEM. That would make sense then.

[gs1968]

To abcx13
The exemption of spouses and minor children has now been confirmed by various sources. For the sake of perspective-this is the last known position of the House on the F-2A category during the STEM debate last November

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/12/05/senate-democrats-block-stem-visa-immigration-bill-backed-by-republicans/

The most that the Republicans would offer was to allow the spouses to wait in the USA while awaiting GC approval.There was no increase in GC numbers,elimination of country cap or work authorization. It is a huge jump from this position to what the Senate is proposing now. However if there is tremendous momentum coming out of the Senate for this Bill then the reluctance of the House can be overcome

[seahawks2012]

To abcx13
The exemption of spouses and minor children has now been confirmed by various sources. For the sake of perspective-this is the last known position of the House on the F-2A category during the STEM debate last November

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/12/05/senate-democrats-block-stem-visa-immigration-bill-backed-by-republicans/

The most that the Republicans would offer was to allow the spouses to wait in the USA while awaiting GC approval.There was no increase in GC numbers,elimination of country cap or work authorization. It is a huge jump from this position to what the Senate is proposing now. However if there is tremendous momentum coming out of the Senate for this Bill then the reluctance of the House can be overcome

Thanks for the update. What I don't get is why would House not include eliminating country limits if it already had pass HR3012 (eliminating country limits)?

[gs1968]

It appears that the Boston tragedy will delay the CIR Bill rollout

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/15/senate-dems-allow-extra-hearing-on-immigration-bill-in-bid-to-ease-opposition/?test=latestnews

[abcx13]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324030704578425052856166958.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

[gcq]

I found this information interesting.I hope abcx13 does not feel incensed by this knowing his viewpoint on higher education related immigration

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/15/source-point-system-in-immigration-bill-would-favor-family-ties-over-skills/
It was the same in CIR 2007. When democrats are in control, that is how it will end up.

[vizcard]

http://news.yahoo.com/senators-plan-unveil-immigration-bill-wednesday-235357899.html

A truly comprehensive article on content. Plus a new item (for me anyway) bout reducing time from GC to citizenship from 5 yrs to 3 yrs.

[iamdeb]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/gang-introduce-immigration-bill-today/story?id=18964718#.UWzZzUqRdBE

CIR to be introduced in Senate today!
Lets keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best for EB India.

Some of the highlights of CIR also discussed in the following link

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/16/17768678-details-of-sweeping-senate-immigration-plan-revealed?lite=

Deb

[rupen86]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324030704578425052856166958.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

It needs WSJ subscription to read it.

[CleanSock]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE93F05120130416?irpc=932

It's not just this article, but I see removal of dependents from the quota in very few articles.




It needs WSJ subscription to read it.

[kd2008]

The legislation includes a wide range of new work-visa programs that a Senate aide said would increase the number of skilled and employment-based visas while reducing family visas.

The bill would eliminate caps on the number of visas for immigrants with "extraordinary ability" in scientific or artistic fields, among others, as well as for multinational executives and those with doctoral degrees. Their immediate families also would be able to access visas that aren't subject to caps.

I believe above was reported yesterday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324030704578425170442353016.html

Merit visa thing is different from EB visa thing. Merit visa replaces diversity visa and sibling visas. AFAIK, EB will continue as before. EB1 category will have no cap and those numbers will be reallocated to EB2 & EB3. Dependents won't be counted in the caps.

Let us wait and watch the actual draft. I do not see unlimited STEM MS visa - unlimited only for doctoral degrees.

[abcx13]

http://news.yahoo.com/senators-plan-unveil-immigration-bill-wednesday-235357899.html

A truly comprehensive article on content. Plus a new item (for me anyway) bout reducing time from GC to citizenship from 5 yrs to 3 yrs.

Only for illegals I believe.

Also anyone else think the $500 and $1k fines for illegals are a joke?

[abcx13]

I believe above was reported yesterday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324030704578425170442353016.html

Merit visa thing is different from EB visa thing. Merit visa replaces diversity visa and sibling visas. AFAIK, EB will continue as before. EB1 category will have no cap and those numbers will be reallocated to EB2 & EB3. Dependents won't be counted in the caps.

Let us wait and watch the actual draft. I do not see unlimited STEM MS visa - unlimited only for doctoral degrees.

Let's hope per country caps are also removed - else we will perpetually be at the mercy of SOFAD and porters.

[qesehmk]

Here are key highlights from Reuters (in the order of importance to EB backlog IMHO)
1. Existing Backlog will be eliminated. (Doesn't say how).
2. American graduates to have a separate quota (within overall limits).
3. Enterpreneurs to get a separate quota (other than E5)
4. Fifth year onwards merit based visas (similar to canada or UK)

Another far reaching provision that is sure going to create backlog in future is that H1B cap is being raised to 110K with max cap at 180K.

Please add /delete / modify as the understanding around this evolves. Overall this is progress forward. Not as much as one would've hoped for .... but a definite progress.

p.s. - Somehow I didn't see the exemption of dependents from the quota. Please sight if you see it.

[Spectator]

Here are key highlights from Reuters (in the order of importance to EB backlog IMHO)
1. Existing Backlog will be eliminated. (Doesn't say how).
2. American graduates to have a separate quota (within overall limits).
3. Enterpreneurs to get a separate quota (other than E5)
4. Fifth year onwards merit based visas (similar to canada or UK)

Another far reaching provision that is sure going to create backlog in future is that H1B cap is being raised to 110K with max cap at 180K.

Please add /delete / modify as the understanding around this evolves. Overall this is progress forward. Not as much as one would've hoped for .... but a definite progress.

p.s. - Somehow I didn't see the exemption of dependents from the quota. Please sight if you see it.I suspect this is quite an incomplete list and that other provisions are, in fact, included. Until the text is actually published we won't know the full details and it seems the press aren't so interested in reporting measures affecting EB.

From the Reuters article:


About 40 percent of employment-based visas would be allocated to professionals with advanced degrees to work in the United States in the sciences, arts and other professions, including certain people with foreign medical degrees. Those holding graduate degrees in engineering, mathematics, science and technology from U.S. universities also would be included.

Employment visas for skilled workers and certain professionals would be increased to 40 percent of the total.

That is saying that EB2 would get 40% of EB visas and EB3 would get 40% of EB visas. That compares to the 28.6% currently.

That would be consistent with EB1A and EB1B or, as some have reported, all of EB1 being taken out of the numerical limits.

[rupen86]

I suspect this is quite an incomplete list and that other provisions are, in fact, included. Until the text is actually published we won't know the full details and it seems the press aren't so interested in reporting measures affecting EB.

From the Reuters article:



That is saying that EB2 would get 40% of EB visas and EB3 would get 40% of EB visas. That compares to the 28.6% currently.

That would be consistent with EB1A and EB1B or, as some have reported, all of EB1 being taken out of the numerical limits.

These things that we are interested in are not yet reported.
1) Elimination of per country limit
2) Not counting dependents
3) Recapture

[girish989]

These things that we are interested in are not yet reported.
1) Elimination of per country limit
2) Not counting dependents
3) Recapture



Complete outline -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136230105/Outline-of-the-Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-and-Immigration-Modernization-Act-of-2013

looks good for me.

[abcx13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/senators-set-to-unveil-immigration-bill.html?hp&pagewanted=all

In addition to merit based, there will be no cap on GCs after waiting for 10 yrs. I wish it was 5 for legals like every other country. Oh well, hopefully most of us in the EB system won't need that provision anyway... :(

[amulchandra]

These things that we are interested in are not yet reported.
1) Elimination of per country limit
2) Not counting dependents
3) Recapture

Please see below

On the employment green card categories, the bill exempts the following categories from theannual numerical limits on employment-based immigrants: derivative beneficiaries of employment-based immigrants; aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; multinational executives andmanagers; doctoral degree holders in STEM field; and physicians who have completed theforeign residency requirements or have received a waiver.

Also

Under one component of this merit based system the Secretary will allocate merit-basedimmigrant visas beginning on October 1, 2014 for employment-based visas that have been pending for three years, family-based petitions that were filed prior to enactment and have been pending for five years, long-term alien workers and other merit based immigrantworkers.

This is too good to be true. I hope it passes

[abcx13]

The positives:

1. Dependents are excluded as is EB1 and US STEM Phd.
2. H1B fines for H1B dependent employers (I wish the fines were higher)

The negatives:
1. No mention of removal of country caps. Let's hope this is in the House bill.
2. H1B numbers go up almost 2x. EB goes up slightly more than 2x since EB1 and dependents are excluded but I still think we'd end up with backlogs in the long run.
3. Only STEM PhD is excluded from caps not STEM MS. I guess STEM MS would have been too generous.

On merit based, I don't understand this portion of it (my PD is Sep 2012):

Between fiscal years 2015 and 2021, the Secretary shall allocate a seventh of the total number of those with employment based visas that have been pending on the date of enactment.


EB2 numbers go up to 56k. Today EB2 is roughly 40k with dependents. If you assume a dependent ratio of 2, that means we add 36k numbers for primary applicants, most of which should fall across to EB2-IC. Does anyone know what the backlog is for EB2-IC today (up to mid-2010 or the last PD for which you could file an I-485) excluding derivative applicants? I guess there should be an impact of less porting too, but it seems that it would still take a few years for EB2IC to become current.

Interestingly, it does say that illegals can't legalize until all EB and FB PDs are current!

[kd2008]

Complete outline -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136230105/Outline-of-the-Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-and-Immigration-Modernization-Act-of-2013

looks good for me.

More details from the link:

• On the employment green card categories, the bill exempts the following categories from theannual numerical limits on employment-based immigrants: derivative beneficiaries of employment-based immigrants; aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; multinational executives andmanagers; doctoral degree holders in STEM field; and physicians who have completed theforeign residency requirements or have received a waiver.
• The bill then allocates 40 percent of the worldwide level of employment-based visas to : 1)members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent whose services aresought in the sciences, arts, professions, or business by an employer in the United States(including certain aliens with foreign medical degrees) and 2) aliens who have earned amaster’s degree or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering or mathematics froman accredited U.S. institution of higher education and have an offer of employment in arelated field and the qualifying degree was earned in the five years immediately before the petition was filed.
• The bill increases the percentage of employment visas for skilled workers, professionals, andother professionals to 40 percent, maintains the percentage of employment visas for certainspecial immigrants to 10 percent and maintains visas for those who foster employmentcreation to 10 percent.
• The bill creates a startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs who seek to emigrate to the UnitedStates to startup their own companies.
• Merit Based Visa:
The merit based visa, created in the fifth year after enactment, awards points to individuals based on their education, employment, length of residence in the US andother considerations. Those individuals with the most points earn the visas. Those whoaccess the merit based pathway to earn their visa are expected to be talented individuals,individuals in our worker programs and individuals with family here. 120,000 visas will beavailable per year based on merit. The number would increase by 5% per year if demandexceeds supply in any year where unemployment is under 8.5%. There will be a maximumcap of 250,000 visas.
• Under one component of this merit based system the Secretary will allocate merit-basedimmigrant visas beginning on October 1, 2014 for employment-based visas that have been pending for three years, family-based petitions that were filed prior to enactment and have been pending for five years, long-term alien workers and other merit based immigrantworkers.
• Long –term alien workers and other merit based immigrant workers includes those who have been lawfully present in the United States for not less than ten years and who are notadmitted as a W visa under section 101(a)(15)(W) of the Act.
• Between fiscal years 2015 and 2021, the Secretary shall allocate a seventh of the totalnumber of those with employment based visas that have been pending on the date of enactment. Petitions for spouses and children of permanent residents who are accordedstatus under the INA are automatically converted to petitions to accord status as immediaterelatives. Between fiscal years 2015 and 2021, the Secretary shall follow a specific formulato allocate visas to those with family based petitions pending on the date of enactment andsubject to some restrictions visas should be authorized in the order petitions were filed. Infiscal year 2022, the Secretary of State shall allocate visas to half the number of those thatfiled family based petitions after the date of enactment and had not had a visa issued by October 2021. In fiscal year 2023, the visas should be allocated to the other half of those thatfiled family based petitions after the date of enactment and who had not had a visa issued byOctober 2021. Visas allocated for these family based petitions will be issued based on theorder in which petitions were filed

[rupen86]

Please see below

On the employment green card categories, the bill exempts the following categories from theannual numerical limits on employment-based immigrants: derivative beneficiaries of employment-based immigrants; aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; multinational executives andmanagers; doctoral degree holders in STEM field; and physicians who have completed theforeign residency requirements or have received a waiver.

Also

Under one component of this merit based system the Secretary will allocate merit-basedimmigrant visas beginning on October 1, 2014 for employment-based visas that have been pending for three years, family-based petitions that were filed prior to enactment and have been pending for five years, long-term alien workers and other merit based immigrantworkers.

This is too good to be true. I hope it passes

There are some good points but certainly not too good.

-> Elimination of per country quota which was assumed to be included is mysteriously not there. This is disappointing to say the least. This also tells us that there are reasons other than CIR for this to be not there and that may be the reason HR 3012 failed last year. We will have to rely on house to have this and hope that when they meet to remove the differences, this is kept.
-> There is no Recapture of unused numbers
-> No EAD for H4
-> No Visa re-validation within US
-> No 60 day grace period for H1.

