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

[idiotic]

whatever the history might be the biggest reason behind the CIR is "political calculation" more than compassion or anything else. here why going back in history might not make much sense ( especially beyond a century ) to make decisions about current laws:


The whole debate is about rewriting those laws (combination of political reasons and human suffering caused by current broken laws).
The real truth is both "Compassion" and "rule of law" are only political arguments to suit them. We should not get too much sucked into it either way.
The same people who vehemently argue "rule of law" hypocritcally support NSA leaker also(look at the circumstance at which he broke the law they said. Really??).
Also, it is not unconstitutional to use executive branch's power to uphold the "spirit of the law". If Judiciary branch or legislative branch thinks it is wrong there are means to pursue against it.

[gs1968]

The farm bill fiasco has spooked the GOP-As I had mentioned earlier the promised vote on piecemeal immigration on Jun 28 is not happening anymore. Also the HJC was planning to markup the high-tech Bill next week but no mention now of any meeting this week. Most likely nothing will happen in July and after the Congressmen hear from their constituents during the summer recess the house Bill will be modified accordingly.

[indiani]

The whole debate should have been always ideally about "human suffering" and how to change the laws. But the reality is there are so many obvious factors ( politicians self-interests etc. ) that influence politics which unfortunately will stay for a while.

History is used selectively and going just as far as its convinient to drive political points.
For anyone who wants to argue based on history about who needs to stay here and who needs to leave, I have given the example above, to expand on it, everyone of us are the progeny of a small group of african tribe.


There is still significant portion of the country who are quite ignorant about lot of things ( good news is its changing rapidly, I have hope about future generations).

immigration will get fixed the only question is when, for me personally, it makes a lot of difference if CIR is passed now even for thousands of "legals" and I don't think anyone is rooting for it to fail.

[idiotic]

"If the House resists, I think we'll see a day like we did in the civil rights movement," Schumer said. "I think we'll see two million people on the Mall in Washington, D.C., and on the stage will not just be liberal Democrats, they will be the business leaders, the agricultural leaders, the cardinals from the Catholic Church, the leaders of the evangelical churches, all saying this is the right thing to do."

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/house-speaker-john-boehner-stands-path-immigration-reform/story?id=19467208#.UcdVk_nVCzk

[vizcard]

"If the House resists, I think we'll see a day like we did in the civil rights movement," Schumer said. "I think we'll see two million people on the Mall in Washington, D.C., and on the stage will not just be liberal Democrats, they will be the business leaders, the agricultural leaders, the cardinals from the Catholic Church, the leaders of the evangelical churches, all saying this is the right thing to do."

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/house-speaker-john-boehner-stands-path-immigration-reform/story?id=19467208#.UcdVk_nVCzk

Nice one ... planting the seed of an all out march. Schumer knows how to play the game :)

If King (Steve not MLK Jr) can do a 6 hr soap box, then I'm sure pro-immigration can get 5x that turnout.

[bvsamrat]

This is MHO - CIR is a stick being used by democrats to beat up republicans and nothing else.
Due to some progressive elements from both sides, a good draft for CIR was worked out to set out rules for future immigration for the benefit of USA.
But MHO - democrats would try and block any republican amendment to score their brownies in front of their Latino audience.

By definition CIR and its rules and laws should be applicable for legals only and illegals would have no part in that except amnesty which should be one time phenomenon.
Any US citizen or law maker would view immigration to bring in outside people with high skills or skills that are lacking locally or extraordinary talents or investment to foster growth and economy.
Merit based point system is in the right direction as it categorizes and differentiates people based on their skills and strengths.
I also believe the skill areas should be re-defined every few years as steps should be taken to develop the lacking skills locally.

And where do illegals would fit in this? If they would compete with legals on the same basis! Then there is no need of separate classification.


They are not refugees who are persecuted in their own countries. Illegals could always go back to their own home country and come back like any other!
In case of father living with his son, why both of would not go back to their home country? And live with their mothers.

I agree that they are so many children grown up and living here without valid documentation. But they could get one time amnesty and that too would be applicable for certain period so that it would not encourage future similar practices. This should humanitarian and not a part of CIR blue print! They can have separate program, similar to refugee status but unlinked to immigration.

The main problem is the automatic birth right of citizenship in born in USA. I know that some countries(New Zealand/Australia) had stopped this practice as it was being misused and view them as stateless if born to parents who are neither citizens nor PRs.

Frankly I do not care if they would get pathway to citizenship? Or not. But linking this to CIR is meaningless.



The whole debate should have been always ideally about "human suffering" and how to change the laws. But the reality is there are so many obvious factors ( politicians self-interests etc. ) that influence politics which unfortunately will stay for a while.

History is used selectively and going just as far as its convinient to drive political points.
For anyone who wants to argue based on history about who needs to stay here and who needs to leave, I have given the example above, to expand on it, everyone of us are the progeny of a small group of african tribe.


There is still significant portion of the country who are quite ignorant about lot of things ( good news is its changing rapidly, I have hope about future generations).

immigration will get fixed the only question is when, for me personally, it makes a lot of difference if CIR is passed now even for thousands of "legals" and I don't think anyone is rooting for it to fail.

[idiotic]

This is MHO

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts :)


- CIR is a stick being used by democrats to beat up republicans and nothing else.
Do Moderate republicans want to beat up the conservative republicans with same stick too.


Due to some progressive elements from both sides, a good draft for CIR was worked out to set out rules for future immigration for the benefit of USA.

True. You just contradicted your stick statement.


But MHO - democrats would try and block any republican amendment to score their brownies in front of their Latino audience.

This is opinion, not a fact. Please point us to the amendment you are referring to here.


By definition CIR and its rules and laws should be applicable for legals only and illegals would have no part in that except amnesty which should be one time phenomenon.

CIR is for rewriting broken immigration laws. It includes way of addressing the needs of businesses and its citizens in the best interest of the nation. This would include preventing flow of future illegal immigrants and also penalties for businesses who want to unfairly exploit them. Ideally we all want to see zero illegal immigration. Don't keep back door open and open the front gates is what everyone is asking for.


Any US citizen or law maker would view immigration to bring in outside people with high skills or skills that are lacking locally or extraordinary talents or investment to foster growth and economy.
Merit based point system is in the right direction as it categorizes and differentiates people based on their skills and strengths.
I also believe the skill areas should be re-defined every few years as steps should be taken to develop the lacking skills locally.

Fact. Agreed.


And where do illegals would fit in this? If they would compete with legals on the same basis! Then there is no need of separate classification.

Country kept the back door open and posted an unofficial welcome sign on one side of the border and businesses exploited the people came through the back door to thrive. This is the fact like it or not. Lawmakers need to ensure this does not happen in future and how to deal with the people who were already here in a fair way.



They are not refugees who are persecuted in their own countries. Illegals could always go back to their own home country and come back like any other!
In case of father living with his son, why both of would not go back to their home country? And live with their mothers.

If I were you, I would not judge other's situations and decisions.


I agree that they are so many children grown up and living here without valid documentation. But they could get one time amnesty and that too would be applicable for certain period so that it would not encourage future similar practices. This should humanitarian and not a part of CIR blue print! They can have separate program, similar to refugee status but unlinked to immigration.

Isn't this DACA? Obviosuly laws of the land needs to revised to give a SSN for these folks. Legislative branch never rewrote the law in Washington and DACA ensued from executive branch. People criticize Obama for this. I will not(My opinion).



The main problem is the automatic birth right of citizenship in born in USA. I know that some countries(New Zealand/Australia) had stopped this practice as it was being misused and view them as stateless if born to parents who are neither citizens nor PRs.

Agreed it may be magnet for future illegal immigration. They are not doing this in CIR as I can see.



Frankly I do not care if they would get pathway to citizenship? Or not. But linking this to CIR is meaningless.

This is your opinion. I disagree.

[vizcard]

bvsamrat - I have 4 comments to your post

1. The gist of your post is to separate legal and illegal immigration
2. What you described is what Reagan did in 1986 which everyone - Republicans and Democrats are against... never going to happen.
3. How does one define "amnesty"? What does that mean ? It means you are giving illegals a legal "immigrant" status (even citizenship and PR are immigration statuses if you are not born here)
4. Related to birthright citizenship, I don't know how you can call it "a problem". How would you like it if your child was born "stateless"? What would your child's immigration status be? Would you like to have your newborn child deported while you wait to get your GC or file for EAD/H4 and get it approved? You have to think of all repurcussions before making such broad statements.

[gs1968]

House Judiciary Committee has now informed that they will be marking up the Legal Workforce Act (E-Verify) and SKILLS Visa Act on Wednesday and Thursday.

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Markups%202013/mark_06262013.html

We are so caught up discussing the illegal immigration aspects of the Bill and are forgetting how far apart the two chambers are in terms of reforming the legal immigration aspects.The House position is net Green Card Neutral and the massive expansion of LEGAL Immigration will in itself be a tough lift in the House. We already have some marker Bills in the House for the AG workforce and high-skills immigration and they are far from the Senate viewpoint. Visa recapture/dependent exemptions/unlimited masters exemption are not on the House Bills and I see no reason for them to give up any ground on this.The only positive common aspect is overall although numerically limited increase of EB GCs/elimination of country cap and an increase in STEM visas of 55000 at the expense of the Diversity visa and 25000 visas for spouses and dependents.

If it comes to conference it will be interesting to see how this plays out although that may not be till Thanksgiving

[qesehmk]

That is a huge non-starter. IMHO for this to pass the house, Mitch McConnell is the key - Boehner is inconsequential. So those wanting this done .. make yourself heard with McConnell.
The House position is net Green Card Neutral

[gs1968]

To Q

Can you please elaborate further?

[idiotic]

House Judiciary Committee has now informed that they will be marking up the Legal Workforce Act (E-Verify) and SKILLS Visa Act on Wednesday and Thursday.

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Markups%202013/mark_06262013.html

We are so caught up discussing the illegal immigration aspects of the Bill and are forgetting how far apart the two chambers are in terms of reforming the legal immigration aspects.The House position is net Green Card Neutral and the massive expansion of LEGAL Immigration will in itself be a tough lift in the House. We already have some marker Bills in the House for the AG workforce and high-skills immigration and they are far from the Senate viewpoint. Visa recapture/dependent exemptions/unlimited masters exemption are not on the House Bills and I see no reason for them to give up any ground on this.The only positive common aspect is overall although numerically limited increase of EB GCs/elimination of country cap and an increase in STEM visas of 55000 at the expense of the Diversity visa and 25000 visas for spouses and dependents.

If it comes to conference it will be interesting to see how this plays out although that may not be till Thanksgiving

That's why it makes sense for all immigrants(legal or illegal) to stand together in everyone's interest. "United we will stand. Divided we will fall".

I would like us to remember fate of HR 3012 -- "Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice. Shame on me" :)

It is an mischief to be "net green card neutral" and also support "GC for illegal immigrants".. Just pitting one against the other(Divide and Conquer).

[bvsamrat]

My coments

1) YES. because illegal immigration is static issue as of now and create a solution as of now (amnesty or any other status as you like). and legal immigration is dynamic and will change with time.
2) But that is the right path again- IMHO and otherwise illegals will never stop if there are rules being formalised to help them in future

3) Treat them like refugees and grant them whatver you like. But no link to legal immigration unless otherwise they meet the selecton criterion

4) It is happening in other countries. Ciitizenship is not a new born birthright in NZ and Australia. You child as dependent will status based on your status. If you are parolee, so he/she would be. It is not difficult. But I bet this will happen in future in USA also.
.
What I stating is that these countries in late 2000 changed to this new rule exactly to face issues with overstayers


bvsamrat - I have 4 comments to your post

1. The gist of your post is to separate legal and illegal immigration
2. What you described is what Reagan did in 1986 which everyone - Republicans and Democrats are against... never going to happen.
3. How does one define "amnesty"? What does that mean ? It means you are giving illegals a legal "immigrant" status (even citizenship and PR are immigration statuses if you are not born here)
4. Related to birthright citizenship, I don't know how you can call it "a problem". How would you like it if your child was born "stateless"? What would your child's immigration status be? Would you like to have your newborn child deported while you wait to get your GC or file for EAD/H4 and get it approved? You have to think of all repurcussions before making such broad statements.

[Pedro Gonzales]

It looks like people are willing to move back to the public policy debate in Congress from this weekend's escape into ideological arguments, so I was considering just passing on this post, but decided it would be a disservice to gs1968. His post was well thought out, well expressed, balanced, and provided much needed perspective and I think it's relative length discouraged people from reading it. I have it attached below, please read it again if you skipped it the first time.


I read almost the entire post, I think the perceptions and opinions differ based on the life experiences, but I can give you the perspective of someone ( US citizen who cleans places for a living ) who is worried that their jobs could be taken away b'cos once all the illegals get EAD's they can change jobs and be eligible to work for any job that currently citizens are eligible for.


Indiani, that's unfair. If you are going to be responding to his post, and expressing your opinion to him, you ought to have given him the respect of reading the entire post. The crux of his message was in his last few sentences.


Um, sorry, but no.
abcx13, you just shot down somebody that's making a point that strengthens your argument because a) you probably didn't bother to finish reading his post, and b) he shows compassion towards people that you don't think worthy of it.

gs1968, thanks for the perspective. This was my viewpoint well before the current Go8 bill came out, but I did not have the benefit of your real world examples. The 11 million illegals that are the supposed beneficiaries of the bill would in most cases be happy with documentation legitimizing their stay in the US, and the ability to stay on for good. Citizenship is gravy that they probably couldn't care about at the moment. If the GOP offers a reasonable alternative to the Go8 bill without a pathway to citizenship that the Dems reject outright, Latino voters will quite possibly blame the Dems as much if not more than the GOP.


I am glad to see that the tone of discussion is back to where we all like it.

I am a pediatrician with a very large Spanish patient base and meet families who are not in legal status on a daily basis and perhaps have a better perspective of where the discussion stands amongst them.
I feel it might be easier to illustrate with a few examples I have had recently as the stories will illustrate their plight better than pages of prose.

Last year as I was getting ready for our lunch break,a mother and her son aged 17 whom I have known for 7 years came to meet me. The boy was the oldest of 3 children the younger two being citizens being born here.He was a high school senior and was really excited about the DACA order that President Obama had recently passed. I helped him with a lot of documentation from office records dating back to 2006 to establish proof of residency and also agreed to attest a notarized affidavit for the same.The family said that the school authorities were not receptive to their needs and they had no other alternative than to approach us. He was granted the status and he was ecstatic-his actual words were "I never thought I would ever get this chance".More recently he has joined the nursing program at our local community college and thanked us again when he came in to have his TB skin testing done. It pained me when the house GOP passed the amendment defunding the DACA on Jun 6 but I feel it was posturing at its best and most of them are sympathetic to DREAMERs

I have another child in my practice who is 4 and his mother was deported 2 years ago to Guatemala.As she had re-entered illegally she was barred from entry for 10 years.I am struggling with behavioral and sleep problems in this child who is awake most of the night screaming for his mother. The father will not send him to Guatemala as he is afraid they will keep the child there and never send him back. I can close my eyes and count at least 20 other children where one of the parents has been deported in my practice

I have 2 children in my practice whose father and their uncle (in their 30s now) migrated illegally from Honduras 10 years ago. They are the only 2 children of their grandmother who is still back in the Honduras with advanced uterine cancer. It was heart breaking for me when the children's mother told me in Spanish "Whenever we call her all she keeps saying is if I could only hug the boys for 5 minutes before I die" Unfortunately both the parents are illegal and even though the children (ages 3 & 5) are citizens there is nobody to take them there.

I could go on and on but the only reason I bring this up is that in all the above cases all the families are looking for is some legal status where they can lead a normal life and be able to travel to their home countries and be able to return safely.I can assure you that citizenship is the furthest thing from their minds at this time. I quote from Rep Carter (TX) one of the House Group of 8 in the following article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/house-immigration-bill_n_3180612.html
It (the House Bill)has compassion. It allows people to be human beings, to live a normal life, to have a job, to take care of their family, to pay their taxes, to obey the law and go about their lives."

The Republicans will not likely agree to a Special pathway to citizenship like W visas etc but will allow some form of legalization that allows people to stay here and continue to lead their lives and be united with their family. They will most likely be allowed to convert to Green cards through existing channels examples being if they have US born children or have US spouses who can sponsor them or employment based sponsorship etc. We keep talking about pressure on the GOP but if the talks reach a point where the GOP stands firm and is willing for legalization but no special pathway, the winds can change just as quick and the Democrats will be under pressure to accept the deal from the Latino community. At least deportations will stop and families can stay together,travel abroad, buy homes etc. Qs point about whether this makes them second class citizens can be debated till the cows come home.I wish to point out that at any time in this country there are millions of people who are in legal non-immigrant status and seem to lead normal lives

My bottomline views on the subject of illegal immigration:
a) Of course the Dems are holding legal immigration hostage to illegal immigration, but that's how politics has been performed (i don't like the word 'played') for centuries and something we have to live with, however much we may dislike it. You don't see too many republicans vocalizing this argument because they've done exactly that on hundreds of bills in the last 4 years, and realize how hypocritical it would sound.
b) Illegal immigrants are here, and despite being out of the formal economy, they're performing a vital role that can't be easily replaced. In any case they are unlikely to leave, so legalization now is in everyone's best interests. The compassion argument, the cost of business argument, the increasing tax base argument all support this view.
c) You have to set in place mechanisms to disincentivize further illegal immigration, or it won't stop. Everyone agrees that illegal immigration is bad, the real argument here is whether the answer is to put in place a simple, convenient legal immigration mechanism to help meet the need that the illegals meet and to provide an alternative legal route that the illegals could follow (the pro-immigration stance) or to shut the border up and not let anyone else inside (the anti-immigration stance) whatever the result of that is on the economy. Both arguments do have their merits, its an issue of a) whether you buy into the growth-centric or resource-adequacy models of economic theory and b) whether you think the costs of achieving a secure border are realistic or not.
d) The Southern Wall (just realized that expression would suit Rahul Dravid very well) would be ridiculously expensive and would only addresses about half the source of illegal immigration to the US. For that amount, we ocould easily set up strong entry/exit and e-verify programs that would be a lot more effective, and pump a significant amount in targeted aid to Mexico and other Central American countries to help stem the flow at the source.
e) As Q, idiotic (not a moron, an oxy-moron) and some others have mentioned, right now, as legal immigrants, our best hope is the success of CIR.

[idiotic]

3) Treat them like refugees and grant them whatver you like. But no link to legal immigration unless otherwise they meet the selecton criterion

In extreme right language you are proposing "special pathway to citizenship" to illegal immigrants. "Asylum" is legal immigration by the way. "Asylum" also means GC without numerical limits and following Citizenship. :) It is really an nice idea and you should have proposed this as amendment to CIR in Rubio's list of ideas during the time he openly invited them.

[bvsamrat]

Let them get whatever they deserve, but unlinked and in that way both will get right attention.
The house bill might be heading in the same direction of piecemeal solutions which might really succede if senate accepts it



In extreme right language you are proposing "special pathway to citizenship" to illegal immigrants. "Asylum" is legal immigration by the way. "Asylum" also means immidiete GC and following Citizenship. :) It is really an nice idea and you should have proposed this as amendment to CIR in Rubio's list of ideas during the time he openly invited them.

[idiotic]

Let them get whatever they deserve, but unlinked and in that way both will get right attention.
The house bill might be heading in the same direction of piecemeal solutions which might really succede if senate accepts it

Grassley and Sessions will put hold on it and reid will not file cloture :) We will be stuck where we are discussing and calculating our future for years to come :(

[qesehmk]

bvsamrat - the dynamic is such that legal immigrants have no chips whatsoever. The illegals have only one chip which is the latino vote bank and that's a quite powerful chip.

If you think legals have one chip with tech industry - you couldn't be more mistaken. The tech industry only employs a handful of all the H1s. Plus those that it employs - is able to exploit them while their GC is stuck. Thus legals are completely on their own and they have no power or so whatsoever in this whole debate - at least for now.

The CIR is the ONLY chance for legals. They need to come to terms with this HARD TRUTH.


Let them get whatever they deserve, but unlinked and in that way both will get right attention.
The house bill might be heading in the same direction of piecemeal solutions which might really succede if senate accepts it

[rupen86]

House Judiciary Committee has now informed that they will be marking up the Legal Workforce Act (E-Verify) and SKILLS Visa Act on Wednesday and Thursday.

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Markups%202013/mark_06262013.html

We are so caught up discussing the illegal immigration aspects of the Bill and are forgetting how far apart the two chambers are in terms of reforming the legal immigration aspects.The House position is net Green Card Neutral and the massive expansion of LEGAL Immigration will in itself be a tough lift in the House. We already have some marker Bills in the House for the AG workforce and high-skills immigration and they are far from the Senate viewpoint. Visa recapture/dependent exemptions/unlimited masters exemption are not on the House Bills and I see no reason for them to give up any ground on this.The only positive common aspect is overall although numerically limited increase of EB GCs/elimination of country cap and an increase in STEM visas of 55000 at the expense of the Diversity visa and 25000 visas for spouses and dependents.

If it comes to conference it will be interesting to see how this plays out although that may not be till Thanksgiving

I agree. That is where our focus should be. I am very concerned about this bill. If this bill is passed and in the conference committee, senate provisions are not included, we would be in worse situation than we are today. On one hand, it would have increased H1b, and on other hand, there won't be significant increase in green cards.

[idiotic]

bvsamrat - the dynamic is such that legal immigrants have no chips whatsoever. The illegals have only one chip which is the latino vote bank and that's a quite powerful chip.

If you think legals have one chip with tech industry - you couldn't be more mistaken. The tech industry only employs a handful of all the H1s. Plus those that it employs - is able to exploit them while their GC is stuck. Thus legals are completely on their own and they have no power or so whatsoever in this whole debate - at least for now.

The CIR is the ONLY chance for legals. They need to come to terms with this HARD TRUTH.

I think you mentioned it in your previous post. Just adding for more clarity.



p.s. - Another practical thing not to be forgotten is that EB reform is happening on the back of CIR - not vice versa. So speaking against "illegals" is - using my favorite metaphor - is worse than "Peir pe kulhadi" and amounts to "Kulhadi pe peir".

[qesehmk]

To Q

Can you please elaborate further?
gs - my understanding is that the dems threw in legal immigration expansion as a bone to GOP. Now if GOP fails to pick up that bone by saying the legal expansion itself needs to be visa neutral then dems have thrown a wrong bone and eventually they will have no bone left for GOP on this topic (as far as house is concerned.). And at that point senate's wish doesn't matter thus sealing the fate of the bill.

As per Boehner - although he is speaker, he can and should round up his guys in the house. But he has consistently failed at it. Latest example being the farm bill.

Mitch McConnell on the other hand is the chief architect of opposition to all-things-obama. If you remember he is the one who infamously said that his GOPs biggest agenda would be to prevent this president from getting a second term. And although he failed at that- he has granted obama little to none success on the legislative side. Obama - other than health care - has been utterly unable to achieve any significant legislative victory in the house. Latest there was failure of a gun legislation. So the only arrow obama has left in his sack is CIR. If McConnell make him fail in CIR -- obama then loses all the momentum since this will be a second big blow to him this year. There really aren't any other issues left that are as impactful. IMHO rebuilding of infrastructure is one that Obama gave up very easily. Anyway .. but that's why McConnell is the key here.

Makes sense? What do you think?

[idiotic]

Another dubious argument for number of pages in senate CIR bill (1200+) is too long, another obamacare, etc, etc..
I would like to see how many pages all piecemeal legislation adds up to (which will add be added up into one omnibus bill -- house version of CIR).. so far page count is (173+53+61+101) without even touching many topics which senate bill comprehensively covers

[gcq]

Another dubious argument for number of pages in senate CIR bill (1200+) is too long, another obamacare, etc, etc..
I would like to see how many pages all piecemeal legislation adds up to (which will add be added up into one omnibus bill -- house version of CIR).. so far page count is (173+53+61+101) without even touching many topics which senate bill comprehensively covers
If they cannot read and comprehend a large bill, they should not be lawmakers to begin with !

[idiotic]

If they cannot read and comprehend a large bill, they should not be lawmakers to begin with ! It is all political excuses.

They are circulating an argument that amendment was 1200 pages long (where as it it is around 190 pages of correction to underlying bill) and 75 hours is not sufficient to read it.

Republican senator sponsoring the bill rebuffed Mr.Sessions that "high school student in tenessee can read triple spaced 1200 pages in 45 minutes and you are an experienced attorney keep complaining 75 hours is not sufficient to read this" :)

Even moderate republicans cannot stand this nonsense and beating around the bush.

[bvsamrat]

Q- I disagree on one point - I never counted on Tech Industry supporting legals as the tech industry is interested in only H1B or temporary nonimmigrant workers and nothing else
Any legal here is here due to his skills and expertise only and nothing else.

But due to overcrowding, we are in heavy back-logged situation which some never anticipated. That I agree.

Despite knowing the fact that it would take decades, they are many EB3-applicants even at this moment who might think that it is still better than their home country with or without CIR.
Future GC applicants will continue irrespective of CIR, but quality of immigrants would decline without CIR as it would attract people who are willing to wait for a lifetime to get allusive GC.

This had been the crux of all my past and present posts. How to acquire best of the talents?

The policy set by law makers should be transparent to future applicants and not as dark as of now.

The set of rules should be framed by the policy makers and not tech Industry and I am afraid it would get diluted by sympathy and compassion shown to illegals, which do doubt they deserve, but separately.

So far merit based system and all other suggestions looked very good, but DEM's determination to hold these at ransom against illegal's pathway appears to be the stumbling block at the cost of CIR.

Only time will tell what might happen. But life will go on and GC - Q will keep on increasing.



bvsamrat - the dynamic is such that legal immigrants have no chips whatsoever. The illegals have only one chip which is the latino vote bank and that's a quite powerful chip.

If you think legals have one chip with tech industry - you couldn't be more mistaken. The tech industry only employs a handful of all the H1s. Plus those that it employs - is able to exploit them while their GC is stuck. Thus legals are completely on their own and they have no power or so whatsoever in this whole debate - at least for now.

The CIR is the ONLY chance for legals. They need to come to terms with this HARD TRUTH.

[qesehmk]

bvsamrat, thanks. I only meant if at all you thought Tech industry was savior for the legal ones - then that was not valid. So I guess we r on the same page there.

Agree about merit based system's virtues. It is a shame that the immigration system is based on geopolitics and wrong ideas about what constitutes diversity (i.e. 7% country quota) rather than the merit of the immigrant.

However, I wouldn't say that dems are opposed to merit based system. I think legals are not important enough for them and so it is not a priority for them. This is just as much true a statement about GOP as well as Tech industry. So if anybody is villain here then its all of the above.


Q- I disagree on one point - I never counted on Tech Industry supporting legals ..So far merit based system and all other suggestions looked very good, but DEM's determination to hold these at ransom against illegal's pathway appears to be the stumbling block at the cost of CIR.

[axecapone]

bvsamrat - the dynamic is such that legal immigrants have no chips whatsoever. The illegals have only one chip which is the latino vote bank and that's a quite powerful chip.

If you think legals have one chip with tech industry - you couldn't be more mistaken. The tech industry only employs a handful of all the H1s. Plus those that it employs - is able to exploit them while their GC is stuck. Thus legals are completely on their own and they have no power or so whatsoever in this whole debate - at least for now.

The CIR is the ONLY chance for legals. They need to come to terms with this HARD TRUTH.

I do not agree with you here. Vote bank is not the only chip. We need to think out of the box: Something revolutionary. Think about it: Many legals here are very influential people making a difference in our society. Many are doctors, engineers, lawyers and PhD's making life saving drugs, next generation xbox consoles, re architecting facebook, google and twitter, exploring alternative energy etc etc.. To say that we are powerless sounds so ludicrous.

Yes I agree we don't have vote bank power but we can still make a difference. As of today, our voices are not even heard. Its like we don't exist because we never took the time and effort to show them we exist and we make a difference. We need to change that.

[idiotic]

Its like we don't exist because we never took the time and effort to show them we exist and we make a difference.

Just change the "time and effort" to "money".

[qesehmk]

axe - Don't disagree. Just that somehow that power today is latent at best. Washington doesn't feel it. Doesnt mean can't be seen tomorrow. Just that today it doesn't manifest itself.
I do not agree with you here. Vote bank is not the only chip. We need to think out of the box: Something revolutionary. Think about it: Many legals here are very influential people making a difference in our society. Many are doctors, engineers, lawyers and PhD's making life saving drugs, next generation xbox consoles, re architecting facebook, google and twitter, exploring alternative energy etc etc.. To say that we are powerless sounds so ludicrous.