[abcx13]

There are some good points but certainly not too good.

-> Elimination of per country quota which was assumed to be included is mysteriously not there. This is disappointing to say the least. This also tells us that there are reasons other than CIR for this to be not there and that may be the reason HR 3012 failed last year. We will have to rely on house to have this and hope that when they meet to remove the differences, this is kept.
-> There is no Recapture of unused numbers
-> No EAD for H4
-> No Visa re-validation within US
-> No 60 day grace period for H1.

There is EAD for H4 as long as the other country reciprocates for US immigrants.
There is also a 60 day H1 grace period.

Fingers crossed that House removes country caps and that is kept.

[rupen86]

Don't mean to be rude but I think you need to read the following link completely before worrying.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136230105/Outline-of-the-Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-and-Immigration-Modernization-Act-of-2013

There is H1b grace period. If this passes as is it will definitely eliminate the backlog. From Oct 1 2014 anyone who has a GC application pending more than 3 years are automatically allotted a visa number under a separate provision under merit based system.

It does not say all those who are waiting for more than 3 years will start getting GC. It is just going to use some numbers from merit based system and start allocating to those people. We do not know how much and we do not know the ratio. It is also going to allocate to family based green cards from this numbers.

I will have to read again for H1B grace period.

To abcx13
India currently does not get EAD for H4 because it does not reciprocate and it is not going to change with this bill ?

[kkruna]

I quote below for EB2-3 from CIR summary that I see. What does it mean in terms of numbers and PR adjudication for EB2 and EB3 priority dates? Looks like EB1 will be without limits. We may assume the overall number for EB2 and 3 at 40% each of 140K?

· On the employment green card categories, the bill exempts the following categories from the
annual numerical limits on employment-based immigrants: derivative beneficiaries of
employment-based immigrants; aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education,
business or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; multinational executives and
managers; doctoral degree holders in STEM field; and physicians who have completed the
foreign residency requirements or have received a waiver.
· The bill then allocates 40 percent of the worldwide level of employment-based visas to : 1)
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent whose services are
sought in the sciences, arts, professions, or business by an employer in the United States
(including certain aliens with foreign medical degrees) and 2) aliens who have earned a
master’s degree or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering or mathematics from
an accredited U.S. institution of higher education and have an offer of employment in a
related field and the qualifying degree was earned in the five years immediately before the
petition was filed.
· The bill increases the percentage of employment visas for skilled workers, professionals, and
other professionals to 40 percent, maintains the percentage of employment visas for certain
special immigrants to 10 percent and maintains visas for those who foster employment
creation to 10 percent.

[qesehmk]

Updated ahead ..

[qesehmk]

kkruna .. I took a stab at parsing that in a simple way in the other thread viz. http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2033-Discussion-On-Immigration-Reform-(Comprehensive-Or-Otherwise)?p=34490#post34490


I quote below for EB2-3 from CIR summary that I see. What does it mean in terms of numbers and PR adjudication for EB2 and EB3 priority dates? Looks like EB1 will be without limits. We may assume the overall number for EB2 and 3 at 40% each of 140K?

· On the employment green card categories, the bill exempts the following categories from the
annual numerical limits on employment-based immigrants: derivative beneficiaries of
employment-based immigrants; aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education,
business or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; multinational executives and
managers; doctoral degree holders in STEM field; and physicians who have completed the
foreign residency requirements or have received a waiver.
· The bill then allocates 40 percent of the worldwide level of employment-based visas to : 1)
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent whose services are
sought in the sciences, arts, professions, or business by an employer in the United States
(including certain aliens with foreign medical degrees) and 2) aliens who have earned a
master’s degree or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering or mathematics from
an accredited U.S. institution of higher education and have an offer of employment in a
related field and the qualifying degree was earned in the five years immediately before the
petition was filed.
· The bill increases the percentage of employment visas for skilled workers, professionals, and
other professionals to 40 percent, maintains the percentage of employment visas for certain
special immigrants to 10 percent and maintains visas for those who foster employment
creation to 10 percent.

[isantem]

You guys dont realise not even now that removing the country cap is not the solution?????????
I wonder when ** will weak up and start spending the money and time for pushing to make sure that dependents are eliminated, visa recapture, and quata increase.
Those the only things that will acctualy make sense. Just by eliminating the dependents the effective visa numbers will more than double.
I wonder if Mexico will start having 60% of the applications in EB-3 if Indians will still think that country cap removal is the solution?
Country cap it make sense (maybe not 7%) but it need to be a limit if not poor countrys will overrun the system in 2 years.

[kd2008]

AILA had posted the same scribd document. So that confirms it to be the real doc outlining the CIR.

http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44052

[kd2008]

Revised Summary (for EB immigration reform in order of Importance)

From Reuters
1. Existing Backlog will be eliminated. (Doesn't say how).
2. American graduates to have a separate quota (within overall limits).
3. Enterpreneurs to get a separate quota (other than E5)
4. Fifth year onwards merit based visas (similar to canada or UK)

Another far reaching provision that is sure going to create backlog in future is that H1B cap is being raised to 110K with max cap at 180K.

From Scribd
1. Elimination of country cap for

Dependents
EB1-A & B & C
PHD in STEM
Doctors

2. Change in composition of visas as follows

EB1 - no quota - no limits
EB2 + EB3 w US degrees - 40%
EB3 - 40%
EB4 - 10%
EB5 - 10%
Additionally a startup visa category (may be part of EB5 - except that startup visa will be much less stringent on investment and jobs created)

3. Long term overhaul of current system

All caps will be removed effectively by moving to merit based system
Merit based cap will keep increasing to 240K max as long as US unemployment is under 8.5% (this is quite funny since it barely exceeded 8.5% even under worst conditions in 2008-2009)
Chronic backlogs will get special visas (not clear if under then current quota or not)


Again ... our understanding will evolve .... so lets keep revising ...

Also keep in mind that either reuters or scribd are not really authenticate enough to consider this as final word on this bill.

Good luck to everybody.

It is not just elimination of "country cap" for EB1, Q. It is exclusion from numerical cap altogether.

[abcx13]

Revised Summary (for EB immigration reform in order of Importance)

From Reuters
1. Existing Backlog will be eliminated. (Doesn't say how).
2. American graduates to have a separate quota (within overall limits).
3. Enterpreneurs to get a separate quota (other than E5)
4. Fifth year onwards merit based visas (similar to canada or UK)

Another far reaching provision that is sure going to create backlog in future is that H1B cap is being raised to 110K with max cap at 180K.

From Scribd
1. Elimination of country cap for

Dependents
EB1-A & B & C
PHD in STEM
Doctors

2. Change in composition of visas as follows

EB1 - no quota - no limits
EB2 + EB3 w US degrees - 40%
EB3 - 40%
EB4 - 10%
EB5 - 10%
Additionally a startup visa category (may be part of EB5 - except that startup visa will be much less stringent on investment and jobs created)

3. Long term overhaul of current system

All caps will be removed effectively by moving to merit based system
Merit based cap will keep increasing to 240K max as long as US unemployment is under 8.5% (this is quite funny since it barely exceeded 8.5% even under worst conditions in 2008-2009)
Chronic backlogs will get special visas (not clear if under then current quota or not)


Again ... our understanding will evolve .... so lets keep revising ...

Also keep in mind that either reuters or scribd are not really authenticate enough to consider this as final word on this bill.

Good luck to everybody.

Q - I agree with kd that you should not refer to part 1 as elimination of country cap. It is elimination of quota.

Secondly, my understanding is that "new" EB2 is "old" EB2 + "old" EB3 with US STEM MS in past five years (so will benefit those where employer did not file in EB3 I think). This will increase EB2 demand since even ROW EB3 with US STEM MS can then file under EB2 and they will be current.

This is kind of a crappy bill for legals if this is all they could come up with. Really I mean? You can legalize 11m but can only increase legal GCs by some 100-140k/yr? And they probably aren't even increasing when you consider reallocation from FB...

Also, for folks agitating for recapture, while I support it as an alleviating measure, remember that it is NOT a permanent fix...

[justvisiting]

[
More details from the link:

• Between fiscal years 2015 and 2021, the Secretary shall allocate a seventh to the total number of those with employment based visas that have been pending on the date of enactment. Petitions for spouses and children of permanent residents who are accordedstatus under the INA are automatically converted to petitions to accord status as immediaterelatives. Between fiscal years 2015 and 2021, the Secretary shall follow a specific formulato allocate visas to those with family based petitions pending on the date of enactment andsubject to some restrictions visas should be authorized in the order petitions were filed. Infiscal year 2022, the Secretary of State shall allocate visas to half the number of those thatfiled family based petitions after the date of enactment and had not had a visa issued by October 2021. In fiscal year 2023, the visas should be allocated to the other half of those thatfiled family based petitions after the date of enactment and who had not had a visa issued byOctober 2021. Visas allocated for these family based petitions will be issued based on theorder in which petitions were filed

I think there is a typo in the document, in bold I wrote what I think they meant to say. Basically, at least 1/7th of 120,000 visas will be vaialble for 7 years to clear the backlog. Even I can do the math = 120,000 visas. That is on top of not countig dependents, etc. If this bill passes as is, I think everyone goes to C right away.

EB2 goes from 40K to 56K, but remember that dependents are not counted. So that really is the equivalent of 120K under the current system. Plus, with the PhD exemption, a few extra numbers will be available
EB3 also goes to 56K.

Then, add the visas from 1/7th of the merit-based system. This will be 80% of at least 120K across EB2/3. = 96,000
Add 56,000+56,00+96,000 = 208K visas. That's the equivalent of about 450K under the current system!

[kd2008]

This report says the bill has been unveiled. It still does not say introduced in Senate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-usa-immigration-congress-idUSBRE93F05520130416

[iamdeb]

In the AILA summary for H1B workers the following points are covered.

1. We will provide spouses of H-1B workers with work authorization if the sending country of the worker provides reciprocal treatment to spouses of U.S. workers.

2. We will establish a 60-day transition period for H-1B workers to change jobs.

Thanks!
Deb

[gs1968]

To abcx13/Q/rupen
I agree with Q that we have to take the time to read the Bill carefully for any hidden traps/benefits and not jump to conclusion. I mentioned before that the time to analyze any impact of CIR would be after the conference report is produced in Nov/Dec timeframe (if this gets that far). We have spent the last 18 months of our lifespan ( since introduction of HR 3012) agonizing over legislation which we have limited control over. The House Bill if one is ever released is going to be more punitive than this. Also the House may agree to some form of legalization of undocumented people but at no point in the recent past have they given any indication that they are about to open the floodgates for legal immigration like the Senate Bill is about to do

Country cap elimination is possible with the House Bill but I doubt that they will agree to complete elimination of annual caps on F-2A. Please refer to my previous post. The composition of the House Judiciary Committee or the entire House has not changed that much to expect a sea change of opinion. In fact the feeling amongst most House members is that immigration levels are way too high to begin with. Chairman Goodlatte however is open to increasing the proportion of Skill-based immigration and that might be a silver lining. Rep.Labrador has already said that the AFL-CIO/Chamber of commerce deal is too pro-labor and will not pass muster in the House

Long way to go!!

[bvsamrat]

I like it - I like it

Looks too perfect. I do not care about keeping or removing country caps, If the dependents s are excluded and numerical limits are increased.
Also excluding PHDS and Physicans is very good . Excluding MS is asking too much - seing too many unversities now a days. Atleast gives motivation to PHDS

Consideration for 10 years stay and shifting to Merit based system

All to my liking

When this will happen?