Yes I agree we don't have vote bank power but we can still make a difference. As of today, our voices are not even heard. Its like we don't exist because we never took the time and effort to show them we exist and we make a difference. We need to change that.

[vizcard]

So looks the Corker-Hoeven amendment passed cloture and will be voted on tomorrow. It got atleast 66 yes votes..voting still in progress. Some say this vote will be a reflection of the final vote.

[idiotic]

Rep Yes Votes -- Ayotte, Chiesa, Collins, Corker, Flake, Graham, Hatch, Heller, Hoeven, Kirk, McCain, Murkowski, Rubio, Wicker.

[idiotic]

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-24-2013/13-senators-come-out-against-corker-hoeven-amnesty-amendment.html

Buying more time to threaten republican yes sayers to get them to change the final vote.. Last attempt..

Looks like Reid has set 1PM tommorow as deadline for filing all amendments. There may be more votes "to table them", I guess and then cloture.

Activits are mobiling based their members based on Jan27 as voting day. I think that will not be disturbed. Let's see..

[seattlet]

Few tech companies favor giving green cards versus few who do not

a) Google, Facebook, Amazon, Ebay , Microsoft are examples of organizations who favor giving green cards sooner. The primary reason being they are unable to get H1 B's for the creme of the crop irrespective of how much they salary they pay. (the consulting companies with 50 to 60K base pay takes away those H1's)

b) Niche Consulting Companies based in US (not just IT consulting) favor giving green cards for the same reason as above. Right now, even to hire an Hardvard MBA out of school, you will need H1 B which is cap limited and scorged by the low level consulting companies


The ones below do not want any techies to ever get a green card, since it helps their business to keep modern day slavery alive (they will sponsor for few just for name sake)
Luckily for us, these organizations are not good at lobbying (That will quickly change since they have a lot of money and dont know what to do with it)

a) Indian IT headweights like TCS and others ( garangutan list) . They love L1's. I have a feeling that they are bankrolling Grassley (just a joke)
b) small time body shopping consulting firms (Desi / American doesnt matter. After getting green card, 99 % of their employees will not stick to them).
c) Few US consulting organizations like Accenture , IBM etc (their policy for filing green cards have got strict by each year, plus all travel related PERMS get into an audit mostly). Their average employee retention is 13 to 24 months and hence it does not make sense for them to sponsor Green cards. The employees who stay longer at these firms are the H1 B's.


As Q mentioned earlier, looks like CIR is the best hope for all Immigrants. As days go by, even if the economy tanks slightly, they will put the cat back in the bag.

[vizcard]

Activits are mobiling based their members based on Jan27 as voting day.

Translation - "Activists are mobilizing their members based on June 27 as voting day"

[idiotic]

Frank Sharry, a leading immigration reform advocate, describes congressional Republicans’ views on the legislation as divided between “yes,” “no,” and “vote no, pray yes.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2013/06/mcconnell-debates-pundit-not-immigration

We have to thank Minority Leader for letting his group move forward in spite of an election year for himself in the interest of the party. Also, there are reports he already raised enough money for his own reelection later this year but nevertheless he faces some tough questions in his own primary. Thank you Mitch McConnell.

[erikbond101]

Senator Warren amendment #1532 may also get discussed tomorrow. Not sure if it will pass.

Requiring employers to sharing green card, H1 & L1 visa paperwork and approvals with employees – This will help prevent abuses in the system as immigrant employees will not be beholden to the employer.
Fix for removal of per country effective date
Clarify job mobility for immigrants after filing adjustment of status - This will allow some job mobility to free up skilled immigrant labor force
Fix for STEM definition to include backlogged applicants, increasing from current limit of 5 years in the bill to 10 years. This will allow backlogged STEM applicants not to be left out. It is being discussed in Immigration Voice.

[rupen86]

Senator Warren amendment #1532 may also get discussed tomorrow. Not sure if it will pass.

Requiring employers to sharing green card, H1 & L1 visa paperwork and approvals with employees – This will help prevent abuses in the system as immigrant employees will not be beholden to the employer.
Fix for removal of per country effective date
Clarify job mobility for immigrants after filing adjustment of status - This will allow some job mobility to free up skilled immigrant labor force
Fix for STEM definition to include backlogged applicants, increasing from current limit of 5 years in the bill to 10 years. This will allow backlogged STEM applicants not to be left out. It is being discussed in Immigration Voice.

If it is discussed, it has good chances of being passed. There is hardly any controversial item in this. We should call our senators and ask for the support for this amendment.

[vizcard]

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will vote yes on S.744

[kuku82]

Of the 6 senators who didn't vote yesterday, 2 are democrats (Sherrod Brown and Tom Udall) - seems they could not vote 'coz their flights were delayed. The 2 republicans who have appeared neutral but lean towards supporting the overall measure are both GA senators (Chambliss and Isakson). In theory the overall yeas' could be 71. Worse case 69.

[bvsamrat]

Today morning on CBC, Paul Ryan sounded optimistic on CIR.
I guess the Republicans started smelling victory at next election by allowing CIR on their own terms and to get credit if passes through.
There is no better time for REPs added with prospect of Hillary running in 2016 and now getting credit for CIR and not being a stumbling block.
But an easy CIR will marginalize DEM's advantage with Latinos and they would fight tooth and nail not to let this happen.
I see the conflict points would be- pathway to citizenship and medical eligibility - But if CIR fails just for these reasons, I am sure DEM's will get the boot.
I am sure Latino lobby must be passing on their view to DEMs(and REPs) - Now or never, get whatever you can, but getting empty handed is not an option. Favorite Mahamood's line- ""Kameez nahi tho colar sahi”

[gs1968]

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will vote yes on S.744

An erstwhile Senator said this of Sen.Hatch

"Don't count your Hatches before they chicken"

[gs1968]

Of the 6 senators who didn't vote yesterday, 2 are democrats (Sherrod Brown and Tom Udall) - seems they could not vote 'coz their flights were delayed. The 2 republicans who have appeared neutral but lean towards supporting the overall measure are both GA senators (Chambliss and Isakson). In theory the overall yeas' could be 71. Worse case 69.

The overall yes votes is probably closer to 68 as the article below suggests. Personally I think it does not matter as the vote count was overwhelmingly Democratic and only a minority of the Republicans voted yes. Also none of the Senior Republican leadership voted yes. A lot of the Republican votes were obtained using earmarks which will most likely be stripped out during conference (if it gets that far) owing to the earmark ban in the House.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/morning-examiner-38-billion-fails-to-buy-70-votes-for-amensty/article/2532349?custom_click=rss

[qesehmk]

If he indeed said yes - he won't chicken out.
An erstwhile Senator said this of Sen.Hatch

"Don't count your Hatches before they chicken"

[idiotic]

http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/immigration-cartoons

Hope you enjoy the 71 new ones which are also thoughtful..

[vizcard]

If he indeed said yes - he won't chicken out.

http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=56505579

Salt Lake Tribune article from today. The link opens up a "Print" dialog box but you can just cancel out of that to read the article.

[gs1968]

http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=56505579

Salt Lake Tribune article from today. The link opens up a "Print" dialog box but you can just cancel out of that to read the article.

To Q and Viz
I am sure he will vote yes.I was reminded of that joke from years ago.I think it was Sen.Phil Gramm from TX who said that

[qesehmk]

That was a good one!

To Q and Viz
I am sure he will vote yes.I was reminded of that joke from years ago.I think it was Sen.Phil Gramm from TX who said that

[erikbond101]

In my opinion bill should pass and legalize all 11 million un-documented (illiegals). But Senate/House should also add provision that after date of passing all new illegals should be criminalized and prosecuted. Border Security etc is all bull-s***. What are they going to do with new illegals after 4-5 years of passing this bill?

[idiotic]

What are they going to do with new illegals after 4-5 years of passing this bill?

With E-Verify being the law of the land at that time, both employer and immigrant will be punished.

[vizcard]

With E-Verify being the law of the land at that time, both employer and immigrant will be punished.

except for pedro the day worker who gets paid in cash for services rendered

[idiotic]

except for pedro the day worker who gets paid in cash for services rendered

It's tough for someone to live in USA only on cash income. Tea party's logic "Self Deportation" :)

[gs1968]

Of the 6 senators who didn't vote yesterday, 2 are democrats (Sherrod Brown and Tom Udall) - seems they could not vote 'coz their flights were delayed. The 2 republicans who have appeared neutral but lean towards supporting the overall measure are both GA senators (Chambliss and Isakson). In theory the overall yeas' could be 71. Worse case 69.

The vote count may go higher according to this Conservative source

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351966/gang-eight-looks-buy-votes-amendments-andrew-stiles?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I missed this article earlier and there might be more piecemeal Bills to come

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/house-gop-makes-aggressive-opening-bid-on-immigration-20130618?mrefid=site_search

There will also be an as-yet undefined bill to “address the millions of individuals currently living unlawfully in the U.S.,” Goodlatte said. No word yet on how that dicey trick is accomplished.

[geterdone]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/307693-mcconnell-hopes-senate-house-can-strike-immigration-deal


gs - my understanding is that the dems threw in legal immigration expansion as a bone to GOP. Now if GOP fails to pick up that bone by saying the legal expansion itself needs to be visa neutral then dems have thrown a wrong bone and eventually they will have no bone left for GOP on this topic (as far as house is concerned.). And at that point senate's wish doesn't matter thus sealing the fate of the bill.

As per Boehner - although he is speaker, he can and should round up his guys in the house. But he has consistently failed at it. Latest example being the farm bill.

Mitch McConnell on the other hand is the chief architect of opposition to all-things-obama. If you remember he is the one who infamously said that his GOPs biggest agenda would be to prevent this president from getting a second term. And although he failed at that- he has granted obama little to none success on the legislative side. Obama - other than health care - has been utterly unable to achieve any significant legislative victory in the house. Latest there was failure of a gun legislation. So the only arrow obama has left in his sack is CIR. If McConnell make him fail in CIR -- obama then loses all the momentum since this will be a second big blow to him this year. There really aren't any other issues left that are as impactful. IMHO rebuilding of infrastructure is one that Obama gave up very easily. Anyway .. but that's why McConnell is the key here.

Makes sense? What do you think?

[gs1968]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/307693-mcconnell-hopes-senate-house-can-strike-immigration-deal
To Q & geterdone

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/23/congress-crowdsourcing-new-high-skilled-immigration-bill-contribute-here/

I always thought that the dramatic increase in legal immigration in the Senate Bill was to clear the backlog so the undocumented aliens could start the legalization process ( the so-called "back of the line"). Nothing that the House has said or done recently seems to suggest that they are either willing or ready to accept a 50-75% increase in annual legal immigration. For example during the STEM debate last fall-Rep.Smith & co had offered that the spouses and children could join the primary GC holder in the US on V visas but there was no exemption or increase in GCs for them

[qesehmk]

Did you notice this effort is by Darrel Issa?

p.s. - The same one whom Holder had given an earful ;)

I do think that a dramatic increase is difficult at this time.


To Q & geterdone

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/23/congress-crowdsourcing-new-high-skilled-immigration-bill-contribute-here/

I always thought that the dramatic increase in legal immigration in the Senate Bill was to clear the backlog so the undocumented aliens could start the legalization process ( the so-called "back of the line"). Nothing that the House has said or done recently seems to suggest that they are either willing or ready to accept a 50-75% increase in annual legal immigration. For example during the STEM debate last fall-Rep.Smith & co had offered that the spouses and children could join the primary GC holder in the US on V visas but there was no exemption or increase in GCs for them

[Spectator]

Did you notice this effort is by Darrel Issa?

p.s. - The same one whom Holder had given an earful ;)

I do think that a dramatic increase is difficult at this time.Q,

Have you read the SKILLS Bill?

Frankly, the status quo is better than the end result from this Bill.

EB visas on a like-for like basis are increased from 140k to 170k. EB2 and EB3 only receive an increase of 15k each initially (not much more than a third increase). EB1, EB4 and EB5 are left unchanged.

There are an additional 55k for US STEM PhD first then US STEM Masters and 10k for a newly created Entrepreneur Category.

235k in total, but the useful increase is only 85k and only a 30k increase for those who do not have a US Education from a fairly restrictive list of institutions.

At the same time, the Bill increases the H1B limit from 65k + 20k = 85k to 155k + 40k = 195k. That's an increase of 130% for H1B versus an increase of 60% in EB Immigrant visas.

With no exemptions from numerical limitations for anybody and no visa recapture, after a very short term benefit to existing applicants, the backlogs would actually become larger and overall retrogression would be worse.

The Bill eliminates a total of 120k immigrant visas from the Diversity program (55k) and FB4 (65k). It then gives 95k to EB (of which 65k are for new Categories). The remaining 25k are used to increase the F2A allocation.

As I said, I would rather have nothing than the contents of this Bill. It's all about no extra Immigrants overall and increased numbers of Non-immigrants. It does absolutely nothing to fix the underlying problems with the Immigration system.

I have to wonder whether Darrell Issa has a AAA rating with NumbersUSA and FAIR. It sure sounds like it.

[qesehmk]

Spec

AAA from numbersusa - totally agree. In I was talking to the Bill's futility when I made quite an oblique reference to Holder giving earful to Issa.

Check this out .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4dEOfef-R8 - 7:56 onwards is fun part.

Sorry I guess the reference was too oblique.


I have to wonder whether Darrell Issa has a AAA rating with NumbersUSA and FAIR. It sure sounds like it.

[rupen86]

Few tech companies favor giving green cards versus few who do not

a) Google, Facebook, Amazon, Ebay , Microsoft are examples of organizations who favor giving green cards sooner. The primary reason being they are unable to get H1 B's for the creme of the crop irrespective of how much they salary they pay. (the consulting companies with 50 to 60K base pay takes away those H1's)

b) Niche Consulting Companies based in US (not just IT consulting) favor giving green cards for the same reason as above. Right now, even to hire an Hardvard MBA out of school, you will need H1 B which is cap limited and scorged by the low level consulting companies


The ones below do not want any techies to ever get a green card, since it helps their business to keep modern day slavery alive (they will sponsor for few just for name sake)
Luckily for us, these organizations are not good at lobbying (That will quickly change since they have a lot of money and dont know what to do with it)

a) Indian IT headweights like TCS and others ( garangutan list) . They love L1's. I have a feeling that they are bankrolling Grassley (just a joke)
b) small time body shopping consulting firms (Desi / American doesnt matter. After getting green card, 99 % of their employees will not stick to them).
c) Few US consulting organizations like Accenture , IBM etc (their policy for filing green cards have got strict by each year, plus all travel related PERMS get into an audit mostly). Their average employee retention is 13 to 24 months and hence it does not make sense for them to sponsor Green cards. The employees who stay longer at these firms are the H1 B's.


As Q mentioned earlier, looks like CIR is the best hope for all Immigrants. As days go by, even if the economy tanks slightly, they will put the cat back in the bag.

While CIR is the hope, it depends what it contains. Senate has good provisions for green card. House bill almost does not have anything for that and it has more H1Bs. So in the final bill, if senate provisions are removed, we won't get anything significant that we are hoping for.

[Spectator]

Spec

AAA from numbersusa - totally agree. In I was talking to the Bill's futility when I made quite an oblique reference to Holder giving earful to Issa.

Check this out .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4dEOfef-R8 - 7:56 onwards is fun part.

Sorry I guess the reference was too oblique.Q,

I was so off base, it is actually quite funny.

Thanks for putting me straight.

Edit:- I've seen the clip now - absolutely brilliant!!

[gs1968]

To Spec/Q/rupen

The markup of these Bills is today and I am sure Rep.Lofgren will introduce an amendment for visa recapture.During the HR 3012 mark-up that was shot down as non-germane.Hopefully the mark-up process will improve the Bill.There is however country-cap elimination which will relieve a lot of backlog

[vizcard]

To Spec/Q/rupen

The markup of these Bills is today and I am sure Rep.Lofgren will introduce an amendment for visa recapture.During the HR 3012 mark-up that was shot down as non-germane.Hopefully the mark-up process will improve the Bill.There is however country-cap elimination which will relieve a lot of backlog

I thought visa recapture was already there. It was the use of it that was a little weird - something like only available in the 2nd year onwards.

Maybe I'm imagining things.

[gs1968]

To viz
We will allow Spec to have the final word on this since I assume he must have made a more thorough analysis. My reading of the text of the SKILLS Act shows no sections or wording indicating visa recapture. Rep.Issa had introduced earlier in the year a more narrow Bill called the STEM Visa Act of 2013 (HR 459) which allowed for some rollover of the STEM visas to subsequent years going forward from 2014 if they were not all used up in a single fiscal year. But I did not see these features incorporated into the SKILLS Act.

[gs1968]

Just got this tweet
"In closed door mtg, Boehner just told Rs the House will not bring up the Senate immigration bill"

[vizcard]

To viz
We will allow Spec to have the final word on this since I assume he must have made a more thorough analysis. My reading of the text of the SKILLS Act shows no sections or wording indicating visa recapture. Rep.Issa had introduced earlier in the year a more narrow Bill called the STEM Visa Act of 2013 (HR 459) which allowed for some rollover of the STEM visas to subsequent years going forward from 2014 if they were not all used up in a single fiscal year. But I did not see these features incorporated into the SKILLS Act.

I was mistaken..i was referring to S744 CIR bill.

[vizcard]

Cloture vote on S744 passed (67-31) ... set up for final vote tomorrow or Friday after additional amendments are discussed. All GOP leaders in the Senate voted "No".

Border surge amendment - Leahy 1183 as modified by Corker-Hoeven passes (69-29) !!! this is considered to be an indicator of the final vote.

Budgetary point of order was also defeated (68-30).

[psychedelicNerd]

https://mobile.twitter.com/j_strong/status/349888953635180544

Jonathan Strong:
In closed door mtg, Boehner just told Rs the House will not bring up the Senate immigration bill

[gs1968]

Couple of news items of note today

Rep.Lamar Smith's e-verify Bill passed with overwhelming support in the HJC (22-9)
This is an area of Immigration where the House and Senate are fairly close to each other with some differences in timing of implementation and can be reconciled in conference

http://lamarsmith.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=340687

Further amendments on the Senate Bill are unlikely and Sen Reid may just pass the Bill as it is tomorrow or Friday.The final tally looks to be 68-32

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/352138/senators-spar-over-immigration-amendments-andrew-stiles?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It is disappointing that in the end none of the Senate Republican leadership agreed in favor of the Bill

[vizcard]

https://mobile.twitter.com/j_strong/status/349888953635180544

Jonathan Strong:
In closed door mtg, Boehner just told Rs the House will not bring up the Senate immigration bill

Not surprising. JB has always said "the House will impose its will" ... I don't have a lot of faith in him to do the right thing. Now with the Senate GOP leadership not voting for CIR bill, hes got some back up as well.

[gten20]

Will Paul Ryan be able to help CIR in the House?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-immigration-ryan-idUSBRE95P18020130626

[idiotic]

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44372

Flash CBO report on border surge amendment. Final revised CBO report is available bill would have already passed senate. Nevertheless will be used in Conference.

[vizcard]

Will Paul Ryan be able to help CIR in the House?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-immigration-ryan-idUSBRE95P18020130626

I hope so. With so many nut jobs in the House GOP, we need a credible conservative to support it and be a champion... Especially since he seems to be on board with the senate version too.

[Jonty Rhodes]

GOP leadership especially in the House should be worried about use of Executive Fiat by the President, especially in the 2nd term as he won't have to face the voters again. Because if CIR does not pass, we will see Executive Orders coming out of White House on Immigration, like DACA last year.

Here is the video of Ed Gillespie, Republican political strategist, senior adviser to Mitt Romney in 2012 during his Presidential Campaign, former Counselor in White House to the President George W. Bush and former Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), talking about CIR on CNBC. Sounds like a sensible voice among the nutcases.


http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000178275

[gs1968]

High Skills visa debate today during HJC Markup

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/308063-overnight-tech

Lofgren said she hasn't ruled out voting "yes" for the bill, but noted it would have to incorporate a series of changes in order to win her support.

Might be visa recapture she is talking about. Her amendments would give us a glimpse of what the House Group Bill will contain as she is part of it (if they ever release a Bill)

[idiotic]

I hope so. With so many nut jobs in the House GOP, we need a credible conservative to support it and be a champion... Especially since he seems to be on board with the senate version too.

I saw his interview on Fox News yesterday with Sean Hannity. It is clear he is the "Rubio" equivalent in house to rally enough republicans support there. Anti immigrants in house will never agree to anything just like their senate equivalents. His job will be to gather enough critical republican mass for the bill to pass. Obviously for that to happen the bill will take more right turns.

They will project it as a seperate independent bill(s) originating from house but in substance it will be senate bill with all the right turns (like requiring congress to certify border security, etc).

Can't help to think that this is party stratergy as a whole to let the "likely" "2016 presidential nominees" as front end for CIR.

[coolvibe]

Guru's,

Can you clarify on my question. Everywhere in news I see CIR for illegal immigrants. At this stage is there any room that benefits legal immigrants who are waiting in queue with EB2 and EB3? Can you please clarify how the CIR stands as of now for legal immigrants. Sorry if this is a repeat question in the forum.

[axecapone]

Guru's,

Can you clarify on my question. Everywhere in news I see CIR for illegal immigrants. At this stage is there any room that benefits legal immigrants who are waiting in queue with EB2 and EB3? Can you please clarify how the CIR stands as of now for legal immigrants. Sorry if this is a repeat question in the forum.

Yes ofcourse. I am sure almost all of them posting on this thread are very much concerned about the legal part in the CIR. To summarize, if the bill becomes a law AS IS, EB2 will become current almost instantaneously! EB3 will move at a ridiculously fast pace. Basically, if the bill becomes a law, just step outside and you will see a lot of smiling and happy faces on the streets. I am sure I wont stop smiling till I have a jaw pain.

[idiotic]

Final vote is anytime now.. please call your senators through this link.. less than 2 minutes..

http://www.fwd.us/landing_doa_live?splash=1

[redsox2009]

Final Voting is going on, I can hear more Yay's. Hope it will pass in house too in near future.

[qesehmk]

McConnell voted -ve.

CIR has passed senate by 68-32.

[SaibabaAug2010]

As everyone expected, Senate Immigration reform bill was passed by 68-32. The real battle starts now. I really hope we will see some light at the end of this year.

THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR ALL YOUR WORK.

[axecapone]

McConnell voted -ve.

CIR has passed senate by 68-32.

Final vote: 68-32

[kd2008]

Final vote: 68-32

Everybody, please call your house rep and start bothering them till they submit. If your house rep supports this bill, then go after those that are not in your state neighboring state etc.

[druvraj]

Everybody, please call your house rep and start bothering them till they submit. If your house rep supports this bill, then go after those that are not in your state neighboring state etc.

I agree nothing wrong in trying. I am going to do it myself. I am just hoping some cooler heads prevail and house is able to pass this. 68-32 is blow in my opinion.

[qesehmk]

It might be worthwhile if someone creates a thread with a list that clearly identifies position of each congressman as Yes No and Undermined. And then as days go by the original author or the moderators can update the header with any changes in position.

Is there somebody who already has such a list handy? Or at least a list of all congressman. Please create a thread with such list and then lets start noting down their positions.

[axecapone]

It might be worthwhile if someone creates a thread with a list that clearly identifies position of each congressman as Yes No and Undermined. And then as days go by the original author or the moderators can update the header with any changes in position.

Is there somebody who already has such a list handy? Or at least a list of all congressman. Please create a thread with such list and then lets start noting down their positions.

Brilliant idea!! I will do my best and start calling congressmen as well.

[self.coach]

It might be worthwhile if someone creates a thread with a list that clearly identifies position of each congressman as Yes No and Undermined. And then as days go by the original author or the moderators can update the header with any changes in position.

Is there somebody who already has such a list handy? Or at least a list of all congressman. Please create a thread with such list and then lets start noting down their positions.

The list of senators who voted is here: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/06/politics/senate-immigration-bill-votes/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[geterdone]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-reform-bill-2013-jerry-moran-vote-93533.html?hp=t3_3


The list of senators who voted is here: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/06/politics/senate-immigration-bill-votes/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[erikbond101]

Let's talk about house members and their inclination toward vote.......Senate is history now...

[qesehmk]

Senate vote is passe now. We need to work on the congressmen in the house and identify their individual positions on the bill.

And then work only on those who are undetermined. That is the most effective way of pushing this through house.

[gcq]

It might be worthwhile if someone creates a thread with a list that clearly identifies position of each congressman as Yes No and Undermined. And then as days go by the original author or the moderators can update the header with any changes in position.

Is there somebody who already has such a list handy? Or at least a list of all congressman. Please create a thread with such list and then lets start noting down their positions.

Posting the position of a congressman will act against our interests. When anti-immigrant groups come to know about a congressman's position, they will focus on that congressman to change his view. All the advocacy should be done in the background and official positions should not be revealed. This is a lesson learned by ** in their earlier days. During one of the earlier campaigns, people and ** leaders used to post the stand of a lawmaker. Anti-immigrant groups would focus selectively on congressmen who support our cause and flood their offices with calls. Let us not repeat that mistake.

[qesehmk]

GCQ - I disagree respectfully. The positions of congressmen are already public. Making it further public to this group which is vehemently pro-immigration would only help.

Not publishing to this group and harnessing people's energy is a losing strategy.

Posting the position of a congressman will act against our interests. When anti-immigrant groups come to know about a congressman's position, they will focus on that congressman to change his view. All the advocacy should be done in the background and official positions should not be revealed. This is a lesson learned by ** in their earlier days. During one of the earlier campaigns, people and ** leaders used to post the stand of a lawmaker. Anti-immigrant groups would focus selectively on congressmen who support our cause and flood their offices with calls. Let us not repeat that mistake.

[coolvibe]

Guru's,
What is the probability of passing CIR in House? What are the other roadblocks?

[gs1968]

House Judiciary Committee passed the SKILLS Act today (20-14). There were some technical corrections made but no significant change to underlying structure of Bill. Unfortunately Rep.Lofgren never proposed any significant EB legislation and specifically no alteration to spousal exemption or visa recapture

There is always talk of bipartisan approach in the House but a look at the final clerk record makes it hard to believe it can ever happen in the House

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Markups%202013/mark_06262013/HR%202131/Votes/062713%20RC5%20Final%20Passage%20HR2131.pdf

As I mentioned a few pages ago that in the middle of all the talk about illegal immigration,we should always keep in mind how far apart the 2 chambers are regarding legal immigration also

[rupen86]

House Judiciary Committee passed the SKILLS Act today (20-14). There were some technical corrections made but no significant change to underlying structure of Bill. Unfortunately Rep.Lofgren never proposed any significant EB legislation and specifically no alteration to spousal exemption or visa recapture

There is always talk of bipartisan approach in the House but a look at the final clerk record makes it hard to believe it can ever happen in the House

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Markups%202013/mark_06262013/HR%202131/Votes/062713%20RC5%20Final%20Passage%20HR2131.pdf

As I mentioned a few pages ago that in the middle of all the talk about illegal immigration,we should always keep in mind how far apart the 2 chambers are regarding legal immigration also

If people are planning to call house members, they should be clear in what they are supporting and opposing. Senate bill was worthy of supporting but this bill is not. It is tripling the number of H1bs without any significant increase in EB green cards. It has per country elimination but that will only help to some extent. Overall, this bill is going to increase the backlog rather than reducing. We should oppose this bill and talk about the provisions that are there in the senate but missing here.

[redsox2009]

I think house democrats can use option three as listed here in Washington post. This option give democrats power to get the bill to floor by passing committees and
house floor leader, but it might become ugly fight.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/27/immigration-reform-has-passed-the-senate-heres-how-it-passes-the-house/

[JosephM]

hope CIR will not be a KLPD in the house..

[qesehmk]

Quite an interesting read from huffington post. If McConnell is already explaining and trying to distance from his former aides/colleagues who are today supporting CIR; nothing could be a better sign for the future of this bill in House than that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/gop-immigration-reform_n_3496219.html

p.s. - Same with John Boehner. Somebody yesterday posted tweets from him saying he said in a "closed door" meeting that he won't let it come to the floor. That a perfect SYA tactic when a politician knows he couldn't stop something from taking place.