More details from the link:

• On the employment green card categories, the bill exempts the following categories from theannual numerical limits on employment-based immigrants: derivative beneficiaries of employment-based immigrants; aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; multinational executives andmanagers; doctoral degree holders in STEM field; and physicians who have completed theforeign residency requirements or have received a waiver.
• The bill then allocates 40 percent of the worldwide level of employment-based visas to : 1)members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent whose services aresought in the sciences, arts, professions, or business by an employer in the United States(including certain aliens with foreign medical degrees) and 2) aliens who have earned amaster’s degree or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering or mathematics froman accredited U.S. institution of higher education and have an offer of employment in arelated field and the qualifying degree was earned in the five years immediately before the petition was filed.
• The bill increases the percentage of employment visas for skilled workers, professionals, andother professionals to 40 percent, maintains the percentage of employment visas for certainspecial immigrants to 10 percent and maintains visas for those who foster employmentcreation to 10 percent.
• The bill creates a startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs who seek to emigrate to the UnitedStates to startup their own companies.
• Merit Based Visa:
The merit based visa, created in the fifth year after enactment, awards points to individuals based on their education, employment, length of residence in the US andother considerations. Those individuals with the most points earn the visas. Those whoaccess the merit based pathway to earn their visa are expected to be talented individuals,individuals in our worker programs and individuals with family here. 120,000 visas will beavailable per year based on merit. The number would increase by 5% per year if demandexceeds supply in any year where unemployment is under 8.5%. There will be a maximumcap of 250,000 visas.
• Under one component of this merit based system the Secretary will allocate merit-basedimmigrant visas beginning on October 1, 2014 for employment-based visas that have been pending for three years, family-based petitions that were filed prior to enactment and have been pending for five years, long-term alien workers and other merit based immigrantworkers.
• Long –term alien workers and other merit based immigrant workers includes those who have been lawfully present in the United States for not less than ten years and who are notadmitted as a W visa under section 101(a)(15)(W) of the Act.
• Between fiscal years 2015 and 2021, the Secretary shall allocate a seventh of the totalnumber of those with employment based visas that have been pending on the date of enactment. Petitions for spouses and children of permanent residents who are accordedstatus under the INA are automatically converted to petitions to accord status as immediaterelatives. Between fiscal years 2015 and 2021, the Secretary shall follow a specific formulato allocate visas to those with family based petitions pending on the date of enactment andsubject to some restrictions visas should be authorized in the order petitions were filed. Infiscal year 2022, the Secretary of State shall allocate visas to half the number of those thatfiled family based petitions after the date of enactment and had not had a visa issued by October 2021. In fiscal year 2023, the visas should be allocated to the other half of those thatfiled family based petitions after the date of enactment and who had not had a visa issued byOctober 2021. Visas allocated for these family based petitions will be issued based on theorder in which petitions were filed

[qesehmk]

KD thanks. It was a typo. I corrected it.
It is not just elimination of "country cap" for EB1, Q. It is exclusion from numerical cap altogether.

abcx - thanks. I think that removal of depends from any numerical limit itself effectively doubles the overall quota!! Dont you think?

Q - I agree with kd that you should not refer to part 1 as elimination of country cap. It is elimination of quota.

Secondly, my understanding is that "new" EB2 is "old" EB2 + "old" EB3 with US STEM MS in past five years (so will benefit those where employer did not file in EB3 I think). This will increase EB2 demand since even ROW EB3 with US STEM MS can then file under EB2 and they will be current.

This is kind of a crappy bill for legals if this is all they could come up with. Really I mean? You can legalize 11m but can only increase legal GCs by some 100-140k/yr? And they probably aren't even increasing when you consider reallocation from FB...

Also, for folks agitating for recapture, while I support it as an alleviating measure, remember that it is NOT a permanent fix...

[Jonty Rhodes]

This bill still has a long way to go but it is heartening for me to see the Dependents, EB1-A, B & C, PhDs in STEM, and Physicians being kept out of numerical limit, especially being a physician my self.

[vizcard]

What are the sticky points here as far as legal immigration?

I think getting rid of sibling sponsorship and DV is going to give some people heartburn. I also think the mechanics around who gets exempt from quota will be scrutinized to ensure that doesn't get abused. The main aspect that will be discussed is how to prevent visa overstays and use of eVerify.

Also, I think the "smart" people will ask the fundamental question - how does this reduce today's backlog and how does it address changing market needs.

PS: I have no idea when this will be "effective from" especially if it goes to the House in late summer / Fall.

[justvisiting]

Don't think anyone has realized truly how many extra visas EB gets from this bill. Exmpting depents more than doubles the numbers right away. Total % increases to 40%. Then getting 1/7th of the merit based system (add 65K form FB-4 and 55K from DV and that's were you get the number) reserved for 7 years. Plus, those that have been pending for three years seem to get another chunck of visas, not sure how many.

Waiting for the actual text but my initial estimate is that they are essentially tripling the number of EB2/3 visas.

[ChampU]

Assuming CIR talks gather sufficient momentum, do you think CO would move the dates forward in June/July bulletin?? (at least until a point where he feels the dates would reside without CIR (Anywhere between Dec. 2007- Oct. 2008))

[kkruna]

I believe the senators must have looked at numbers - with the idea being to clear the backlog (in 5 years?), and then keep it steady state for later admission of now undocumented.

Still, why do the numbers for employment immigration look like "floodgate"? Take also into account that they would also be redistributing more visas from lottery and sibling category within 2 years.

[geeaarpee]

Assuming CIR talks gather sufficient momentum, do you think CO would move the dates forward in June/July bulletin?? (at least until a point where he feels the dates would reside without CIR (Anywhere between Dec. 2007- Oct. 2008))

I think the opposite, to keep the momentum going or to induce more, CO will not move the dates forward. He will take every opportunity to not committing any further mistakes and will play it safe. He will not move the dates until September and I think he will make it current for everyone (yes, I mean everyone including EB3 India) in September.

[rupen86]

KD thanks. It was a typo. I corrected it.

abcx - thanks. I think that removal of depends from any numerical limit itself effectively doubles the overall quota!! Dont you think?

Yes, it does increase the quota. But not eliminating per country limit even in CIR bill is kind of killing. Also, Recapture of the visas as was thought would be included is left out which is a disappointment. I agree with abcx. I do not like the bill.

[trackright]

Yes, it does increase the quota. But not eliminating per country limit even in CIR bill is kind of killing. Also, Recapture of the visas as was thought would be included is left out which is a disappointment. I agree with abcx. I do not like the bill.

One user posted Link on I V .. in the Video Rubis says .. "we have gotten rid of per country Quota"..

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rubio-immigration-reform-bill/2013/04/16/id/499727

[abcx13]

Yes, it does increase the quota. But not eliminating per country limit even in CIR bill is kind of killing. Also, Recapture of the visas as was thought would be included is left out which is a disappointment. I agree with abcx. I do not like the bill.

I don't dislike the bill but I don't love it either. I'm kind of lukewarm. I guess we'll see if the merit based visas + not counting dependents, EB1, STEM PhD makes EB2I current. Without the merit based visa, I doubt it will, and I don't really understand the merit based visa - does it give everyone who's been waiting longer than 3 years for an EB GC a GC right away? No quota, no cap? And it doesn't count against EB? Seems like a band aid measure and I'll personally be happy because it would make EB2-I Current which means I'd get a GC, but I don't think this bill solves the problem of backlogs once and for all, especially now that H1Bs are going up.

[bvsamrat]

This is where the great confustion is.

What about PIO or OCIs from other countries. They are not even citizens of India or the other reciprocating country where they were born.
What about their H4 spouses ability to get EAD?

I suppose this will be clear in future

[QUOTE=abcx13;34486]There is EAD for H4 as long as the other country reciprocates for US immigrants.

[kd2008]

According to I V admin about the released outline:


This bill summary posted on lawyer's website/blog etc is an older version of the document. This has been a work-in-process document, changed many times in last 2 months.

We do have the latest version and some of the folks here have seen it. But we have to be responsible in honoring the request from the lawmakers to not make it public before the bill introduction.

Hang-in there, this will be interesting 4-5 months. And we will need all the participation to get this going.

Hmmm... things get interesting.

[kkruna]

Indeed there are words elsewhere that the country limit is not there. Also, visa recapture is there.

[rupen86]

Indeed there are words elsewhere that the country limit is not there. Also, visa recapture is there.

If that is the case, I would love it..Although visa recapture seems more difficult to find place than per country limit.

[Suva2001]

Here is the summary from I V

1.) Recapture (from unused GC since 2001)
2.) Elimination of per-country limits
3.) Exemption for dependents
4.) Exemption for US STEM graduates
5.) Ability for H-4 to work (if your country of origin reciprocates the same)
6.) 60 days Grace period on H1

As per I V summary of draft published by others (including lawyers) is 2 months old. I V has the latest draft from lawmakers but cannot publish it as per agreement with lawmakers.

Thanks

[rupen86]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/steve-king-boston-bombings_n_3092929.html

[CleanSock]

There's a saying in Hindi "Behti Ganga me haath dhona". Suits him well right now.

Very unwise of him to form an opinion and jump to conclusions without any proof.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/steve-king-boston-bombings_n_3092929.html

[iwait3]

Newbie to post, Appreciate good work done by all members to keep the forum very informative. With all the post's regarding the CIR, what happens to current EB2 without Masters? Will they be classified as new EB3?

Since drafts say

EB2/EB3 ( with Masters less than 5 years ) = 40%
EB3 = 40%
other 20 %

From Q's quote here

"
Revised Summary (for EB immigration reform in order of Importance)

From Reuters
1. Existing Backlog will be eliminated. (Doesn't say how).
2. American graduates to have a separate quota (within overall limits).
3. Enterpreneurs to get a separate quota (other than E5)
4. Fifth year onwards merit based visas (similar to canada or UK)

Another far reaching provision that is sure going to create backlog in future is that H1B cap is being raised to 110K with max cap at 180K.

From Scribd
1. Elimination of numerical cap for

Dependents
EB1-A & B & C
PHD in STEM
Doctors


2. Change in composition of visas as follows

EB1 - no quota - no limits
EB2 + EB3 w US degrees - 40%
EB3 - 40%
EB4 - 10%
EB5 - 10%
Additionally a startup visa category (may be part of EB5 - except that startup visa will be much less stringent on investment and jobs created)


3. Long term overhaul of current system

All caps will be removed effectively by moving to merit based system
Merit based cap will keep increasing to 240K max as long as US unemployment is under 8.5% (this is quite funny since it barely exceeded 8.5% even under worst conditions in 2008-2009)
Chronic backlogs will get special visas (not clear if under then current quota or not)



Again ... our understanding will evolve .... so lets keep revising ...

Also keep in mind that either reuters or scribd are not really authenticate enough to consider this as final word on this bill.

Good luck to everybody. "

[Spectator]

Don't think anyone has realized truly how many extra visas EB gets from this bill. Exmpting depents more than doubles the numbers right away. Total % increases to 40%. Then getting 1/7th of the merit based system (add 65K form FB-4 and 55K from DV and that's were you get the number) reserved for 7 years. Plus, those that have been pending for three years seem to get another chunck of visas, not sure how many.

Waiting for the actual text but my initial estimate is that they are essentially tripling the number of EB2/3 visas.justvisiting,

I totally agree with you.

Expressed in terms of numbers today, for EB2 it means:

a) 40% instead of 28.6% increases the number to 56k.

b) Elimination of dependents from numerical limits increases the number to 112k (it will be higher for EB3).

c) Elimination of STEM PhD, physicians etc probably increases the effective number to 120k.

EB2-WW don't use more than 35k tops in a normal FY, so that leaves at least 85k for EB2-IC (probably more because EB2-WW also have STEM PhD etc). EB2-C don't actually require that many to become Current but would move at the same pace as EB2-I.

Backlog to May 2010 is approx 50k for EB2-IC currently and will reduce by the end of the year.

Using worst case scenario, let's call it 40k at the end of FY2013. You can just call it the present 50k - it doesn't make much difference.

There's about 45k EB2-IC cases from May 2010 to Jan 2012 based on PERM figures by my estimation.

85k available would pretty much make EB2-IC Current in the first year or early in the second year.

I haven't even considered the other factors mentioned which would improve this calculation (only the 3 above).

I haven't looked at EB3. Obviously that would take a little longer, but it isn't going to take that long to become Current.

On the negative side, it seems almost inevitable that processing times will increase - I wouldn't be totally surprised if they increase to 1-2 years initially. Even if USCIS have any plans to increase capacity, it takes time to train new IO.

I look forward to seeing the actual Bill text. That will answer the questions that are currently left hanging. Until then, I am out of the discussion.

[Pedro Gonzales]

With all the post's regarding the CIR, what happens to current EB2 without Masters? Will they be classified as new EB3?
"

No, existing applications will not be reclassified, and should clear very quickly due to a) elimination of dependents which will effectively double available visa numbers and b) the promise to clear all applications (EB2 and EB3) pre Oct 1 2011 by Oct 1 2014 (presumably through recapture of lost visa numbers. Item 'a' alone should clear all EB2 (including those post Oct 2011). See Spec's analysis above for more detail.

[abcx13]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/152834584/Siskinds-Twitter-Summary-of-New-Bill

Some interesting observations even if the leaked PDF was an old draft and not the final version. Wonder whether the bill will be out today. Already 5:15.

[abcx13]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/16/immigration-bill-authors-defend-package-ahead-release-amid-security-concerns/

Good news - Obama expressed support. This is in line with what he wanted...

[abcx13]

justvisiting,

I totally agree with you.

Expressed in terms of numbers today, for EB2 it means:

a) 40% instead of 28.6% increases the number to 56k.

b) Elimination of dependents from numerical limits increases the number to 112k (it will be higher for EB3).

c) Elimination of STEM PhD, physicians etc probably increases the effective number to 120k.

EB2-WW don't use more than 35k tops in a normal FY, so that leaves at least 85k for EB2-IC (probably more because EB2-WW also have STEM PhD etc). EB2-C don't actually require that many to become Current but would move at the same pace as EB2-I.

Backlog to May 2010 is approx 50k for EB2-IC currently and will reduce by the end of the year.

Using worst case scenario, let's call it 40k at the end of FY2013. You can just call it the present 50k - it doesn't make much difference.

There's about 45k EB2-IC cases from May 2010 to Jan 2012 based on PERM figures by my estimation.