[erikbond101]

We also need to remember what happened in 1986. Senate has passed the immigration reform bill in Sep 1985 but House took one year and passed it on Oct 1986.

[kuku82]

am energized for the weekend after reading this

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/us/politics/immigration-advocates-lay-plans-to-sway-house.html?pagewanted=all

[whateverGC]

How can u be energized when the senate bill is not going to be taken up in the house and
we are starting from scratch in the house and god knows when?


am energized for the weekend after reading this

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/us/politics/immigration-advocates-lay-plans-to-sway-house.html?pagewanted=all

[kuku82]

partly because of this

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/28/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE95R14T20130628


How can u be energized when the senate bill is not going to be taken up in the house and
we are starting from scratch in the house and god knows when?

[rupen86]

partly because of this

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/28/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE95R14T20130628

There is real danger in the house. First is what the house passes and second is what will happen in the conference committee. If house passes piece-meal bills like SAFE and SKILL and tries to go to conference with the senate, there is real danger that senate provisions related to high skill immigrants will be dropped in exchange for path to citizenship. Our objective should be to meet our district representatives and ask for the support of the senate provisions like Visa Recapture, exemption for dependents, STEM which are missing and get them included in the house bill. If those provisions are included in the house bill, during conference time, they won't have to be sacrificed in favor of other things.

[gcq]

There is real danger in the house. First is what the house passes and second is what will happen in the conference committee. If house passes piece-meal bills like SAFE and SKILL and tries to go to conference with the senate, there is real danger that senate provisions related to high skill immigrants will be dropped in exchange for path to citizenship. Our objective should be to meet our district representatives and ask for the support of the senate provisions like Visa Recapture, exemption for dependents, STEM which are missing and get them included in the house bill. If those provisions are included in the house bill, during conference time, they won't have to be sacrificed in favor of other things.

Why would senate agree to reconcile house bill if it is not much similar to Senate bill ? Reconciliation process comes into play only when there is only small differences between house and senate bills. House bill in its current form is not a candidate for reconciliation. On the other hand if house is not even friendly to business(high skilled) immigration, how will they ever be friendly to illegal immigration. GOP is friendly to high skilled immigration whereas democrats are for illegal immigration.

IMO what house is doing now is somehow trying to stall senate bill in its current form. Democrats are in no way going to allow that. If house is not going to come up with a bill close to senate bill or allow senate bill for voting, CIR is dead.

[rupen86]

Why would senate agree to reconcile house bill if it is not much similar to Senate bill ? Reconciliation process comes into play only when there is only small differences between house and senate bills. House bill in its current form is not a candidate for reconciliation. On the other hand if house is not even friendly to business(high skilled) immigration, how will they ever be friendly to illegal immigration. GOP is friendly to high skilled immigration whereas democrats are for illegal immigration.

IMO what house is doing now is somehow trying to stall senate bill in its current form. Democrats are in no way going to allow that. If house is not going to come up with a bill close to senate bill or allow senate bill for voting, CIR is dead.


It does not need to be close to the senate bill. House can pass couple of bills and can go to the conference if they wanted. Senate would agree because they want one bill which they can vote on. Reconcile does not mean they have to be close. Ultimately, out of the conference one bill will emerge. Senators like Graham have expressed this recently that house can pass anything and they can go to conference with virtually anything.Democrats will be happy as long as "path to citizenship" is kept and republicans will be happy as long as companies are happy which they would be with more H1bs and other temporary visas. Both would just be fine if green card issue is not resolved.

[gcq]

It does not need to be close to the senate bill. House can pass couple of bills and can go to the conference if they wanted. Senate would agree because they want one bill which they can vote on. Reconcile does not mean they have to be close. Ultimately, out of the conference one bill will emerge. Senators like Graham have expressed this recently that house can pass anything and they can go to conference with virtually anything.Democrats will be happy as long as "path to citizenship" is kept and republicans will be happy as long as companies are happy which they would be with more H1bs and other temporary visas. Both would just be fine if green card issue is not resolved.

This again comes to being the combination of all house bills being close to the Senate bill. Has house reached that point yet ? No. Anti-immigrants like King thinks they have upper hand in house immigration bill and somehow can kill it. Unless something drastically changes in speaker Boehner's plan, it will remain a "pipe dream" as some lawmaker put it. GOP needs to show guts to push it forward.

[Ramsen]

This again comes to being the combination of all house bills being close to the Senate bill. Has house reached that point yet ? No. Anti-immigrants like King thinks they have upper hand in house immigration bill and somehow can kill it. Unless something drastically changes in speaker Boehner's plan, it will remain a "pipe dream" as some lawmaker put it. GOP needs to show guts to push it forward.
In 2006 House and Senate passed bills. But house refused to go to conference process. In 2007 two houses were under democrats. No bill in house and Senate CIR failed. Rand Paul also says Senate bill is dead on arrival. No single Senior leadership including Mcconnell voted for CIR. This shows GOP is not yet ready for CIR. Democrats also feel that they did their duty by passing in Senate.

[gcq]

http://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-links-immigration-bill-presidential-race-130111172.html

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi says immigration reform is the right thing for congressional Republicans "if they ever want to win a presidential race."

[qesehmk]

Good article on nbcnews.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/30/19206400-unproductive-congress-how-stalemates-became-the-norm-in-washington-dc?lite

Quoting a piece of the article below. It clearly illustrates how republican congress has an obstructionist agenda. At the same time also note that it is almost a tussle between two philosophies where folks of one genuinely feel they are losing their way of life.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel touts several achievements over the past two Congresses (spending cuts, trade agreements, a transportation bill), but he says a large focus has been to stop President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats from passing parts of their agenda.
“Welcome to divided government,” he said. “A big part of our job has been to stop bad things from happening."

[girish989]

I think this will be the only option for CIR in house - “discharge petition”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/01/wonkbook-house-republicans-do-the-math-on-immigration-reform/

[geterdone]

A July 10 meeting among House Republicans will be key in determining how they proceed. It may be hard to get to a House-Senate conference with the two chambers taking such different approaches.

http://about.bgov.com/2013/06/28/lofgren-diaz-balart-discuss-route-to-immigration-overhaul-in-bgov-forum/

A very good summary of what was passed in the senate (sorry if this has already been posted)

http://www.menendez.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S.744%20Summary%20of%20Senate-Passed%20Immigration%20Reform%20Bill.pdf



I think this will be the only option for CIR in house - “discharge petition”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/01/wonkbook-house-republicans-do-the-math-on-immigration-reform/

[GCSeekerIndia]

This is my first post though I am active viewer of all the posts here for the past 2 years. First, I want to salute the entire community for having such a decent immigration related forum. Here is my take on this "Discharge Petition".

I strongly believe this is going to be the option for CIR in the HOUSE. 200 Democrats and around 20 Republicans will vote YES and CIR passes the HOUSE.Here is my explanation:

201 Democrats - They will support this as they gain to get by passing the Immigration Reform.
28 Republicans - They will support this as they have to fight the Democrats in their Districts.
Speaker Boehner - He will say thet he did not bring the CIR for voting but was forced to do the voting because of Discharge Petition.
Conservatives in House - Same argument as above. They will say to their constituents that they tried to block the CIR but could not because of a small percentage of Repbluicans and they will all vote NO to CIR.
GOP - They will be happy to see the CIR pass as above as they can hope for a Republican President soon.

So basically every one wins by taking the above approach.. Am I thinking right???

[idiotic]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/hotlineoncall/2013/06/immigration-backers-outspent-opponents-2-5-to-1-27

"money game"

[rupen86]

A July 10 meeting among House Republicans will be key in determining how they proceed. It may be hard to get to a House-Senate conference with the two chambers taking such different approaches.

http://about.bgov.com/2013/06/28/lofgren-diaz-balart-discuss-route-to-immigration-overhaul-in-bgov-forum/

A very good summary of what was passed in the senate (sorry if this has already been posted)

http://www.menendez.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S.744%20Summary%20of%20Senate-Passed%20Immigration%20Reform%20Bill.pdf

I saw almost entire video of BGOV. Here is the link to that if someone is interested.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/lofgren-diaz-balart-on-house-immigration-bill-1md7Yuv_TbS4M2rNAkZOIg.html

It was good. I liked 2 points which Lofgren said.

1) She said twitter, virtual march etc does not work. Most of the members are not aware about that. Email/phone is the most effective method.
2) She said, green card solution is more important than H1B. Hoping that would translate in the bill they are working on.

[qesehmk]

Welcome GCSeekerIndia. I think that's quite logical. There are 2 questions really ... (I am not asking you really. Just throwing them out loud).

A) Who are those 28 republicans that can be cajolled into voting for CIR.
B) Are there any democrats that could vote NO on CIR (because of the pressure from their constituents e.g.).


This is my first post though I am active viewer of all the posts here for the past 2 years. First, I want to salute the entire community for having such a decent immigration related forum. Here is my take on this "Discharge Petition".

I strongly believe this is going to be the option for CIR in the HOUSE. 200 Democrats and around 20 Republicans will vote YES and CIR passes the HOUSE.Here is my explanation:

201 Democrats - They will support this as they gain to get by passing the Immigration Reform.
28 Republicans - They will support this as they have to fight the Democrats in their Districts.
Speaker Boehner - He will say thet he did not bring the CIR for voting but was forced to do the voting because of Discharge Petition.
Conservatives in House - Same argument as above. They will say to their constituents that they tried to block the CIR but could not because of a small percentage of Repbluicans and they will all vote NO to CIR.
GOP - They will be happy to see the CIR pass as above as they can hope for a Republican President soon.

So basically every one wins by taking the above approach.. Am I thinking right???

[rupen86]

Welcome GCSeekerIndia. I think that's quite logical. There are 2 questions really ... (I am not asking you really. Just throwing them out loud).

A) Who are those 28 republicans that can be cajolled into voting for CIR.
B) Are there any democrats that could vote NO on CIR (because of the pressure from their constituents e.g.).

Even though, it sounds logical, it is much difficult in practice. As, one article had recently pointed out, it is one thing to vote against the party line and another to take control of the floor.

[rupen86]

This came as surprise to me. Jeb Bush urging house to pass immigration reform.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/01/jeb-bush-urges-house-to-pass-immigration-reform/

[rupen86]

Another big story from Oh Law Firm. House Gang of 7 set to release its bill early next week.

http://wfpl.org/post/house-immigration-bill-coming-early-next-week-congressman-john-yarmuth-says

[qesehmk]

This route though difficult, is possible, because all politics in the end is local. And while republican establishment in congress cant openly embrace CIR, they will not be as unkind to the thought of some republicans crossing party line in a discharge petition. That would make a good theater to show establishment's constituency how hard main party fought against CIR.


Even though, it sounds logical, it is much difficult in practice. As, one article had recently pointed out, it is one thing to vote against the party line and another to take control of the floor.


This came as surprise to me. Jeb Bush urging house to pass immigration reform.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/01/jeb-bush-urges-house-to-pass-immigration-reform/
This is a good example of all politics is local. Jeb Bush benefits from being seen pro immigration. And that's what CIR backers are already doing ... finding republicans that have more reasons to support than oppose CIR.

[immi2910]

This is my first post though I am active viewer of all the posts here for the past 2 years. First, I want to salute the entire community for having such a decent immigration related forum. Here is my take on this "Discharge Petition".

I strongly believe this is going to be the option for CIR in the HOUSE. 200 Democrats and around 20 Republicans will vote YES and CIR passes the HOUSE.Here is my explanation:

201 Democrats - They will support this as they gain to get by passing the Immigration Reform.
28 Republicans - They will support this as they have to fight the Democrats in their Districts.
Speaker Boehner - He will say thet he did not bring the CIR for voting but was forced to do the voting because of Discharge Petition.
Conservatives in House - Same argument as above. They will say to their constituents that they tried to block the CIR but could not because of a small percentage of Repbluicans and they will all vote NO to CIR.
GOP - They will be happy to see the CIR pass as above as they can hope for a Republican President soon.

So basically every one wins by taking the above approach.. Am I thinking right???

Geekesque at this thread (http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/1255678895/cir-voting-analysis-in-house) on trackitt provides a good explanation of why this is unlikely to come up through Discharge petition.



CIR through house via a "discharge petition"?

Could this happen? Theoretically yes. Is it likely to? Almost definitely not.

In a partisan and polarized House discharge petitions in general aren’t much more than clever messaging documents. Signing on usually gets you on the bad book of the majority leadership, and in the case of immigration Republicans who signed on would face external consequences, even if leadership tacitly give it the go ahead.

Crudely, the only reason for the Republican party to greenlight a bill that will make 11 million current immigrants citizen is if they get to share in the credit. Killing it altogether would have all kinds of consequences, but the two upshots for Republicans would be that a). those immigrants won’t become citizens anytime soon, and b). they could at least attempt, however disingenuously, to convince the public that the failure was bipartisan.

Those silver linings disappear if Democrats manage to get the bill enacted through discharge petition. In fact, that would be the worst possible outcome for the GOP. It would give Democrats a huge policy victory but leave Republicans without the political dividends they’d pocket by being equal partners in the reform effort. It might even exacerbate their problems with Hispanic voters. And allowing a couple dozen Republicans to sign a discharge petition would accomplish just that.

So CIR via a discharge petition is theoretically possible but practically not gonna happen.


Ron Gothcher at http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/forum/general-subjects/immigration-legislation/121021-do-u-think-cir-will-pass-house sees 4 options all of which seem unlikely.


I see four windows during which CIR could be passed:

During the next one month before the August recess. I think that this is highly unlikely, but a definite possibility. After the Republicans return home for the August recess, and the Taliban wing of the party comes out in force at their town hall meetings, forget about passing anything after August.
Late next summer, after the Republican primaries, if the polls are showing the Republicans likely to lose control of the House, they could pass the Senate bill quickly to defuse that issue in an attempt to retain control of the House.
During the lame duck session after next year's election if the Republicans have lost control of the House and now realize that if they don't pass this bill, the Democrats will be able to pass their own bill in the next session of Congress.
During the 114th Congress if the Democrats win control of the House. They should be able to get past a filibuster easily since the Republicans in the Senate most likely will not want to repeat the mistakes the House made in the 113th Congress.

[qesehmk]

Geekesque at this thread (http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/1255678895/cir-voting-analysis-in-house) on trackitt provides a good explanation of why this is unlikely to come up through Discharge petition.


In fact, that would be the worst possible outcome for the GOP. It would give Democrats a huge policy victory but leave Republicans without the political dividends they’d pocket by being equal partners in the reform effort. It might even exacerbate their problems with Hispanic voters. And allowing a couple dozen Republicans to sign a discharge petition would accomplish just that.


Very wise words by Geekesque .... however again ... "Local Politics" can seriously trump everything else. That is as much true about GOP leadership as it is true about the GOP troops. Discharge petition gives GOP leadership the best "PERSONAL" cover from accusations that they were in bed with dems on immigration.



Ron Gothcher ..

I think that this is highly unlikely, but a definite possibility.

LoL !!! Lawyer-speak.

[GCSeekerIndia]

[QUOTE=immi2910;36940]Geekesque at this thread (http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/1255678895/cir-voting-analysis-in-house) on trackitt provides a good explanation of why this is unlikely to come up through Discharge petition.

I won't disagree with his view, but I am one who believes that local politics is what the politicians care of and they have every incentive to keep their seat intact in the next election. Based on this view, it is a WIN - WIN for every politician, be it Dems, Republics (GOP or Conservatives) if they go for Discharge Petition (They can claim in their election ads that they stood by their constituents during CIR voting but still the CIR passed and blame the other group). And I think we should be getting to know more about this in the next 1 month or so.

[idiotic]

Very wise words by Geekesque .... however again ... "Local Politics" can seriously trump everything else. That is as much true about GOP leadership as it is true about the GOP troops. Discharge petition gives GOP leadership the best "PERSONAL" cover from accusations that they were in bed with dems on immigration.


GOP need the credit and Democrats are willing to give them credit too. Just like Rubio being the face in Senate. I think Paul Ryan / another presidential candiate will be the face of the bill in House fighting for CIR and trying to get "critical" mass of republicans. Discharge petition will not work for GOP.

Extreme right wing(Tea Party) is a lost cause. They will not agree to anything because their districts are happily gerrymandered till 2020 and they will exist blissfully in their own world and go into a death spiral. They will realize the fact in 2020 and it will be too late at that time.

[seahawks2012]

Bottom line facts:
1. CIR is a democratic bill! Period. It may have "bi-partisan" aspects attached but from the point of view of voters CIR is a Obama/Democratic party bill.
2. The only way for Republican Party to get some credit is by having their own bill(s) that add up to CIR or equivalent. This helps them tell a good story of Republican initiative on immigration.
3. Conservative voters don't really have much of a play here for simple bottom line: "If not GOP, who are they going to vote for?"

[Pedro Gonzales]

Bottom line facts:
1. CIR is a democratic bill! Period. It may have "bi-partisan" aspects attached but from the point of view of voters CIR is a Obama/Democratic party bill.
2. The only way for Republican Party to get some credit is by having their own bill(s) that add up to CIR or equivalent. This helps them tell a good story of Republican initiative on immigration.
3. Conservative voters don't really have much of a play here for simple bottom line: "If not GOP, who are they going to vote for?"

Another part of the equation is the fact that with the exception of the immigration issue, Hispanics are really very conservative. As a hard working, religious, family focused, frugal, responsible community, they would jump at the opportunity to vote Republican if they didn't think the Republicans hated them. Rather than being a liability to the GOP, the Hispanic population could drive the next generation's worth of growth for them. Although, the GOP may just have built up too much ill-will over the last few decades.

[qesehmk]

..with the exception of the immigration issue, Hispanics are really very conservative. As a hard working, religious, family focused, frugal, responsible community, they would jump at the opportunity to vote Republican if they didn't think the Republicans hated them.
Yes. True. That's what Bush Jr and McCain thought but they couldn't overcome resistance. I think Obama's re-election changed the political equations to the extent that the resistance is much more muted now vs then.

[rupen86]

Another part of the equation is the fact that with the exception of the immigration issue, Hispanics are really very conservative. As a hard working, religious, family focused, frugal, responsible community, they would jump at the opportunity to vote Republican if they didn't think the Republicans hated them. Rather than being a liability to the GOP, the Hispanic population could drive the next generation's worth of growth for them. Although, the GOP may just have built up too much ill-will over the last few decades.

I disagree with that. They may be conservative in some aspects. But in some aspects, they are more liberal. Hispanics support for gay marriage outpaces general population.

[immi2910]

Bottom line facts:
1. CIR is a democratic bill! Period. It may have "bi-partisan" aspects attached but from the point of view of voters CIR is a Obama/Democratic party bill.
2. The only way for Republican Party to get some credit is by having their own bill(s) that add up to CIR or equivalent. This helps them tell a good story of Republican initiative on immigration.
3. Conservative voters don't really have much of a play here for simple bottom line: "If not GOP, who are they going to vote for?"

On number 3, I think conservative voters can vote for an even more conservative candidate in the primary. This is what worries the republicans. Its not the dems but people from their own party.

[whateverGC]

immi2910, your right on, Republicans fear the primaries more than general elections. They will have to face stronger republican competition if they revolt


On number 3, I think conservative voters can vote for an even more conservative candidate in the primary. This is what worries the republicans. Its not the dems but people from their own party.

[geterdone]

saw this on twitter- everyone or at least those from Wisconsin can contact him about this

Sean Duffy ‏@RepSeanDuffy 29m

Talk back! Send your thoughts and advice on #Immigration before House takes over debate: http://bit.ly/1b5PYD4


On number 3, I think conservative voters can vote for an even more conservative candidate in the primary. This is what worries the republicans. Its not the dems but people from their own party.

[vizcard]

immi2910, your right on, Republicans fear the primaries more than general elections. They will have to face stronger republican competition if they revolt

The 2012 presidential elections were a classic example. The republicans primaries gave Obama so much ammo plus he had all the minority vote. The same story is going to repeat itself.

The hope is that democrats can control both houses after next years elections. I am not that hopeful that the House will do anything meaningful for immigration before the August recess. Then it has to plough through the process in the House where the conservatives will try to kill or just drag it out.

[idiotic]

immi2910, your right on, Republicans fear the primaries more than general elections. They will have to face stronger republican competition if they revolt

Precisely the problem with gerrymandering of house districts. Republicans will win anyway till 2020. But who gets nominated will be solely decided on who is the right most.. This is the exact problem with Tea Party today. As long as this continues and they live in their own world, they will continue to be in death spiral.

[rupen86]

I do not know if this has been posted here before but last week Pelsoi hinted that she would be ok with piecemeal apporach in order to go to house-senate conference.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nancy-pelosi-piecemeal-immigration-approach-possible-93515.html

[rupen86]

As I was earlier suggesting, house may pass couple of piecemeal bills just to go to conference with senate. And what happens in conference is anyone's guess.

http://www.latintimes.com/articles/5866/20130702/immigration-reform-2013-house-democrats-piecemeal-approach.htm

[Jonty Rhodes]

Now, this is only an opinion piece but House GOP may very well follow this approach in July delaying anything substantial on immigration.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/house-gops-july-agenda-discredit-and-delay-obamacare-ignore-immigration_738606.html

Also, the percentage of American Citizens across the party lines (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) opposing Health Care Benefits to undocumented immigrants until they obtain citizenship, is very very high. No one can deny them health care benefits once they become citizens but until than they should not be eligible to get those benefits, that's the message. I hope that Democrats compromise with Republicans on this principle. This would be a big big compromise on part of Democrats but can certainly bring many many Moderate House GOP Republicans on board for passing the reform, be it piecemeal or comprehensive.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/americans-oppose-obamacare-social-security-for-illegal-immigrants-made-legal-by-reform-20130625

[rupen86]

Now, this is only an opinion piece but House GOP may very well follow this approach in July delaying anything substantial on immigration.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/house-gops-july-agenda-discredit-and-delay-obamacare-ignore-immigration_738606.html

Also, the percentage of American Citizens across the party lines (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) opposing Health Care Benefits to undocumented immigrants until they obtain citizenship, is very very high. No one can deny them health care benefits once they become citizens but until than they should not be eligible to get those benefits, that's the message. I hope that Democrats compromise with Republicans on this principle. This would be a big big compromise on part of Democrats but can certainly bring many many Moderate House GOP Republicans on board for passing the reform, be it piecemeal or comprehensive.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/americans-oppose-obamacare-social-security-for-illegal-immigrants-made-legal-by-reform-20130625

In the current senate bill also, benefits are not available till they green card. So, what is the big compromise to delay that till citizenship which is 3 more years ?

[idiotic]

Also, the percentage of American Citizens across the party lines (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) opposing Health Care Benefits to undocumented immigrants until they obtain citizenship, is very very high. No one can deny them health care benefits once they become citizens but until than they should not be eligible to get those benefits, that's the message. I hope that Democrats compromise with Republicans on this principle. This would be a big big compromise on part of Democrats but can certainly bring many many Moderate House GOP Republicans on board for passing the reform, be it piecemeal or comprehensive.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/americans-oppose-obamacare-social-security-for-illegal-immigrants-made-legal-by-reform-20130625

This is already in Gang of 8 bill.. I think house republicans will want to extend the restriction to legal immigrants too :) According to them Guest workers should only be eligible to contribute to the funds not to take out.

[psychedelicNerd]

Now, this is only an opinion piece but House GOP may very well follow this approach in July delaying anything substantial on immigration.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/house-gops-july-agenda-discredit-and-delay-obamacare-ignore-immigration_738606.html

Also, the percentage of American Citizens across the party lines (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) opposing Health Care Benefits to undocumented immigrants until they obtain citizenship, is very very high. No one can deny them health care benefits once they become citizens but until than they should not be eligible to get those benefits, that's the message. I hope that Democrats compromise with Republicans on this principle. This would be a big big compromise on part of Democrats but can certainly bring many many Moderate House GOP Republicans on board for passing the reform, be it piecemeal or comprehensive.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/americans-oppose-obamacare-social-security-for-illegal-immigrants-made-legal-by-reform-20130625

I personally do not see the rationale behind denying them health care, once they are legally into the system. There are other ways to get them to pay the price for coming here illegally. And I guess those means/measures would be employed in the name of paying back taxes, fines etc. But really, denying health care to someone after they have agreed to come clean and want to do things the right way is just inhumane. Just my humble opinion that's all. And it's not like they'll get free medical benefits. Wouldn't they be required to pay Health Insurance as all us legals do?

[rupen86]

one more surprising endorsement for immigration..don't know how much that will influence house republicans though..

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/wisconsin-gop-governor-scott-walker-backs-immigration-reform/story?id=19567267#.UdSIdKxnOW8

[idiotic]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/07/republican-super-pac-immigration-reform-house

Bottomline: Actively Keep calling your House of Representatives requesting them to support CIR..

[rupen86]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/07/republican-super-pac-immigration-reform-house

Bottomline: Actively Keep calling your House of Representatives requesting them to support CIR..

Calling is important but more important is what to talk about. While showing support for CIR in general is good, we have to talk about EB green card provisions that are missing in the house bill which are present in the senate bill. The most important provisions missing are

1) Recapturing green cards
2) exemption for spouses and minor children
3) exemption for STEM graduates
4) Early filing of I485 irrespective of priority dates
and many more.

There will be many people calling for CIR support but very few talking about the above which are important to us and that's why we have to talk about them

[Ramsen]

Calling is important but more important is what to talk about. While showing support for CIR in general is good, we have to talk about EB green card provisions that are missing in the house bill which are present in the senate bill. The most important provisions missing are

1) Recapturing green cards
2) exemption for spouses and minor children
3) exemption for STEM graduates
4) Early filing of I485 irrespective of priority dates
and many more.

There will be many people calling for CIR support but very few talking about the above which are important to us and that's why we have to talk about them

Basically house wants zero sum game in number of gcs. So it may be difficult for all of the 4. May be it is practical to push 1 and 2. If you push everything you may not get anything. We will know clearly when house gang of 7 bill comes

[gs1968]

Majority Leader Cantor continue to be lukewarm in his attitude to immigration and is intentionally slow-walking the issue

http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-cantor-tells-fellow-republicans-july-agenda-will-buck-an-overreaching-and-heavy-handed-government/article/2532735?custom_click=rss

[idiotic]

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s744aspassed.pdf

Latest CBO report on S.744 as passed by Senate.. Good read to know the facts first hand..

[gs1968]

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s744aspassed.pdf

Latest CBO report on S.744 as passed by Senate.. Good read to know the facts first hand..

This will provide fodder for the anti-immigration group because even after all the money being spent on the border the illegal immigration rate will be decreased by 33-50% (instead of the 25% in the original Bill)

[idiotic]

This will provide fodder for the anti-immigration group because even after all the money being spent on the border the illegal immigration rate will be decreased by 33-50% (instead of the 25% in the original Bill)

I think this is deliberate :) House will do its changes and claim victory of greater than >75% by introducing some exit-entry system at last minute ;)

That's the way game in Senate turned out right.

[rupen86]

Majority Leader Cantor continue to be lukewarm in his attitude to immigration and is intentionally slow-walking the issue

http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-cantor-tells-fellow-republicans-july-agenda-will-buck-an-overreaching-and-heavy-handed-government/article/2532735?custom_click=rss

The thinking might be that house gang bill will be taken up by the judiciary committee in July and house won't act on it before August recess.

[GCSeekerIndia]

Welcome GCSeekerIndia. I think that's quite logical. There are 2 questions really ... (I am not asking you really. Just throwing them out loud).

A) Who are those 28 republicans that can be cajolled into voting for CIR.
B) Are there any democrats that could vote NO on CIR (because of the pressure from their constituents e.g.).

From WashingtonPost...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/07/08/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/public%20target%20list%20House%20Rs%20july%203.pdf


Republicans with growing numbers of Latino and Asian constituents

California
Jeff Denham
David Valadao
Gary Miller
Buck McKeon
Devin Nunes

Colorado
Mike Coffman

Florida
Mario Diaz-Balart
Illeana Ros-Lehtinen

New York
Peter King
Michael Grimm

Nevada
Joe Heck

Republicans with agricultural or high-tech interests in their districts
Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte
Spencer Bachus
Sam Johnson
Darrell Issa

Long term backers of Immigration reform
Paul Ryan
Greg Walden
Raul Labrador

[gcq]

http://news.yahoo.com/millions-more-immigrants-under-senate-193330831.html


Landmark immigration legislation passed by the Senate would remake America's workforce from the highest rungs to the lowest and bring many more immigrants into the economy, from elite technology companies to restaurant kitchens and rural fields.In place of the unauthorized workers now commonly found laboring in lower-skilled jobs in the agriculture or service industries, many of these workers would be legal, some of them permanent-resident green card holders or even citizens.
Illegal immigration across the border with Mexico would slow, but legal immigration would increase markedly.