85k available would pretty much make EB2-IC Current in the first year or early in the second year.

I haven't even considered the other factors mentioned which would improve this calculation (only the 3 above).

I haven't looked at EB3. Obviously that would take a little longer, but it isn't going to take that long to become Current.

On the negative side, it seems almost inevitable that processing times will increase - I wouldn't be totally surprised if they increase to 1-2 years initially. Even if USCIS have any plans to increase capacity, it takes time to train new IO.

I look forward to seeing the actual Bill text. That will answer the questions that are currently left hanging. Until then, I am out of the discussion.

Thanks for setting me straight, Spec. I feel better after reading your analysis of EB numbers.

Is there no premium processing for I485?

[CleanSock]

Sorry if this has been asked before and answered. The article states speedy processing of GCs for legals who graduated in STEM field in last 5 years. What happens to those who graduated before 5 years and the ones graduating now?




http://www.docstoc.com/docs/152834584/Siskinds-Twitter-Summary-of-New-Bill

Some interesting observations even if the leaked PDF was an old draft and not the final version. Wonder whether the bill will be out today. Already 5:15.

[idiotic]

It's really a good bill. Wonderful work from "Gang of 8".

[rhythm]

After reading through all the texts available, I would say the bill is Golden !

One thing I see everywhere is this: - 'Eliminates the backlog for family and employment-based visas'. But how is the biggest question and the answer would be what most people in the forum is looking for I'm sure.

[vizcard]

After reading through all the texts available, I would say the bill is Golden !

One thing I see everywhere is this: - 'Eliminates the backlog for family and employment-based visas'. But how is the biggest question and the answer would be what most people in the forum is looking for I'm sure.

In my opinion, its the combination of taking people off the cap and getting rid of DVs. That's a net increase as Spec calculated above for EB and I'm sure there's a similar calculation for FB. Take out the per country limits and everyone gets to carry a new card in their wallets (or put it in a safe deposit locker) pretty quickly :)

[iwait3]

No, existing applications will not be reclassified, and should clear very quickly due to a) elimination of dependents which will effectively double available visa numbers and b) the promise to clear all applications (EB2 and EB3) pre Oct 1 2011 by Oct 1 2014 (presumably through recapture of lost visa numbers. Item 'a' alone should clear all EB2 (including those post Oct 2011). See Spec's analysis above for more detail.

thx Pedro,

[Spectator]

Thanks for setting me straight, Spec. I feel better after reading your analysis of EB numbers.

Is there no premium processing for I485?abcx13,

I wasn't trying to put anyone straight. :)

I was really just agreeing with justvisiting that it appears to substantially increase the numbers even with the parts I think I understand.

For instance, I'm still not entirely clear in my own mind quite how the "merit based" system meshes with the existing system. That part of the summary document doesn't seem entirely clear to me.

I think it appears to be pretty honest attempt to deal with the problem, even if when the detail becomes clear, it doesn't include everything that some people had hoped for.

For those already in the system, it appears to offer a fairly speedy resolution (at least compared to the alternative of no CIR). The numbers I used were a pretty quick and rough attempt to illustrate what it might mean - I certainly haven't covered everything.

Currently, there is no PP for I-485 and I didn't see anything from my reading of the Summary that suggested it would be introduced. I admit I have not had time today for anything other than a cursory glance, so please correct me if I am incorrect.

That really is my last word until the detail is available. Still lots of questions in my mind.

[qesehmk]

I think the idea is for merit based system to REPLACE current quota system.

I'm still not entirely clear in my own mind quite how the "merit based" system meshes with the existing system.

[justvisiting]

I think the idea is for merit based system to REPLACE current quota system.

Right now there are five roads:
-IR
-FB
-EB
-DV
-Refugee, etc...

The new bill will have five roads:
-Immediate Visas (now including old FB-2 and EB-1)
-FB (only including current FB-1 and FB-3)
-EB
-Merit-Based (using visas from old DV and FB-4)
-Refugee, etc...

[justvisiting]

I also want to add that with the amount of new visas in this bill, country caps are irrelevant. I also think it will be very hard to fit the country caps within the new system. I bet they are gone even for FB.

[gc_soon]

Looks like there is no seperate quota for undocumented workers.
So, once the 11M qualifies after 10 years, (let's say at least 3M will apply), they will apply in existing categories. Can see merit based queue being backlogged easily.

[gc_soon]

Any ideas on when the bill (if it becomes a law) will be effective from?

[justvisiting]

Looks like there is no seperate quota for undocumented workers.
So, once the 11M qualifies after 10 years, (let's say at least 3M will apply), they will apply in existing categories. Can see merit based queue being backlogged easily.

But EB is a separate number, so it doesn't really impact those here legally. Presumably many of those 11M will be able to use the FB system too.

[feedmyback]

Hi Gurus,

I saw this in the CIR draft:

"Currently, there are four preference categories based on family relationships and 480,000visas are allocated to family. Under the new system there will be two family preferencecategories and they will cover unmarried adult children; married adult children who file before age 31, and unmarried adult children of lawful permanent residents. We are expandingthe current V visa to include those with family relationships. "

Does this mean that now there are only two categories and still there are 480,000 visas, there is a possibility to have more spillover from FB to EB? Agreed that might be a moot point when CIR passes. But technically is that a right assumption?

[gc_soon]

As per Rubio, no country quota:
Please listen to the video at 2:40.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rubio-immigration-reform-bill/2013/04/16/id/499727

[qesehmk]

The merit based will eventually replace all EB options.
Right now there are five roads:
-IR
-FB
-EB
-DV
-Refugee, etc...

The new bill will have five roads:
-Immediate Visas (now including old FB-2 and EB-1)
-FB (only including current FB-1 and FB-3)
-EB
-Merit-Based (using visas from old DV and FB-4)
-Refugee, etc...

[justvisiting]

The merit based will eventually replace all EB options.

Not from what is in the summary. If that were true, the 120K visas would be a net cut from the current 140K and would exclude EB-4 and EB-5. And why keep EB-1 then? Merit based is a new track. The first 5 years of merit based visas are reserved to clear FB/EB backlogs. Merit-based is the new pathway for low skilled workers after those 5 years.

[qesehmk]

You are right that Merit visa is separate track. While the first five year reservation for EB FB backlog is right ... that itself starts in fifth year.

On another note - one important thing for all future GC holders is that parents of GC holders will be considered immediate relatives and be eligible for GCs.
Not from what is in the summary. If that were true, the 120K visas would be a net cut from the current 140K and would exclude EB-4 and EB-5. And why keep EB-1 then? Merit based is a new track. The first 5 years of merit based visas are reserved to clear FB/EB backlogs. Merit-based is the new pathway for low skilled workers after those 5 years.

[qesehmk]

Revised Summary (for EB immigration reform in order of Importance).
(Eliminating the Reuters piece now since it is a subset of the scribd version).

From Scribd
1. Elimination of numerical cap for

Dependents
EB1-A & B & C
PHD in STEM
Doctors

2. Change in composition of visas as follows

EB1 - no quota - no limits
EB2 + EB3 w US degrees - 40%
EB3 - 40%
EB4 - 10%
EB5 - 10%
Additionally a startup visa category (may be part of EB5 - except that startup visa will be much less stringent on investment and jobs created)

3. Separate Merit Based Track will start in fifth year aimed at reducing backlog for first five years and then will be open to low skilled workers as well.

Merit based cap will keep increasing to 240K max as long as US unemployment is under 8.5% (this is quite funny since it barely exceeded 8.5% even under worst conditions in 2008-2009)

4. Immediate Relatives Definition Expanded
- Parents of GC holders will be considered immediate relatives (immediate relatives are exempt from numerical caps).


Our understanding will evolve .... so lets keep revising ...

Good luck to everybody.

[feedmyback]

Hi Q,

Under the categories with annual numerical limits the exact text is:

"US STEM Master Degree holders who earned the degree 5 years immediately before petition is filed: 40%"

Any insight into why they kept the condition of earning a degree 5 yrs immly before petition is filed?

[feedmyback]

Hi Q,

I don't think parents of GC holders are considered immediate relatives and they will not be granted any GCs I guess.

Thanks

[qesehmk]

Here is the text - read the red one. Unless .... I am making a mistake in interpreting it!


The bill amends the definition of “immediate relative” to include a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence, and the child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.


Hi Q,

I don't think parents of GC holders are considered immediate relatives and they will not be granted any GCs I guess.

Thanks

[qesehmk]

We can only guess ...
To me it looks like they want fresh talent right out of the college that an employer thinks is worthy of GC to get GCs faster - as opposed to talent that an employer took some time to file GC perhaps in the 6th year since employment when H1 might be coming to an end. In other words - they don't want an employer to wait till the end of H1 and keep talented people in perpetual limbo.

Again ... this is as good or bad guess!! I am not really very confident.
Hi Q,

Under the categories with annual numerical limits the exact text is:

"US STEM Master Degree holders who earned the degree 5 years immediately before petition is filed: 40%"

Any insight into why they kept the condition of earning a degree 5 yrs immly before petition is filed?

[justvisiting]

Here is the text - read the red one. Unless .... I am making a mistake in interpreting it!


You are, you broke up the sentence :) They are talking about derivatives of immediate relatives.

[feedmyback]

In fact I interpreted it this way:

The bill amends the definition of "immediate relative" to include
1. A child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,
2. The child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.


Here is the text - read the red one. Unless .... I am making a mistake in interpreting it!

[iwait3]

We can only guess ...
To me it looks like they want fresh talent right out of the college that an employer thinks is worthy of GC to get GCs faster - as opposed to talent that an employer took some time to file GC perhaps in the 6th year since employment when H1 might be coming to an end. In other words - they don't want an employer to wait till the end of H1 and keep talented people in perpetual limbo.

Again ... this is as good or bad guess!! I am not really very confident.

Q,

Would it be fair to assume that new EB2 = old EB2 + new applicants with STEM masters + Job.?

[feedmyback]

Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation....


We can only guess ...
To me it looks like they want fresh talent right out of the college that an employer thinks is worthy of GC to get GCs faster - as opposed to talent that an employer took some time to file GC perhaps in the 6th year since employment when H1 might be coming to an end. In other words - they don't want an employer to wait till the end of H1 and keep talented people in perpetual limbo.

Again ... this is as good or bad guess!! I am not really very confident.

[vizcard]

In fact I interpreted it this way:

The bill amends the definition of "immediate relative" to include
1. A child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,
2. The child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.


Ding ding ding. We have a winner :). That's how I interpreted it too.

[qesehmk]

I read it as follows - which is the only way to make sense if you read carefully:

The bill amends the definition of "immediate relative" to include
1. A child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,
2. The child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child.
3. Parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.


In fact I interpreted it this way:

The bill amends the definition of "immediate relative" to include
1. A child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,
2. The child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.


You are, you broke up the sentence :) They are talking about derivatives of immediate relatives.
Mind explain it over those 2-3 sentences above? Because #2 as feedback mentioned above doesn't make sense to me at all.

p.s. - in the following sentence
The child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

lets take a subset e.g. "alien who is accompanying the parent of a LPR."

What does that mean? Looks quite senseless to me.

[qesehmk]

iwait3 - yes that's my interpretation too.
Q,
Would it be fair to assume that new EB2 = old EB2 + new applicants with STEM masters + Job.?

[qesehmk]

Spec - honestly I am struggling with the wording. I am glad I am not the only one. Clearly it is poorly written.

I think there is no doubt about

a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,

and the child or spouse of an alien

The fun really starts here onwards.

who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

My interpretation is that "who" refers to the alien who in the second sentence is yet to be admitted as against the first one where he is already admitted. If you interpret that way then all the rest makes perfect sense except the word parent. So remove the word parent and read it like I said and it is ok. Now if you insert word parent ... everything breaks down!!

Anyway ... I think at least we can agree that it is poorly written. May be Kanmani can help us understand.

p.s. - Oops ... now I can't find your post.

[abcx13]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebook-flexes-political-muscle-with-carve-out-in-immigration-bill/2013/04/16/138f718e-a5e7-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_print.html

This is interesting.

[Spectator]

Spec - honestly I am struggling with the wording. I am glad I am not the only one. Clearly it is poorly written.

I think there is no doubt about

a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,

and the child or spouse of an alien

The fun really starts here onwards.

who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

My interpretation is that "who" refers to the alien who in the second sentence is yet to be admitted as against the first one where he is already admitted. If you interpret that way then all the rest makes perfect sense except the word parent. So remove the word parent and read it like I said and it is ok. Now if you insert word parent ... everything breaks down!!

Anyway ... I think at least we can agree that it is poorly written. May be Kanmani can help us understand.

p.s. - Oops ... now I can't find your post.Q,

Sorry about that!!

By the time I posted, I saw the subject had been done to death.

Here's an oddity.

The scribd document contains the sentence under debate


The bill amends the definition of “immediate relative” to include a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence, and the child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.


However, the document posted by AILA http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44052 contains a different sentence in the same place


The bill amends the definition of “immediate relative” to include a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence.

which is much simpler and makes more sense.

[qesehmk]

I know ... I think that Aila document probably is closer to truth then. Lets leave it at that.
Q,

Sorry about that!!

By the time I posted, I saw the subject had been done to death.

Here's an oddity.

The scribd document contains the sentence under debate



However, the document posted by AILA http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44052 contains a different sentence in the same place



which is much simpler and makes more sense.

[gs1968]

THE QUEST FOR 60

I was interested in assessing the actual prospects for passage of the Bill in the Senate and will attempt to provide a brief prediction based on the Senators' previous stands on immigration and voting records.I am confident that the Bill will clear the Senate Judiciary Committee by 10-8 at the worst (most likely 12-8)
Once the Bill reaches the Senate Chamber I have broken down the possible YES & NO votes by party.I have not included a grey area for better clarity.I will tally the votes at the end and attempt a prediction

DEMOCRATIC YES VOTES (44)
Baldwin,Bennet,Blumenthal,Boxer,Brown,Cantwell,Car din,Carper,Casey,Coons,Cowan
(possibly Markey),Durbin,Feinstein,Franken,Gillibrand,Harkin ,Heinrich,Hirono,Johnson,Kaine,King,Klobuchar,Leah y,Levin,Menendez,Merkley,Mikulski,Murphy,Murray,Ne lson,Reid,Reed,Rockefeller,Sanders,Schatz,Schumer, Shaheen,Stabenow,Udall,Udall,Warner,Warren,Whiteho use,Wyden
DEMOCRATIC NO VOTES (10)
Baucus-From a very conservative state facing re-election next year
Begich-Same situation as above although from a state where immigration legal or illegal is not an issue
Donnelly-First time senator from a Republican state with no voting record as a Senator on immigration Bills.However he has a strong anti-amnesty record as a House Representative
Hagan-Facing tough re-election in a conservative state
Heitkamp-First time Senator with no record on immigration issues having never served i Congress before (previous attorney general in ND).Won election by a tight 3000 vote margin in a heavily republican state
Landrieu-Fence-sitter in tight votes facing another tough re-election
Manchin-Conservative Democrat who skipped the vote on the DREAM Act but clearly stated he opposes it
McCaskill-Strongly opposes any form of amnesty
Pryor-Most likely a no vote considering his tough re-election race next year.Cast the first no vote for cloture on gun control
Tester-Same situation as Baucus.Voted against the DREAM Act saying he represented the desires of his constituents

REPUBLICAN NO VOTES (30)
Ayotte,Barrasso,Boozman,Burr,Chambliss,Coats,Cobur n,Cochran,Corker,Cornyn,Crapo,Cruz,Enzi,Fischer,He ller,Inhofe,Isakson,Johanns,Johnson,Lee,McConnell, Risch,Roberts,Scott,Sessions,Shelby,Thune,Vitter,W icker
REPUBLICAN YES VOTES (15)
Alexander-Voting record shows no strong feeling against amnesty.Supporter of legal immigratio reform and sponsored Start-Up Act
Blunt-Co-sponsored Start-Up Act and has a moderate record on immigration
Collins-Another moderate GOP senator with numerous YES votes for illegals to receive instate tuition and welfare benefits
Flake-For obvious reasons
Graham-same as above
Hatch-This may surprise some but I strongly feel he will vote YES given his previous record.Also he will be 85 years old with the next election cycle in 2018 and will likely retire and will not face re-election
Hoeven-This was a tough call given his limited voting record and previous job being ND governor and no Congressional experience.However my feeling is that he is part of the younger,fresher breed of Republicans with hopefully a broad-minded approach
Kirk-GOP senator elected in Tea-Party wave in 2010 from a heavily Democratic state with a growing Latino population.
McCain
Moran-Same logic as Hoeven with strong pro-legal immigratin stance but no record on amnesty.
Murkowski-Same logic here as applied to Sen.Begich and can be persuaded
Paul-Think Presidential 2016! Has to back up his words and will atleast vote to start debate if not vote for the final product
Portman-Previous voting records do not suggest a strong antiamnesty stance and recent words on the subject seem reasonable and sympathetic
Rubio
Toomey-Another tea party freshman from my state and I strongly believe he will vote YES
The total tally at this point would be 59-40 in favor of cloture.This brings us to the question of Sen.Lautenberg's inability to participate in Senate proceedings at this time. His vote may become crucial and he is already being missed during the gun-control debate.According to NJ law,If he decided to retire before August he will be replaced by an appointee of Gov.Christie (GOP) and this will be a Republican till an election is held this November.If it is later than that then the appointee will continue till the next election in 2014 robbing the Democrats of a crucial vote
Please fell free to make your own calculations about the tally above.I feel I am probably over-estimating GOP yes votes but time will tell.These are the armchair observations of a sworn political junkie and I hope that the real situation of the ground is a lot more favorable to the Bill.I do not foresee a strong bi-partisan showing for this Bill and this will impact how the house deals with immigration
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/john-boehner-immigration_n_3095652.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular, immigration
Obviously the fate of the Bill will depend on how amendments are offered and handled and if some Senators are happy with their chance to amend it -then the tally will be much higher

[gcq]

Google, HP, Microsoft seek stricter visa rules for TCS, Infosys

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/enterprise-it/strategy/Google-HP-Microsoft-seek-stricter-visa-rules-for-TCS-Infosys/articleshow/19593629.cms (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/enterprise-it/strategy/Google-HP-Microsoft-seek-stricter-visa-rules-for-TCS-Infosys/articleshow/19593629.cms)

To the uninformed, Norman Matloff is a long time anti-immigrant.

[gcq]

gs1968,

Regarding your calculations for votes, many GOP senators who say publicly that they oppose amnesty, in fact supports it. Cornyn from texas is one of them.

[abcx13]

Obama praising Rubio: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1541CA5F-0352-40E8-BC3A-31C1D84601A1

[gs1968]

To abcx13
Keep the dream going
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/schumer-predicts-immigration-passage-within-8-weeks/

[vizcard]

To abcx13
Keep the dream going
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/schumer-predicts-immigration-passage-within-8-weeks/

I think June is realistic. Its gets voted then (and hopefully passes) and then the House spends the summer ripping it apart and then hopefully it comes back to the Senate in the fall for Senate reapproval.

[gs1968]

To vizcard
The quicker it moves through the Senate,the lesser the Republican support it will have and its pace will be much slower in the House. It is very likely that the House will pass its own version and reconcile it with the Senate Bill in conference. The House is the Republican backstop for the conservatives

[rupen86]

That would indeed be a dream as there is enough backlog demand to not have to do that until atleast Q3...and even then it would be slow movement. Also, there is no incentive to make it retroactive to FY14.

They may be expecting this to pass after October and not want to make changes in the middle of the year. So, that's why might have put it for the FY2015. But that is one complete year will pass by without any changes. That is not good.

But Bill is great. With Recapture, Elimination of per country quota and exemption for dependents, we are golden.

So, ** was right in saying that the draft that was circulating was old.

[abcx13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/opinion/an-immigration-blueprint.html?hp&_r=0

Can someone please post a comment here? The commentors, seemingly both Americans and some H1Bs who have been waiting for a while, are going crazy without having any conception of what the bill actually contains. They seem to think that this doesn't solve legal immigrants' problems - BUT IT DOES.

Someone needs to set these idiots straight. Most of the NYT picked reader comments are just plain wrong...

[abcx13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/politics/senate-sets-flurry-of-crucial-votes-on-gun-measures.html?hp

Let's hope this doesn't happen to our bill...

[idiotic]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s744#overview

S.744 is the official bill. Please make your voice heard and actively support.

[gs1968]

Some more links
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/294437-secretive-house-group-breaks-silence-to-praise-senate-immigration-bill

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/rand-paul-2016-presidential-bid-90202.html?hp=l2

[vizcard]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s744#overview

S.744 is the official bill. Please make your voice heard and actively support.

23% chance of getting past committee
2% chance of getting enacted

where do they get this from .. ;)

[gs1968]

To gcq
Sorry for the delay in responding to your earlier response. I agree with you that the headcount is not easy and I was only trying to make a most reasonable, educated guess as to how the votes would fall.As I mentioned,I omitted "probably" yes or no to enhance clarity. My inclusion in one or the other group was based on past statements and voting record which unfortunately is very thin for some of the newer members of the Senate. 43 of the 100 senators were not in the Senate during the last CIR effort. Also as there has been no immigration legislation this session,it is hard to judge how much the views on immigration has changed among the Senators because of the recent elections.
In respect to your specific mention of Sen.Cornyn-I found this article interesting
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-sharry/john-cornyn-up-to-his-old_b_3044880.html

To Q,Spec,vizcard,abcx13,rupen & others
Please feel free to critique my previous post and try and find additional support for a better vote tally. We need a hefty tailwind from a strong showing of the Bill in the Senate to prod the House into action and strengthen the Senate's hand during conference negotiations.I am sure we are all in agreement that the Senate Bill is going to be the more favorable one

PS-I was trying to judge support for the initial motion to proceed and cloture and not for the final Bill

[abcx13]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/rand-paul-2016-presidential-bid-90202.html?hp=l2

[abcx13]

This is true for Track 1. But not for track 2. You can be a merit-based applicant in track 2. (Which is actually specifically designed for EB and FB backlogs, as well as for legalized immigrants.

The citizenship part, the way I read it, is not restrcited to merit based applicants. Anyone who is in the US legally with work authorization for 10 years when becoming a PR can apply for citizenship after 3 years. For example:
F-1 student for 4 years (with work authorization, for example, for on-campus work), then H-1B for 6, then GC. Or, legalized aimmigrant after waiting 10 years to apply for GC.

Good question. I don't know the answer. In my case, that would definitely shorten the time to citizenship (one can dream!) but only if F1 counts.

House praises Senate bill - http://thehill.com/homenews/house/294437-secretive-house-group-breaks-silence-to-praise-senate-immigration-bill

[gs1968]

Good question. I don't know the answer. In my case, that would definitely shorten the time to citizenship (one can dream!) but only if F1 counts.

House praises Senate bill - http://thehill.com/homenews/house/294437-secretive-house-group-breaks-silence-to-praise-senate-immigration-bill


"The statement was careful not to explicitly endorse the Senate measure".

I think it was courteous of them to acknowledge that the Senators at least came out with a starting Bill which the House so far has not been able to.

[immitime]

I like the Provided if this bill passes. I have only one question to all. Suppose if the bill is not passed one of the house. [The real fight is going to be in the republican lead congress] Will the President include Legal Immigration in his Executive order... Un necessary waste of time debating this bill... Legal immigration USCIS can take care.. Or just recapturing the unused Visa. everyone is happy. If the Bill passes then it is a different scenario altogether. Other 11 million will be ready at Mexico to cross the border! again another amnesty.. The saga continues.

[abcx13]

"The statement was careful not to explicitly endorse the Senate measure".

I think it was courteous of them to acknowledge that the Senators at least came out with a starting Bill which the House so far has not been able to.

Yeah, but it's getting reported as praise. See e.g

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/17/house-senate-immigration-bill/2090019/

[gs1968]

The countdown begins
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56173102-90/hatch-immigration-compromise-lee.html.csp

My prediction is that Senator Hatch will eventually endorse and play a larger role in its passage than some of the co-sponsors (like AC21).He is one of my 15 Republican YES votes

Sen.Warner likes the proposal but he was a foregone YES vote anyway
http://augustafreepress.com/2013/04/17/mark-warner-comments-on-immigration-proposal/

[rupen86]

I like the Provided if this bill passes. I have only one question to all. Suppose if the bill is not passed one of the house. [The real fight is going to be in the republican lead congress] Will the President include Legal Immigration in his Executive order... Un necessary waste of time debating this bill... Legal immigration USCIS can take care.. Or just recapturing the unused Visa. everyone is happy. If the Bill passes then it is a different scenario altogether. Other 11 million will be ready at Mexico to cross the border! again another amnesty.. The saga continues.

I would bet my money on passing this bill than executive order on legal immigration.

[Pedro Gonzales]

I have just managed to break away from work now and have a couple of hours to go through the bill. I like what i see so far, but i'm well behind justvisiting, vizcard, rupen, abc, Spec and some others. Although the bill looks huge, the relevant sections are relatively few.


I like the Provided if this bill passes. I have only one question to all. Suppose if the bill is not passed one of the house. [The real fight is going to be in the republican lead congress] Will the President include Legal Immigration in his Executive order... Un necessary waste of time debating this bill... Legal immigration USCIS can take care.. Or just recapturing the unused Visa. everyone is happy. If the Bill passes then it is a different scenario altogether. Other 11 million will be ready at Mexico to cross the border! again another amnesty.. The saga continues.

Shant gadhadhari bhim, shant! This bill is a game changer alright, and there is a going to be a lot of fight to get it over the finish line, especially in the House. But, as long as it is still alive and breathing, the President will issue no executive orders, and even if it dies, he may prefer to wait until the next elections to reintroduce it again with the hope that the House composition is closer in his favor then. If he gives relief to the legal immigrants, he can't hold us as a bargaining chip to get what he wants for the illegals. As to another 11 million at the border, E-verify is being significantly strengthened (pages 395 to 504) and not a single GC will be issued to an illegal immigrant until the borders are secure. Except for a supreme court ruling that it is unconstitutional, the border security provisions seems pretty ironclad.