[rupen86]

This looks like from republican leaning reporter but some of the concerns are valid.
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/868108_Immigration-reform--security--then-amnesty.html

Securing border before granting legal status seems to be becoming sticky issue.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/309653-boehner-boost-border-security-before-legalizing-immigrants-

I agree with the below one. Immigration reform is now facing the question "Later?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/09/wonkbook-should-immigration-reform-wait-till-later/

[rupen86]

This looks like from republican leaning reporter but some of the concerns are valid.
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/868108_Immigration-reform--security--then-amnesty.html

Securing border before granting legal status seems to be becoming sticky issue.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/309653-boehner-boost-border-security-before-legalizing-immigrants-

I agree with the below one. Immigration reform is now facing the question "Later?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/09/wonkbook-should-immigration-reform-wait-till-later/

Some conservative groups asks Boehner to take up immigration. Again this one points to the question of when to make illegal, legal.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/309827-conservative-groups-urge-boehner-to-act-on-immigration-reform-

[idiotic]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/house-immigration_n_3568694.html

All the house members are listed here with their yes/no/unknown status as of now.
Please check your representative and his stance. If he is in unknown territory please plan to call his/her office as much as you can in support of CIR.

You can also keep tweeting them :)

You can find your representative and your district based on zip code here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/map

Check both your office and home zip codes at a minimum and make sure both these representatives support CIR.

[kd2008]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/house-immigration_n_3568694.html

All the house members are listed here with their yes/no/unknown status as of now.
Please check your representative and his stance. If he is in unknown territory please plan to call his/her office as much as you can in support of CIR.

You can also keep tweeting them :)

You can find your representative and your district based on zip code here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/map

Check both your office and home zip codes at a minimum and make sure both these representatives support CIR.

As usual, media is dead wrong. A simple cursory look at their unknowns tells you nearly all of them are a definite well confirmed no. In fact, having spoken to constituents of this unknowns, I know personally that many of the unknowns are nos. Some of the confirmed nos. actually could be persuaded to abstain or vote yes. The actual fight on the ground is very different than this article for sure.

[rupen86]

Obama's immigration strategy in limbo. Tomorrow's meeting is important.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/obama-immigration-strategy-in-limbo-93919.html

[rupen86]

** has decided to oppose the bill HR 2131 (SKILL)

http://****************.org/forum/forum16-**-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3095341-action-item-seeking-support-for-more-green-cards-to-reduce-backlogs.html

[rupen86]

This analysis looks correct and immigration reform chances look bleak.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/boehner-and-the-right-team-up-to-quash-immigration-reform.php

Another one,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/07/republican_party_divided_on_immigration_reform_wil l_the_senate_proposal.html

[Spectator]

This analysis looks correct and immigration reform chances look bleak.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/boehner-and-the-right-team-up-to-quash-immigration-reform.php

Another one,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/07/republican_party_divided_on_immigration_reform_wil l_the_senate_proposal.htmlI agree that the chances for CIR look pretty bleak.

I enjoyed the comments to the article - quite robust shall we say!! My personal favourite was

KarmicEnforcer • 8 hours ago

Go fuck yourself you Confederate Republican piece of shit. The idea that I pay your salary as you deliberately harm America is damn near enough to make me wanna go postal.

---------------------------------------

Posted by Q -

Spec - to be honest I too enjoyed the comment - esp the confederate and postal piece. I would like to censor it on one hand to keep cleanliness of the forum and on other I also think that we all are adult to handle this language.

So I leave it upto you and other gurus to make a decision. Sorry to invade your original post.


Q,

I did think exactly like you about posting it. Our thought processes are the same - I decided that given the context of the comment and that it was not directed at anyone on the forum, that we are adult enough to handle it.

If someone is offended, I certainly don't mind the post being deleted, but I won't do so.

[gcq]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/behind-the-curtain-immigration-reform-heads-for-slow-death-93930.html?hp=t1_3

Look who is leading the House GOP line !

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a leader of the House’s hell-no-on-immigration-reform caucus, held a jam-packed meeting Monday night to walk through why his party should proudly defeat the bipartisan bill. King said the Senate’s immigration plan would help “elites who want cheap labor, Democratic power brokers, and those who hire illegal labor.”“It would hurt Republicans, and I don’t think you can make an argument otherwise,” King said. “Two out of every three of the new citizens would be Democrats.” Some might dismiss this as the rantings of a bombastic right-winger — but his take is mainstream theology among House Republicans.

[qesehmk]

GCQ - actually I agree with King that it will hurt republican party. But I think one thing that democrats and CIR supporters will do well to emphasize is that - even though it may hurt republican party - it will be good for America.

Unfortunately republican party has gone to the wrong side of history and politics and become a party of narrow identity, narrow ideas and narrow interests. That is so anti-thetical to America and its ideals of Freedom, Equal Opportunity, Liberty and Justice.

I think if republican party abandons its idiotic sponsors and gets closer to what was Lincoln's republican party which was much more closer to libertarian roots - they will play good constructive role in American politics as well as save themselves from a certain death.

End of Speech. Sorry didn't mean it. But kind of came it across like that. Isn't it. But basically the CIR is good because it will remove wage suppression, infuse younger workforce (so sorely required as boomers will retire in droves) and expand American identity. That's my argument for CIR.


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/behind-the-curtain-immigration-reform-heads-for-slow-death-93930.html?hp=t1_3

Look who is leading the House GOP line !

[rupen86]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/behind-the-curtain-immigration-reform-heads-for-slow-death-93930.html?hp=t1_3

Look who is leading the House GOP line !

What I fail to understand here is the way house republicans do not care about republican party, why should republican leadership care about what house republicans think. They should just ask Boehner to bring the bill to the floor if they are serious about presidential election unless they have given up on that and are happy with the "house party".

[rupen86]

GCQ - actually I agree with King that it will hurt republican party. But I think one thing that democrats and CIR supporters will do well to emphasize is that - even though it may hurt republican party - it will be good for America.

Unfortunately republican party has gone to the wrong side of history and politics and become a party of narrow identity, narrow ideas and narrow interests. That is so anti-thetical to America and its ideals of Freedom, Equal Opportunity, Liberty and Justice.

I think if republican party abandons its idiotic sponsors and gets closer to what was Lincoln's republican party which was much more closer to libertarian roots - they will play good constructive role in American politics as well as save themselves from a certain death.

End of Speech. Sorry didn't mean it. But kind of came it across like that. Isn't it. But basically the CIR is good because it will remove wage suppression, infuse younger workforce (so sorely required as boomers will retire in droves) and expand American identity. That's my argument for CIR.

Good to think that way but any politician in the world won't think that way. Everyone looks for their self interest first and politicians in particular. There is no way they would do something if it is bad for them or the party even if it benefits the nation. The idea that status quo is better politically than doing the reform seems wrong to me. If that was the reason, they should not have started this. Republican are in demographic death spiral and status quo is not going to save them. With the status quo, they may be able to keep house majority for few more years but after some years even that would be gone. It is lack of leadership from republican party. It is understandable that house republicans will be opposed to the bill because that does not benefit them. But it is not understandable why the leadership would surrender to that.

[Ramsen]

Salient features of the bill from CBO report

1. Reduce illegal immigration about 33 to 50% after several years
2. Wage reduction for 11 years and then start increasing
3. Increase of unemployment till 2020
4. Deficit reduction 135 billion in first 10 years and then 700 billion in next 10 years

The CBO report is mixed at best and no compelling reason to pass the bill. Deficit reduction could be only big benefit but still wait for 20 years may be too long and same amount could be easily done by many other measures. First 3 points need to be improved to get more support. Unfortunately when they try to improve 1 then many democrats will stop supporting. If they try to improve 2 and 3 more loss of support from GOP.


Good to think that way but any politician in the world won't think that way. Everyone looks for their self interest first and politicians in particular. There is no way they would do something if it is bad for them or the party even if it benefits the nation. The idea that status quo is better politically than doing the reform seems wrong to me. If that was the reason, they should not have started this. Republican are in demographic death spiral and status quo is not going to save them. With the status quo, they may be able to keep house majority for few more years but after some years even that would be gone. It is lack of leadership from republican party. It is understandable that house republicans will be opposed to the bill because that does not benefit them. But it is not understandable why the leadership would surrender to that.

[gcq]

What I fail to understand here is the way house republicans do not care about republican party, why should republican leadership care about what house republicans think. They should just ask Boehner to bring the bill to the floor if they are serious about presidential election unless they have given up on that and are happy with the "house party".
Somehow Steve King ( who was ignored by house GOP starting with HR 3012) has been successful in stirring up tea party *****ts. He should be doing lot of behind the scenes campaigning with NUSA and other groups. At some point GOP has to come out of this hole created by anti-immigrants and do the right thing in bringing senate bill to floor. I think it will happen at some point. Nancy pelosi advising republicans about how they are going to loose elections if the don't vote for CIR is not the inspirational speech that GOP needs at this point. Also Schumer threatening GOP that their town hall meetings will be crowded with pro-CIR people is not a smart idea either.

There is one more reason why I suspect that King has an upper hand is that there is no increase in GC numbers in the house bill. For the time being King is driving the show. Let us hope that his reins will be over soon !

[rupen86]

Somehow Steve King ( who was ignored by house GOP starting with HR 3012) has been successful in stirring up tea party *****ts. He should be doing lot of behind the scenes campaigning with NUSA and other groups. At some point GOP has to come out of this hole created by anti-immigrants and do the right thing in bringing senate bill to floor. I think it will happen at some point. Nancy pelosi advising republicans about how they are going to loose elections if the don't vote for CIR is not the inspirational speech that GOP needs at this point. Also Schumer threatening GOP that their town hall meetings will be crowded with pro-CIR people is not a smart idea either.

There is one more reason why I suspect that King has an upper hand is that there is no increase in GC numbers in the house bill. For the time being King is driving the show. Let us hope that his reins will be over soon !

That's the big reason to worry..No GC increase and increase in H1B by 3 times..it is going to make backlog situation worse..please spend some time in opposing this bill to your local lawmakers.

[qesehmk]

I think there is not enough ground to oppose this bill. This bill has its own POV which is - we need workers but not immigrants. As a country its America's privilege to admit someone or not.

All that future immigrants can and should say is really how granting them immigrant status helps US which is what CIR does. I wouldn't get into this mud fight. Instead I would advise to push for CIR full throttle and call up lawmakers that are "undecided".

That's the big reason to worry..No GC increase and increase in H1B by 3 times..it is going to make backlog situation worse..please spend some time in opposing this bill to your local lawmakers.

[rupen86]

I think there is not enough ground to oppose this bill. This bill has its own POV which is - we need workers but not immigrants. As a country its America's privilege to admit someone or not.

All that future immigrants can and should say is really how granting them immigrant status helps US which is what CIR does. I wouldn't get into this mud fight. Instead I would advise to push for CIR full throttle and call up lawmakers that are "undecided".

I do not understand your point here. House is not taking up CIR. So, what CIR are you talking about? They are going to take up small bills like HR 2131. That's why we have to talk about that bill. For years, we are worried about green card backlog which is our main issue. This bill is not reducing that, it is increasing that. How can we not talk about that and talk about CIR which they are not even picking up.

[qesehmk]

Rupen - what I am saying is - we should work so that House takes up the CIR rather than oppose any of their bills. Those bills are going to die their own death. Why waste energy on opposing something. Rather spend energy on being FOR for something.

Besides it is not a good strategy to oppose something that helps immigration. As bad as 2131 is .. eventually that too incresaes immigration - only on the legal front.

You have to understand that there are multiple ways to achieve your goals. Sometimes you can join forces to achieve the goals. If King wants to be an immigration hero by tripling H1B .. let him be. Is your goal to solve the immigration problem for AGES or for today.

My practical thinking is - whatever we solve today is for today only. It is so ridiculous to try to solve something for next 10-20 years. That is possible in science and engineering. Politics doesn't work that way.


I do not understand your point here. House is not taking up CIR. So, what CIR are you talking about? They are going to take up small bills like HR 2131. That's why we have to talk about that bill. For years, we are worried about green card backlog which is our main issue. This bill is not reducing that, it is increasing that. How can we not talk about that and talk about CIR which they are not even picking up.

[geterdone]

There is a map and a column that shows who will vote yes/no and who is still undecided. I am not sure how accurate it is but still worth taking a look at.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/house-immigration_n_3568694.html?utm_hp_ref=tw




Rupen - what I am saying is - we should work so that House takes up the CIR rather than oppose any of their bills. Those bills are going to die their own death. Why waste energy on opposing something. Rather spend energy on being FOR for something.

Besides it is not a good strategy to oppose something that helps immigration. As bad as 2131 is .. eventually that too incresaes immigration - only on the legal front.

You have to understand that there are multiple ways to achieve your goals. Sometimes you can join forces to achieve the goals. If King wants to be an immigration hero by tripling H1B .. let him be. Is your goal to solve the immigration problem for AGES or for today.

My practical thinking is - whatever we solve today is for today only. It is so ridiculous to try to solve something for next 10-20 years. That is possible in science and engineering. Politics doesn't work that way.

[rupen86]

Rupen - what I am saying is - we should work so that House takes up the CIR rather than oppose any of their bills. Those bills are going to die their own death. Why waste energy on opposing something. Rather spend energy on being FOR for something.

Besides it is not a good strategy to oppose something that helps immigration. As bad as 2131 is .. eventually that too incresaes immigration - only on the legal front.

You have to understand that there are multiple ways to achieve your goals. Sometimes you can join forces to achieve the goals. If King wants to be an immigration hero by tripling H1B .. let him be. Is your goal to solve the immigration problem for AGES or for today.

My practical thinking is - whatever we solve today is for today only. It is so ridiculous to try to solve something for next 10-20 years. That is possible in science and engineering. Politics doesn't work that way.