[immitime]

I have just managed to break away from work now and have a couple of hours to go through the bill. I like what i see so far, but i'm well behind justvisiting, vizcard, rupen, abc, Spec and some others. Although the bill looks huge, the relevant sections are relatively few.



Shant gadhadhari bhim, shant! This bill is a game changer alright, and there is a going to be a lot of fight to get it over the finish line, especially in the House. But, as long as it is still alive and breathing, the President will issue no executive orders, and even if it dies, he may prefer to wait until the next elections to reintroduce it again with the hope that the House composition is closer in his favor then. If he gives relief to the legal immigrants, he can't hold us as a bargaining chip to get what he wants for the illegals. As to another 11 million at the border, E-verify is being significantly strengthened (pages 395 to 504) and not a single GC will be issued to an illegal immigrant until the borders are secure. Except for a supreme court ruling that it is unconstitutional, the border security provisions seems pretty ironclad.

Pedro,

Thanks, I understand all these. But what I meant is just for "Bargaining" for the dirty political gain, whoever is in the top is playing with Individual's and families life!. That does n't seems to be the case when he projects himself though. (Still alive and breathing we have seen for the last year. H.R.3012.. just that small bill if they can't pass think about this 800 + pages bill. I will be surprised if this bill passes.

[chengisk]

Comparison of CIR reforms of 2006/2007/2013.

WRT visa reforms, it starts on page 7.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/CIRbrief-2013SenateFramework-Side-by-Side.pdf

[gs1968]

I was very happy to see this-please read my post from yesterday AM
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/lautenberg_returns_to_us_senat.html

Unless conservatives have truly changed-his vote will be crucial not just for the entire Bill's passage but also critical amendments.We should remember that the conservative and/or liberal opposition is only just beginning

[abcx13]

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=402A9516-E643-4B36-8E50-7F7D7D010966
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=ED685FBB-0903-448A-BF01-54F2CCADD415

[gs1968]

C&P a tweet I just saw

Senate Gang of 8 holding 2:30 presser to discuss immigration bill.Opponent Sens Sessions & Vitter set their newser for 2:15.

[Jonty Rhodes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjS0HL6MC5Q

Live link for the Gang of 8 Explaining Senate Immigration Reform Proposal

[justvisiting]

The opposition on the right seems pretty tough... just heard Rubio trying to convince radio show talkers.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Following up on Q's suggestion, I suggest creating just 1 new thread and allowing each of the folks Q suggested (Spec, Rupen, GS1968, Justvisiting) and a few others (Q, vizcard, and I humbly include myself) to create place holders for their summary posts. Each of us can split and summarize the bill however we wish to. Once we think we are done, we can have a grand summary of the bill as it stands. Although the first step will get done in the next few days, it will be an ongoing exercise as amendments come in and are incorporated, and as the house bill is released.

Sound good?

If so, aforementioned subject matter experts, go hold your spot here: http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2099-CIR-Bill-Summary?p=34716#post34716

[vizcard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjS0HL6MC5Q

Live link for the Gang of 8 Explaining Senate Immigration Reform Proposal

I love it when they say you have to learn english .. in spanish :)

[immitime]

I love it when they say you have to learn english .. in spanish :)

You are right... its funny.. But I still do not understand why a developed country's immigration give priority to Illegals. Rather than law abiding Legals... Please do not say that, "That is the way it is..and no difference between Legal and Illegal and blah blah blah... Legal immigration has been held hostage for long time just for bargaining, just only reason for bargain with the extreme Right!.. Fence jumpers issue should be dealt with criminal cases.. jumping a country's border Illegally is Crime!.

11 millions Path to citizenship.. for that Legals need to wait decades! and they say they treat everybody EQUAL! what an irony.

If this bill passes its a lottery for Legals!

[gs1968]

This from Politico

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/mario-diaz-balart-immigration-90297.html

It is hard to get any specifics from this article perhaps because there aren't many yet.However the path to citizenship may take 2 decades.

I am copying a tweet from Rep.Lamar Smith

"It’s hard to believe, but the Senate #immigration bill is worse than we thought." and links to this statement

Washington, Apr 17 -

Congressman Smith delivered the below statement on the House floor today criticizing the Senate Gang of Eight’s immigration proposal, which was introduced late last night.

Congressman Smith: “It’s hard to believe, but the Senate immigration bill is worse than we thought. Despite assurances, the border is not secured before almost everyone in the country illegally is given amnesty. The bill guarantees there will be a rush across the border to take advantage of massive amnesty.

“And the Senate proposal offers amnesty to far more illegal immigrants than we thought. In addition to most of the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, the bill offers to legalize the relatives of illegal immigrants outside the U.S. and even others who have already been deported back home. So current immigration laws are shredded.

“The Senate bill is bad news for the American people. The good news is that the House Judiciary Committee will come up with a better plan that improves our immigration system and puts the interests of American workers first.”

In addition to discussing specifics of the Bill,it is also important to watch the process carefully to see any shifting of opinion among the key players in both chambers.I am hoping that the above statement is not shared among the larger House judiciary committee. He was our hero last year for swift passage of HR3012 and I hope he does not become the villain

[gs1968]

Chairman Goodlatte's statement on the Senate CIR

http://goodlatte.house.gov/press_releases/387

Not a ringing endorsement but not a rejection either. Other reports also confirm the go-slow approach from the House

A different report seemed to suggest that Rep.Steve King did not think there were enough votes in the House yet to defeat the Senate Bill although I doubt that is the version which will be debated in the House

[rupen86]

Chairman Goodlatte's statement on the Senate CIR

http://goodlatte.house.gov/press_releases/387

Not a ringing endorsement but not a rejection either. Other reports also confirm the go-slow approach from the House

A different report seemed to suggest that Rep.Steve King did not think there were enough votes in the House yet to defeat the Senate Bill although I doubt that is the version which will be debated in the House

Different assessment by Nancy Pelsoi
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/294841-pelosi-optimistic-immigration-reform-pass-before-august-

I agree that this bill if brought in the house will pass.

[gs1968]

To rupen86
If the House Group does not come up with a Bill soon this might become the default Bill if the intention is to move a Comprehensive Bill instead of piecemeal.
A group to keep a close eye on is the Congressional Black Caucus-this was a recent article

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/294853-black-caucus-concerned-by-end-of-diversity-visas-in-senate-immigration-bill

A perusal of previous Statistical Yearbooks substantiates the fact that the immigrants of African & Caribbean origin do constitute about 50% of the visas issued.They also have a good amount of FB usage.The CBC has 42 members and is usually a very united voting block.I am unable to find the article where they aslo raise concerns about elimination of FB categories affecting Caribbean immigration.Hon.John Conyers is the ranking member of the judiciary committee and will influence the progress of any legislation. Their votes may be crucial to passage and they have nothing to lose by voting against the Bill as they represent heavily minority dominated districts as a result of the Voting Rights Act

[vizcard]

To rupen86
If the House Group does not come up with a Bill soon this might become the default Bill if the intention is to move a Comprehensive Bill instead of piecemeal.
A group to keep a close eye on is the Congressional Black Caucus-this was a recent article

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/294853-black-caucus-concerned-by-end-of-diversity-visas-in-senate-immigration-bill

A perusal of previous Statistical Yearbooks substantiates the fact that the immigrants of African & Caribbean origin do constitute about 50% of the visas issued.They also have a good amount of FB usage.The CBC has 42 members and is usually a very united voting block.I am unable to find the article where they aslo raise concerns about elimination of FB categories affecting Caribbean immigration.Hon.John Conyers is the ranking member of the judiciary committee and will influence the progress of any legislation. Their votes may be crucial to passage and they have nothing to lose by voting against the Bill as they represent heavily minority dominated districts as a result of the Voting Rights Act

Very fair article. I'd love to see how they address this issue. While I personally think the DV is a joke, there has to be some way in which "the tired, poor and huddled masses" can immigrate here. Maybe its a "quota" within the merit-based umbrella for such immigrants.

[rupen86]

To rupen86
If the House Group does not come up with a Bill soon this might become the default Bill if the intention is to move a Comprehensive Bill instead of piecemeal.
A group to keep a close eye on is the Congressional Black Caucus-this was a recent article

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/294853-black-caucus-concerned-by-end-of-diversity-visas-in-senate-immigration-bill

A perusal of previous Statistical Yearbooks substantiates the fact that the immigrants of African & Caribbean origin do constitute about 50% of the visas issued.They also have a good amount of FB usage.The CBC has 42 members and is usually a very united voting block.I am unable to find the article where they aslo raise concerns about elimination of FB categories affecting Caribbean immigration.Hon.John Conyers is the ranking member of the judiciary committee and will influence the progress of any legislation. Their votes may be crucial to passage and they have nothing to lose by voting against the Bill as they represent heavily minority dominated districts as a result of the Voting Rights Act

Senate and house republicans are very much against diversity visa and if this block is going to vote against it because of that and if their votes are needed, some compromise will have to be done.

[vizcard]

Senate and house republicans are very much against diversity visa and if this block is going to vote against it because of that and if their votes are needed, some compromise will have to be done.

i agree. i didn't get the impression they would be violently opposed it considering someone in the article states that the merit based thing caem from the CBC when there was talk about removing DV.

[gs1968]

To Q,Pedro,Vizcard,Spec and other moderators

I was wondering if it would be a wise idea to split this thread into two-one dealing with the actual provisions and impact of the Bill and the other dealing with the political process involved.I only mention this because some members read this thread to see how it will impact while others like me are more interested in how the politics plays out. There are also thousands of other visitors who are probably not registered here but still visit daily to get their information and analysis(of extremely high quality).I feel that some of my posts seem to interrupt a chain of critical analysis of the Bill's actual provisions

To vizcard
I agree that this is not a deal-breaker and something will be worked out like adding some more points value.I only pointed it out as one of the various moving parts that has impact in the House and not in the Senate where there are only 2 African American members both of whom are replacement appointees and not elected

[abcx13]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-feel-need-to-limit-what-hot-button-issues-to-support/2013/04/18/2dcdcdd2-a841-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html

Agree about 2 diff threads.

[Pedro Gonzales]

We can use the thread i created as one to discuss the bill's language, once we have the anchor posts. However, I don't think you can fully disconnect the politics from the bill's provisions, since a lot of the politics will be based on specific provisions.

[Spectator]

We can use the thread i created as one to discuss the bill's language, once we have the anchor posts. However, I don't think you can fully disconnect the politics from the bill's provisions, since a lot of the politics will be based on specific provisions.Pedro,

The potential problem with that is that existing posts may not be able to be moved to your thread, since they mostly predate the anchor posts and would appear above them. I haven't seen a way to "sticky" individual posts in a thread in the same way that can be done with threads in a forum.

[Pedro Gonzales]

I have a solution for that. We can move and edit other old posts to make them the anchor posts. I'm working on that now.

[rupen86]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-feel-need-to-limit-what-hot-button-issues-to-support/2013/04/18/2dcdcdd2-a841-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html

Agree about 2 diff threads.

Good Analysis in the article. Politicians will vote on a bill which would benefit them politically however small or big it may be. In this case, both have incentive to vote for it. But by no means it is easy. There might be killer amendments which might sink the bill. Earlier Gang of 8 had announced the strategy that they all will vote against the amendments affecting the core of the bill. However, to decide what is core will be difficult. The bill which is produced after intense negotiations will be fragile. If it is put up as it is, it might have better chance of passing than the one with amendments.

[gcq]

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/boston-bombing-seeps-immigration-debate-analysis/story?id=18998277#.UXFz4crt5dM

Grassley using Boston tragedy to manipulate CIR movement.

Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that the conversation was "especially important in light of everything that's happened in Massachusetts."

"This hearing is an opportunity to refocus" on important issues, such as "securing our homeland," Grassley added.

[rupen86]

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/boston-bombing-seeps-immigration-debate-analysis/story?id=18998277#.UXFz4crt5dM

Grassley using Boston tragedy to manipulate CIR movement.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/a-terrible-day-for-an-immigration-reform-hearing/275140/

[gs1968]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294973-sen-leahy-faults-bipartisan-immigration-bill-as-not-up-to-our-vaues

I think the Bill is just a starting point as the Gang of Eight has mentioned before. Based on this article-there is clearly a lot of room for amendment & improvement.

[gcq]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/a-terrible-day-for-an-immigration-reform-hearing/275140/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washington-boston-manhunt-stirs-immigration-debate/story?id=18998177#.UXGKhMrt5dM

After a meeting with President Obama Friday morning, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also a member of the "Gang of Eight," said he "doesn't see any connection" between what's happening in Boston and the effort to change U.S. immigration laws.

[rupen86]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294973-sen-leahy-faults-bipartisan-immigration-bill-as-not-up-to-our-vaues

I think the Bill is just a starting point as the Gang of Eight has mentioned before. Based on this article-there is clearly a lot of room for amendment & improvement.

I am very concerned about Leahy's comments. He seems to be questioning everything that democrats have compromised including same-sex marriage, siblings, border security and triggers and wait period for illegals. If he tries to move this bill to the left, it will fail. Hopefully as agreed principle, gang of 8 would oppose all amendments which change the core of the bill. As some of the gang members are part of the committee, I hope those amendments would fail. Nancy Pelsoi who is such a liberal has praised the bill. Leahy, if he is serious about the bill, should stay away from those amendments.

[gcq]

I am very concerned about Leahy's comments. He seems to be questioning everything that democrats have compromised including same-sex marriage, siblings, border security and triggers and wait period for illegals. If he tries to move this bill to the left, it will fail. Hopefully as agreed principle, gang of 8 would oppose all amendments which change the core of the bill. As some of the gang members are part of the committee, I hope those amendments would fail. Nancy Pelsoi who is such a liberal has praised the bill. Leahy, if he is serious about the bill, should stay away from those amendments.
On one side I am concerned about Leahy's comments. Wondering what he was thinking when gang of 8 members were negotiating. It was obvious it is going to be a compromise. So both sides won't get everything they want. I assume he is just posturing.

On the other hand, having a strong left leaning guy as committee chairman would balance out anti-immigrant Grassley. For Nancy Pelosi, she is the house minority leader. There is no way she can criticize the bill. It is her responsibility to get all the democrat votes in house.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Pedro,

The potential problem with that is that existing posts may not be able to be moved to your thread, since they mostly predate the anchor posts and would appear above them. I haven't seen a way to "sticky" individual posts in a thread in the same way that can be done with threads in a forum.

It's done. Discussion on the bill's contents have been moved here (http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2099-CIR-Bill-Summary), and placeholders created for anchor posts. To the extent folks don't want to fill in their thoughts there, we can always delete those anchor posts later.

[Spectator]

It's done. Discussion on the bill's contents have been moved here (http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2099-CIR-Bill-Summary), and placeholders created for anchor posts. To the extent folks don't want to fill in their thoughts there, we can always delete those anchor posts later.Pedro,

Well done!

I realize the effort involved in doing that.

Ive changed the title of this thread to Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise) to make it clearer.

[gs1968]

Thank you Pedro for all the work-I did not intend to be disruptive but I felt that not everyone of the many visitors daily to this site is a political junkie and are more interested in sound,technical analysis of the various implications of the Bill.

To gcq/rupen
Most likely posturing to create an impression of impartiality. The other Senator to watch is Mazie Hirono who also sits on the Judiciary Committee.She has from day#1 focused on the family aspect of the Bill being of Asian origin

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hirono-Focusing-on-families-in-immigration-bill-4442246.php

[gs1968]

A picture of the CIR Bill on Twitter-how can this be complicated?

https://twitter.com/Geoff_Holtzman/status/324928826918461440/photo/1

[gcq]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/as-pressure-builds-on-immigration-growing-network-of-gop-donors-push-for-path-to-legal-status/2013/04/15/71cb1df6-a5a2-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_story.html


BOSTON — As Congress readies for a drawn-out immigration debate, an expanding network of Republican fundraisers is pressing for a path to legal status for millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.
Business leaders and donors who raised tens of millions in the last election are meeting with top GOP fundraisers and Republican lawmakers who may be reluctant to support what critics call “amnesty” for immigrants who broke the law.

In most cases, the donors have ties to Wall Street and businesses that want more high- and low-skilled immigrants in the nation’s legal labor pool. Backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, these business-minded Republican fundraisers say they’re getting a relatively receptive audience in the face of an undeniable new political reality. Record Hispanic turnout helped President Barack Obama defeat Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney last fall. And projected population growth ensures that immigrants’ political clout will grow stronger.

[gcq]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/steve-king-boston-bombings_n_3092929.html

[vizcard]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/steve-king-boston-bombings_n_3092929.html

douches will be douches.

the idiot doesn't get that those illegals are already inside the US. so the only way to "check" them is to give them a pathway to citizenship and run background checks on them (although I'm not sure what a background check would show).

[vizcard]

Thank you Pedro for all the work-I did not intend to be disruptive but I felt that not everyone of the many visitors daily to this site is a political junkie and are more interested in sound,technical analysis of the various implications of the Bill.

To gcq/rupen
Most likely posturing to create an impression of impartiality. The other Senator to watch is Mazie Hirono who also sits on the Judiciary Committee.She has from day#1 focused on the family aspect of the Bill being of Asian origin

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hirono-Focusing-on-families-in-immigration-bill-4442246.php

Ted Cruz is another guy to watch out for. He's Republican, from Texas and also on the Senate Judiciary Cmte. Atleast Hirono is a Democrat from Hawaii. She'll fall in line.

[richie.rich]

He is just trying to buy time as always. He did the same thing last year.


http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/boston-bombing-seeps-immigration-debate-analysis/story?id=18998277#.UXFz4crt5dM

Grassley using Boston tragedy to manipulate CIR movement.

[tatikonda]

Q & Other Moderators

Please move this thread to other page, if you think soo..

From - http://www.immigration-law.com/Temporary%20II.html.

I am not seeing any big advantages with CIR Bill for legal immigrants..
I was hoping to remove country limits but it appears to be from a year after this bill becomes LAW.
Also, I see that NOT all of the present EB1 will be exempt from Annual Quota...

Changes in Per Country Numerical Limitation of Immigration Visas: Readers may remember that the last Congress passed H.R. 3012 which was introduced by Rep. Jason Chafetz of Utah in abolute majority 'Yeah' vote but the Senate failed to pass this bill despite the last minute successful negotiation and compromise with Sen. Chuck Glassley of Iowa who objected to the bill. The bill was reintroduced in this Congress by the same Congressman and this time around, the bill was successful to persuade the Gang of 8 to be a part of the nick-name CIR 2013. Thus the CIR 2013, Section 2306 proposes to "eliminate" per country numerical limitation in the entire employment-based immigration. However, the per country numerical limitation in the family-based immigration will stay in the immigration statute, and yet the per country limit will increase from the current 7% to 15% accross the board, and not just certain named specific countries. The per country limit elimination in the employment-based immigration system was one of the hottest piecemeal employment-based immigration bill last year and it is anticipated that debate will arise hot again, albeit at a different level. Then, when this reform will be materialized and implemented, assuming this part of reform passes both the Senate and House? It will be not until 1-year from the date when bill is passed in the Congress and the President signs it into law.


Regards
Tatikonda..

[qesehmk]

tatikonda - check my post here (http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2099-Senate-CIR-Bill-Summary-amp-Discussion?p=34767#post34767) http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2099-Senate-CIR-Bill-Summary-amp-Discussion?p=34767#post34767

The bill is actually too good to be true. Who knows ... it could actually pass..

Q & Other Moderators

Please move this thread to other page, if you think soo..

From - http://www.immigration-law.com/Temporary%20II.html.

I am not seeing any big advantages with CIR Bill for legal immigrants..
I was hoping to remove country limits but it appears to be from a year after this bill becomes LAW.
Also, I see that NOT all of the present EB1 will be exempt from Annual Quota...

Changes in Per Country Numerical Limitation of Immigration Visas: Readers may remember that the last Congress passed H.R. 3012 which was introduced by Rep. Jason Chafetz of Utah in abolute majority 'Yeah' vote but the Senate failed to pass this bill despite the last minute successful negotiation and compromise with Sen. Chuck Glassley of Iowa who objected to the bill. The bill was reintroduced in this Congress by the same Congressman and this time around, the bill was successful to persuade the Gang of 8 to be a part of the nick-name CIR 2013. Thus the CIR 2013, Section 2306 proposes to "eliminate" per country numerical limitation in the entire employment-based immigration. However, the per country numerical limitation in the family-based immigration will stay in the immigration statute, and yet the per country limit will increase from the current 7% to 15% accross the board, and not just certain named specific countries. The per country limit elimination in the employment-based immigration system was one of the hottest piecemeal employment-based immigration bill last year and it is anticipated that debate will arise hot again, albeit at a different level. Then, when this reform will be materialized and implemented, assuming this part of reform passes both the Senate and House? It will be not until 1-year from the date when bill is passed in the Congress and the President signs it into law.


Regards
Tatikonda..

[geterdone]

Q,

That's what I thought and it might get better by the time it passes (if it does). I thought just removing the dependants from the numerical cap should help EB2I more than removing country cap. Correct me if I am wrong on this one.

There is a major hearing in the Judiciary Committee today. It's a long list.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=8cbd56caad16c74c7ff47a4bf3bfabdf



tatikonda - check my post here (http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2099-Senate-CIR-Bill-Summary-amp-Discussion?p=34767#post34767) http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2099-Senate-CIR-Bill-Summary-amp-Discussion?p=34767#post34767

The bill is actually too good to be true. Who knows ... it could actually pass..

[Spectator]

Q,

That's what I thought and it might get better by the time it passes (if it does). I thought just removing the dependants from the numerical cap should help EB2I more than removing country cap. Correct me if I am wrong on this one.

There is a major hearing in the Judiciary Committee today. It's a long list.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=8cbd56caad16c74c7ff47a4bf3bfabdfThe stream of this hearing is here (http://www.senate.gov/isvp/?comm=judiciary&type=live&filename=judiciary042213).

[gcq]

GO8 hits back at grassley.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/04/21/senators-say-boston-excuse-defeat-immigration-bill/tHKrKYZwzY3wtMLrGX87DP/story.html


WASHINGTON — Two senators who helped write bipartisan immigration legislation said Sunday that the Boston Marathon bombings should expedite an overhaul of the system rather than stall it.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on CNN’s “State of the Union’’ that the bombings that left three dead ‘‘should urge us to act quicker, not slower when it comes to getting the 11 million identified,’’ referring to the estimated number of immigrants living in the country illegally.
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, who also appeared on the CNN program, said keeping the status quo is not a very good argument, given what happened in Boston.




Schumer said critics are using the bombings to oppose a proposal they disliked from the start. He said that if they have suggestions to make the proposal better, they should speak up.

[gs1968]

A very cynical article but unfortunately this is most likely the route the Immigration Bill is going to take

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/345883

[gcq]

A very cynical article but unfortunately this is most likely the route the Immigration Bill is going to take

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/345883
If speaker decides to go "Regular Order" CIR is in for a rough ride, unless something changes his mind or Goodlatte's.

[qesehmk]

geterdone, if the bill had only 2 things in it
A) dependents become exempt from cap
B) removal of country cap

And I were given a choice of having only 1 of those actually becoming a law - here are some calculations below that will tell you what is better.

A) Dependents exempt scenario:
It practically doubles EB limit. That makes 140K extra visa equivalent available to EB2IC. Of which 40K goes to EB3. So EB2IC gets 100K equivalent more visas. i.e 50K regular and 50K cap exempt.

This helps everybody more than option B.

B) removal of country cap
This gives EB2IC all 40K for EB2 category in the short term.
This helps EB2IC & EB3IC. But hurts EBROW

conclusion: The winner is A) !!!! So agree w you.



Q,

That's what I thought and it might get better by the time it passes (if it does). I thought just removing the dependants from the numerical cap should help EB2I more than removing country cap. Correct me if I am wrong on this one.

There is a major hearing in the Judiciary Committee today. It's a long list.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=8cbd56caad16c74c7ff47a4bf3bfabdf

[rupen86]

If speaker decides to go "Regular Order" CIR is in for a rough ride, unless something changes his mind or Goodlatte's.

Good article. This does seem a problem. I do not know if they would change it for immigration.

[gcq]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/pat-leahy-boston-marathon-bombings-immigration-90418.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/pat-leahy-boston-marathon-bombings-immigration-90418.html)

getting funny:

During a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a clearly agitated Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) abruptly yelled at Sen. Chuck Schumer as the New York Democrat called on critics to stop using last week’s bombings as a chance to slow down an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.


“I never said that!” Grassley shouted, turning toward Schumer. “I never said that!”
“I don’t mean you, Mr. Grassley,” Schumer told the Iowa senator.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/pat-leahy-boston-marathon-bombings-immigration-90418.html#ixzz2RDcr0oHL


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/pat-leahy-boston-marathon-bombings-immigration-90418.html#ixzz2RDckzn3t

[abcx13]

[QUOTE=gcq;34835]
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/pat-leahy-boston-marathon-bombings-immigration-90418.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/pat-leahy-boston-marathon-bombings-immigration-90418.html)

getting funny:
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/pat-leahy-boston-marathon-bombings-immigration-90418.html#ixzz2RDcr0oHL

Hilarious. Though I don't know why Rand Paul is playing hot and cold.

[gcq]

Loved the firework between Schumer and Grassley.

Schumer went rather strongly against grassley and witnesses. Haven't seen him that way anytime in recent memory.
Why did Grassley say he never said that ?
What was he ashamed of ?.

Schumer subtly called Grassley a liar when he said, "I didn't mean you Grassley, there are people who said that in the press".

[justvisiting]

Did anyone get to watch the Judiciary Committee hearings? Immigrant visa reform went almost unmentioned. Sen Sessions brought it up in the context of increasing immigrtion by 20M over 10 years (he factored in legalizations plus increased quotas). Sen. Schumer got the represenative from the Center for Immigration /Studies to accept that PhDs should get green cards. Didn't hear much more.

[abcx13]

Did anyone get to watch the Judiciary Committee hearings? Immigrant visa reform went almost unmentioned. Sen Sessions brought it up in the context of increasing immigrtion by 20M over 10 years (he factored in legalizations plus increased quotas). Sen. Schumer got the represenative from the Center for Immigration /Studies to accept that PhDs should get green cards. Didn't hear much more.

I listened to part of it. Actually, there was a lot of talk about H1Bs. They had Brad Smith from MSFT, Ron Hira and some other guys. I think everyone agreed about GCs. Indian IT companies (rightly) got a lot of flak for gaming the system - including from an ex-Patni guy. I'm glad to see distinctions being made in the debate b/w Google and MSFT and outsourcers like Accenture, Infy, etc. even if it is not ultimately reflected in the actual bill.

[gcq]

I listened to part of it. Actually, there was a lot of talk about H1Bs. They had Brad Smith from MSFT, Ron Hira and some other guys. I think everyone agreed about GCs. Indian IT companies (rightly) got a lot of flak for gaming the system - including from an ex-Patni guy. I'm glad to see distinctions being made in the debate b/w Google and MSFT and outsourcers like Accenture, Infy, etc. even if it is not ultimately reflected in the actual bill.

That is the anti-immigrant group plot. The idea of attacking consulting companies originated from numbers usa/Fair. They feed Grassley with this kind of info. I was active a while on some forums where antis where present. They figured out they could not go against big names like Microsoft etc. So they picked these consulting companies which were smaller in size, didn't have much lobbying power. The same way lions following a herd of cattle will pick on their weakest members, injured ones and infants.

Net result, immigrants like abcx13 are a big supporter of their hidden agenda. That was the ultimate win for these anti-immigrant groups. Divide and conquer. They did it !

[vizcard]

Did anyone get to watch the Judiciary Committee hearings? Immigrant visa reform went almost unmentioned. Sen Sessions brought it up in the context of increasing immigrtion by 20M over 10 years (he factored in legalizations plus increased quotas). Sen. Schumer got the represenative from the Center for Immigration /Studies to accept that PhDs should get green cards. Didn't hear much more.

Great question. ... if anyone has any highlights to share, that's be great. From what I've seen Janet N really kicked butt in support of the bill.

[gcq]

Great question. ... if anyone has any highlights to share, that's be great. From what I've seen Janet N really kicked butt in support of the bill.
I listened part of it. One of the guys who impressed me with his arguments was Grover Norquist. Grassley said he was surprised that Norquist supports immigration. Norquist explained why it made sense to have more immigrants coming into this country. As to the "impact" on social security and other welfare systems, he said there would be more money coming into the system. Flaws with social security and other systems have nothing to do with immigration. They have to reformed separately anyways.

His support is crucial as he is the God for many GOP ers.

[Spectator]

Great question. ... if anyone has any highlights to share, that's be great. From what I've seen Janet N really kicked butt in support of the bill.I watched Panel II live.

That was the one that included:

Brad Smith
General Counsel and Executive Vice President
Legal and Corporate Affairs
Microsoft
Seattle, WA

Professor Ron Hira
Associate Professor of Public Policy
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY

Neeraj Gupta
Chief Executive Officer
Systems In Motion
Newark, CA

I won't dwell on Hira and Gupta because I'm sure that will be discussed ad nauseum by others.

I was quite impressed with what Brad Smith had to say. He is an experienced and very eloquent speaker in these matters.

From memory, these are the points he put across.

a) Very pleased that the number of EB GCs were being increased.

b) Microsoft wants to hire US Workers, but also needs the mechanism to hire the "best and brightest" from around the World.

c) There is a gap in the number of people graduating from US Universities and the number of jobs available.

d) The US education system is not currently capable of producing the talent they need in sufficient numbers. He cited a figure of 48k High Schools, of which only 2.5k had qualified to teach advanced CS. He was extremely passionate about this.

e) Microsoft was pleased to see provisions in the Bill for a STEM Education Fund, but didn't think it went far enough. He suggested doubling the H1B fees and channeling all the extra income to the STEM Education Fund. I believe Microsoft have suggested something similar before.

f) He also talked about the "Multiplier Effect" for Microsoft hiring in the Seattle area. I cant remember the exact number but something around 3-4 other jobs were created in the area for every person hired by Microsoft.

As an interesting side note, he said it was Microsoft policy to initiate the GC process in the first month the employee joined them.

As I said, from memory, so don't hold me to it.

[vizcard]

That is the anti-immigrant group plot. The idea of attacking consulting companies originated from numbers usa/Fair. They feed Grassley with this kind of info. I was active a while on some forums where antis where present. They figured out they could not go against big names like Microsoft etc. So they picked these consulting companies which were smaller in size, didn't have much lobbying power. The same way lions following a herd of cattle will pick on their weakest members, injured ones and infants.

Net result, immigrants like abcx13 are a big supporter of their hidden agenda. That was the ultimate win for these anti-immigrant groups. Divide and conquer. They did it !

Theres a major difference consulting companies and body shops (outplacement). A lot of body shops fraudulently portray themselves as consulting companies along with false documentation which state that the employee will get paid a salary regardless of whether or not he is staffed - just so that they can apply for a H1. I know 1 person who was in that model but subsequently went to a legit company ... and Im sure everyone on this forum personally knows or knows of cases like this.

I'm not judging the immigrant because he/she just wants to work. However, the practices by the companies (who are the target of the conversations) are horrible and unfair.

[vizcard]

Now that the judicial hearings are over, what comes next ? Does the judicial cmte vote on it and if so when does that happen ?

[gcq]

Theres a major difference consulting companies and body shops (outplacement). A lot of body shops fraudulently portray themselves as consulting companies along with false documentation which state that the employee will get paid a salary regardless of whether or not he is staffed - just so that they can apply for a H1. I know 1 person who was in that model but subsequently went to a legit company ... and Im sure everyone on this forum personally knows or knows of cases like this.

I'm not judging the immigrant because he/she just wants to work. However, the practices by the companies (who are the target of the conversations) are horrible and unfair.
Consulting companies, staffing companies or the so called fulltime companies, all of them are businesses operating on different business models. All of them are legitimate. If staffing was not legitimate, no american company could do that. Regarding staffing companies advertising as consulting companies, I haven't seen that. I worked for a consulting/staffing company for years. Now I am full time. My old company advertised themselves as staffing & consulting company. They had both business. When applying for H1B etc, they used to say staff augmentation is one of their business. There is nothing wrong with that.

As to companies mistreating employees, that is a different matter. It has nothing to do with the business model.

As for consulting vs staffing, I don't see much of a difference. Both are staff augmentation model and contracts. Both can be terminated at any point. That is a flexibility provided by these models to companies.

[abcx13]

That is the anti-immigrant group plot. The idea of attacking consulting companies originated from numbers usa/Fair. They feed Grassley with this kind of info. I was active a while on some forums where antis where present. They figured out they could not go against big names like Microsoft etc. So they picked these consulting companies which were smaller in size, didn't have much lobbying power. The same way lions following a herd of cattle will pick on their weakest members, injured ones and infants.

Net result, immigrants like abcx13 are a big supporter of their hidden agenda. That was the ultimate win for these anti-immigrant groups. Divide and conquer. They did it !

Actually, it was fairly balanced I thought - all the guys decrying the outsourcers were in full support of more visas for companies like Google and MSFT. Ultimately they just wanted higher skilled people (the cream if you will) than the bodyshop guys and I don't see what is wrong with that.

[abcx13]

e) Microsoft was pleased to see provisions in the Bill for a STEM Education Fund, but didn't think it went far enough. He suggested doubling the H1B fees and channeling all the extra income to the STEM Education Fund. I believe Microsoft have suggested something similar before.

As an interesting side note, he said it was Microsoft policy to initiate the GC process in the first month the employee joined them.

The part about higher fees is crucial. I think all of the big companies (at least in tech) that hire the cream from Stanford, MIT, etc. would be willing to pay higher fees for their H1B and GC employees because there is such a paucity of top talent. The offshorers, on the other hand, are always up in arms about it. That in and of itself tells you how much value each employee adds.

On the side note, based on a friend's experience who worked there, that is true. He said HR ran after him to apply for a GC even though he was too lazy to go through the process and wanted to go back to India. I believe the same is true of Google applying for GCs.

[gcq]

The part about higher fees is crucial. I think all of the big companies (at least in tech) that hire the cream from Stanford, MIT, etc. would be willing to pay higher fees for their H1B and GC employees because there is such a paucity of top talent. The offshorers, on the other hand, are always up in arms about it. That in and of itself tells you how much value each employee adds.

On the side note, based on a friend's experience who worked there, that is true. He said HR ran after him to apply for a GC even though he was too lazy to go through the process and wanted to go back to India. I believe the same is true of Google applying for GCs.
This is true of consulting companies too. My company sent me the GC packet 6 months after my joining them without even me asking. I didn't recognize the importance of that forms then, just trashed it. It took a while to recognize the importance of GC a few years later and then applied for it.

It is not true that consulting companies don't file GC. It is just the opposite. Many fulltime companies have rules that they can start GC processing only after 1 year of joining. Microsoft is an exception.

[kkruna]

We all know some acquaintances who are stuck with some desi companies for different reasons. There must be more from other parts of the world. If there is a loophole, it will be found and used. Let's not get into this and rather use our time to find/clarify/analyze what is there on the bill.

One strategy that is unfolding among antis is to delay and kill.The House Repubs working on another bill might want to move the resolution to a joint committee, and then determine its fate there.

[vizcard]

Consulting companies, staffing companies or the so called fulltime companies, all of them are businesses operating on different business models. All of them are legitimate. If staffing was not legitimate, no american company could do that. Regarding staffing companies advertising as consulting companies, I haven't seen that. I worked for a consulting/staffing company for years. Now I am full time. My old company advertised themselves as staffing & consulting company. They had both business. When applying for H1B etc, they used to say staff augmentation is one of their business. There is nothing wrong with that.

As to companies mistreating employees, that is a different matter. It has nothing to do with the business model.

As for consulting vs staffing, I don't see much of a difference. Both are staff augmentation model and contracts. Both can be terminated at any point. That is a flexibility provided by these models to companies.

I dont disgree that the models are legitimate and that they afford companies flexibility. The issue is not about the business model, its about the ability to apply for a H1B under those models. The USCIS defines what is considered "legal" for the purposes of H1B. It is legal if -
1. the petitioner controls the day to day activities of the h1b employee (not true in a staffing model)
2. the petitioners pays wages and benefits irrespective of staffing at a client (not true in a staffing model)

So if a staffing company petitions for a h1b employee, saying that they in fact have control over the activities of the employee and pay them regardless of whether or not they are staffed at a client location, that is fraud.

Also, I don't know how you can say there isn't much of a difference between a staffing company and a consulting company. Are you saying that an Adecco-like company is simlar to a McKinsey or Deloitte-like company? That is just stupid.

[gcq]

I dont disgree that the models are legitimate and that they afford companies flexibility. The issue is not about the business model, its about the ability to apply for a H1B under those models. The USCIS defines what is considered "legal" for the purposes of H1B. It is legal if -
1. the petitioner controls the day to day activities of the h1b employee (not true in a staffing model)
2. the petitioners pays wages and benefits irrespective of staffing at a client (not true in a staffing model)

So if a staffing company petitions for a h1b employee, saying that they in fact have control over the activities of the employee and pay them regardless of whether or not they are staffed at a client location, that is fraud.

Also, I don't know how you can say there isn't much of a difference between a staffing company and a consulting company. Are you saying that an Adecco-like company is simlar to a McKinsey or Deloitte-like company? That is just stupid.

Guess where you went wrong. USCIS itself is legally wrong in issuing the Jan-08 memo which you are referring to. That memo is illegal as it goes against the existing laws of the country. There is no separate definition of "employer-employee" for USCIS. Whatever that definition is, it has to come from the common law. If that employer-employee definition was correct not a single American company should be able to operate that model. Bottom line USICS memo is illegal.

Why is still USCIS able to use that memo against consulting companies.

1. These companies don't have the guts and file a lawsuit. They filed one, but didn't follow it up.
2. Democrats ( pro-union) in power (read Obama, Durbin). These pro-union democrats with anti-immigrant Grassley and co played behind the scenes.

Regarding consulting companies vs staffing companies, tell me what difference these companies have.

Companies like Deloitte and Bearing Point send their consultants to client place. The do the work, charge the client, company gets a cut, employee gets a cut.
Staffing companies -- ditto
Only difference is pay rate. Top consulting companies charge and pay exorbitant rates whereas staffing companies don't. Staffing companies are low end consulting companies.

One other category I can think of is companies like TCS, Infosys that grabs project and get their employees do it at their location or client location. How are they any different ?
Against the argument that "entire staffing/consulting companies should be eliminated because of some bad players", it is like saying marriage should be banned because some spouses ill-treat their counter parts.