Here is my point. For the CIR in general, there are bigger players in the play. What we do not have is players playing for us. There are powerful players for "pathway to citizenship". There are powerful players for "Border Security". There are powerful players for "H1B". But there are not powerful players for "Green Cards for high skill people". That's why we have to talk about issues affecting us. HR 2131 might pass house with majority of republican votes and if conference ever happens our provisions in the senate will be up for negotiations to get something else.

[qesehmk]

I guess what I don't understand is how can talking against 2131 advances your cause. That's what I am struggling with.
Here is my point. For the CIR in general, there are bigger players in the play. What we do not have is players playing for us. There are powerful players for "pathway to citizenship". There are powerful players for "Border Security". There are powerful players for "H1B". But there are not powerful players for "Green Cards for high skill people". That's why we have to talk about issues affecting us. HR 2131 might pass house with majority of republican votes and if conference ever happens our provisions in the senate will be up for negotiations to get something else.

[Spectator]

I guess what I don't understand is how can talking against 2131 advances your cause. That's what I am struggling with.Q,

The phrase

First Do No Harm

comes to mind.

HR2131 does very little to help the aspirations of would be EB Immigrants.

In fact it increases the pipeline flowing into the EB Immigrant system more than the that flowing out via approvals. The eventual result can only be ever increasing backlogs for everybody, since the current balance already results in backlogs.

H1B numbers increase by 130% while EB Immigrant numbers only increase by about 70%. Part of that is an entirely new Entrepreneur Category, so really H1B numbers increase 2X Immigrant numbers.

The Bill does nothing to address the systemic problems that exist in the EB system. It just give Employers access to large numbers of (potentially cheap) labor.

It is a zero sum solution that just transfers numbers from Diversity and F4 Categories to EB and F2A.

I appreciate some people may welcome the elimination of the Per Country Caps in the Bill, but the other provisions actually it make the situation worse for everybody in the medium term.

Given the choice, I would prefer the status-quo if the only alternative was HR2131. I don't think I would be alone. The Bill can only benefit a fairly narrow subset of people, most of whom already have an I-485 pending. The larger picture is entirely negative.

[idiotic]

Here is my point. For the CIR in general, there are bigger players in the play. What we do not have is players playing for us. There are powerful players for "pathway to citizenship". There are powerful players for "Border Security". There are powerful players for "H1B". But there are not powerful players for "Green Cards for high skill people". That's why we have to talk about issues affecting us. HR 2131 might pass house with majority of republican votes and if conference ever happens our provisions in the senate will be up for negotiations to get something else.

If you want to have a seat at the negotiating table for the individual details in a bill you have to be a lobying organization. Otherwise, for general public who cannot spend money or time and only have one vote to spare for the politicians, their voice is only as good as either support or oppose a bill. It is upto us to get behind and support S.744 / house individual piecemeal bills (which has no future except being part of an house omnibus package as a companion to S.744) as everyone knows.

Reality is people affected by the issue "More Green cards for legal immigrants" do not even have one vote to spare in most cases. The only case where this may be a voting issue is for Family based immigration and not employment based immigration.

People who want to kill CIR or give alternate solutions(more worker visas but zero sum green cards) really want people who want to contribute to all the national funds by paying taxes and not to benefit back from it after a period of time. If you atleast make these timelines as definite timelines, it is upto immigrants to take a decision as to whats best for them.

[rupen86]

Q,

The phrase

First Do No Harm

comes to mind.

HR2131 does very little to help the aspirations of would be EB Immigrants.

In fact it increases the pipeline flowing into the EB Immigrant system more than the that flowing out via approvals. The eventual result can only be ever increasing backlogs for everybody, since the current balance already results in backlogs.

H1B numbers increase by 130% while EB Immigrant numbers only increase by about 70%. Part of that is an entirely new Entrepreneur Category, so really H1B numbers increase 2X Immigrant numbers.

The Bill does nothing to address the systemic problems that exist in the EB system. It just give Employers access to large numbers of (potentially cheap) labor.

It is a zero sum solution that just transfers numbers from Diversity and F4 Categories to EB and F2A.

I appreciate some people may welcome the elimination of the Per Country Caps in the Bill, but the other provisions actually it make the situation worse for everybody in the medium term.

Given the choice, I would prefer the status-quo if the only alternative was HR2131. I don't think I would be alone. The Bill can only benefit a fairly narrow subset of people, most of whom already have an I-485 pending. The larger picture is entirely negative.

I completely agree with this.

[rupen86]

I guess what I don't understand is how can talking against 2131 advances your cause. That's what I am struggling with.

If 2131 passes and if the conference happens, there will be negotiations since house has passed its version for high skill part and senate has its version. If 2131 is not passed, there is no negotiation since senate is the only bill that would have passed something on high skill and negotiations happen on other areas and not on this.

[GhostWriter]

Totally agree. In my opinion there is nothing wrong in increasing work visas but the number of non immigrant visas (with dual intent including path to green card) should be somewhat in the same range as the number of green cards available. If there is a need for large number of temporary workers then they should be granted temporary work visas with a clause of going back for a certain time or transferring to H1B under the H1B quota before starting the green card process.
Otherwise in the existing world of arbitrary quotas and categories everybody's (both existing and new applicants) lives will be messier. From next year if under the new and bigger H1B quota, Infosys and TCS decide to get people with 1+ year of experience to US in big numbers and if they file in EB1 after another 6 months we will have a backlogged EB1 before 2014 ends (This can actually very well happen even without 2131). That will effectively terminate the GC journey for any existing and new EB2s.


Q,

The phrase

First Do No Harm

comes to mind.

HR2131 does very little to help the aspirations of would be EB Immigrants.

In fact it increases the pipeline flowing into the EB Immigrant system more than the that flowing out via approvals. The eventual result can only be ever increasing backlogs for everybody, since the current balance already results in backlogs.

[qesehmk]

Q,
The phrase
First Do No Harm
comes to mind.
... The larger picture is entirely negative.
Spec - I get that. I guess I am thinking 2131 is still a step forward and not an end by itself. The next logical step is to fight to increase in quota. Opposing 2131 is a classic case of Mumbai local trains where those inside oppose the outsiders and the same outsiders when become insiders oppose other outsiders.

2131 sure increases flow and wait times for everybody. But then the solution is not to control the flow. But rather increase visa supply.

By same token - if tomorrow somebody comes up with a bill to completely abolish H1B - which will reduce everybody's wait time reduce in the pipeline - will you think that is good bill ??

I think that's what my concern is. People opposing immigration for their own narrow interests.


If 2131 passes and if the conference happens, there will be negotiations since house has passed its version for high skill part and senate has its version. If 2131 is not passed, there is no negotiation since senate is the only bill that would have passed something on high skill and negotiations happen on other areas and not on this.

I think this actually supports my contention that let 2131 pass congress or at least don't oppose. And if it passes congress then things will go to conference and at least there will be negotiations. Right? What am I missing?

[Spectator]

Spec - I get that. I guess I am thinking 2131 is still a step forward and not an end by itself. The next logical step is to fight to increase in quota. Opposing 2131 is a classic case of Mumbai local trains where those inside oppose the outsiders and the same outsiders when become insiders oppose other outsiders.

2131 sure increases flow and wait times for everybody. But then the solution is not to control the flow. But rather increase visa supply.

By same token - if tomorrow somebody comes up with a bill to completely abolish H1B - which will reduce everybody's wait time reduce in the pipeline - will you think that is good bill ??

I think that's what my concern is. People opposing immigration for their own narrow interests.



I think this actually supports my contention that let 2131 pass congress or at least don't oppose. And if it passes congress then things will go to conference and at least there will be negotiations. Right? What am I missing?Q,

I agree with the next logical step in your post.

I believe what rupen was saying, was that there is not a powerful enough lobby for EB immigrants to get that increase in Immigrant visas into any amended Bill prior to voting in the House or into any Conference Bill. The absence was not an oversight by the House Republicans and other lobbying groups have different agendas.

Realistically, if the Bill isn't amended before it is voted on in the House, or it isn't included in any Conference Bill, there will be no subsequent stand alone Bill to make it happen.

[qesehmk]

Spec - if I am not wrong CIR already has those increases e.g. not counting dependents towards quota effectively makes quota 2.2X times. Besides CIR also is planning to increase H1B twice as opposed to 3 times in 2131. Right? So 2131 itself doesn't need to have that increase. That can emerge as part of conference.

Any effort to get CIR done should be focused on reconciliation rather than confrontation. So opposing 2131 will be counter productive.

Q,

I agree with the next logical step in your post.

I believe what rupen was saying, was that there is not a powerful enough lobby for EB immigrants to get that increase in Immigrant visas into any amended Bill prior to voting in the House or into any Conference Bill. The absence was not an oversight by the House Republicans and other lobbying groups have different agendas.

Realistically, if the Bill isn't amended before it is voted on in the House, or it isn't included in any Conference Bill, there will be no subsequent stand alone Bill to make it happen.

[ROCK72]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578595733476062490.html?m od=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle

[rupen86]

Q,

I agree with the next logical step in your post.

I believe what rupen was saying, was that there is not a powerful enough lobby for EB immigrants to get that increase in Immigrant visas into any amended Bill prior to voting in the House or into any Conference Bill. The absence was not an oversight by the House Republicans and other lobbying groups have different agendas.

Realistically, if the Bill isn't amended before it is voted on in the House, or it isn't included in any Conference Bill, there will be no subsequent stand alone Bill to make it happen.

You are almost right in what I was trying to say. But I want to clarify on your last point. If the bill is passed as it is from the house and then is merged with the senate bill as it is, that is what is going to stay in the final CIR. Senate negotiators would agree to that if they get concession on "path to citizenship". There won't be powerful lobby to prevent them from happening. Both side would feel that they made compromise and got something and we would be "sacrificed". Supporting 2131 in current form is a mistake in the hope that it won't make it in the final bill as it stands now.

[Spectator]

Spec - if I am not wrong CIR already has those increases e.g. not counting dependents towards quota effectively makes quota 2.2X times. Besides CIR also is planning to increase H1B twice as opposed to 3 times in 2131. Right? So 2131 itself doesn't need to have that increase. That can emerge as part of conference.

Any effort to get CIR done should be focused on reconciliation rather than confrontation. So opposing 2131 will be counter productive.Q,

The only CIR Bill we have seen is from the Senate and the House have already said they are not going to vote on that.

Yes, there may be a House CIR Bill (from their Gang Of 7) and it will be interesting to see what that contains. It certainly cannot be worse than HR 2131 for EB immigrants.

At the moment, the House Republican strategy seems to be to pass a series of stand alone Bills which will be tacked together and called CIR. They are attempting to establish the "Sense Of Congress" by doing so and making it easier to shoot down any elements they may not like in the House CIR version from the Gang of 7.

To date, there has been nothing welcome in any of these Bills. If as seems likely at the moment, HR2131 represents the House Republicans solution for Immigrant Visas, then if its contents aren't changed, I would preferable to see CIR die rather than be subject to what this Bill would entail. The current House proposals do not include not counting dependents, visa recapture, not counting EB1, not counting MDs etc.

It is those provisions, or at least keeping some of them, that makes the Senate Bil palatable, since it attempts to fix the unequal balance of supply and demand for EB immigrant visas. Without any of them, it's a no go for me. HR2131 actually goes in the opposite direction. I don't feel confident that we would get any of them back in any Conference discussions; the big players care more about including other provisions and there may be nobody influential enough to fight to retain them. They will become the sacrificial lamb if any compromise is possible.

Enough from me.

[Spectator]

You are almost right in what I was trying to say. But I want to clarify on your last point. If the bill is passed as it is from the house and then is merged with the senate bill as it is, that is what is going to stay in the final CIR. Senate negotiators would agree to that if they get concession on "path to citizenship". There won't be powerful lobby to prevent them from happening. Both side would feel that they made compromise and got something and we would be "sacrificed". Supporting 2131 in current form is a mistake in the hope that it won't make it in the final bill as it stands now.
rupen,

I totally agree.

If I didn't convey that, then my bad.

[rupen86]

Spec - if I am not wrong CIR already has those increases e.g. not counting dependents towards quota effectively makes quota 2.2X times. Besides CIR also is planning to increase H1B twice as opposed to 3 times in 2131. Right? So 2131 itself doesn't need to have that increase. That can emerge as part of conference.

Any effort to get CIR done should be focused on reconciliation rather than confrontation. So opposing 2131 will be counter productive.

While CIR increases H1b 2 times, it increases green card more than that. HR 2131 increases H1b 3 times but green card by less than 1.5 times. What can emerge as part of the conference is anyone's guess. But do not think that senate provisions are certain to remain as part of negotiations. Whoever has stronger lobby will remain. We certainly do not have that.

[qesehmk]

I guess Spec so now your main objections are:
a) worst case is - 2131 removes key CIR provisions.
b) best case is CIR becomes CIR + 2131.

I guess A) is already a no no for dems. So I wouldn't even worry about it. As per B - I don't see any problem there. Current GC backlogged candidates should not care about balance of demand and supply. All thye should care is if their pain is reduced in the short term by a straight combination of CIR and 2131.

Now lets see what happens if 2131 is defeated - there are two possiiblities:
1) House republicans feel pressured to do something on immigration and eventually support CIR.
2) House republicans harden further and CIR fails

If 2131 is defeated #2 is a very real possibility. #1 is the worst outcome for republicans and they won't do it.

Which is why #b above is better outcome where republicans claim partial victory where dems possibility make border a bit more strict. And dems possibility increase the path to citizenship or make it harder etc.

So more than merit of an individual path - we also need to think about realistically what is possible.

My last too on the topic. Already beaten this to death.




Q,

The only CIR Bill we have seen is from the Senate and the House have already said they are not going to vote on that.

Yes, there may be a House CIR Bill (from their Gang Of 7) and it will be interesting to see what that contains. It certainly cannot be worse than HR 2131 for EB immigrants.

At the moment, the House Republican strategy seems to be to pass a series of stand alone Bills which will be tacked together and called CIR. They are attempting to establish the "Sense Of Congress" by doing so and making it easier to shoot down any elements they may not like in the House CIR version from the Gang of 7.

To date, there has been nothing welcome in any of these Bills. If as seems likely at the moment, HR2131 represents the House Republicans solution for Immigrant Visas, then if its contents aren't changed, I would preferable to see CIR die rather than be subject to what this Bill would entail. The current House proposals do not include not counting dependents, visa recapture, not counting EB1, not counting MDs etc.

It is those provisions, or at least keeping some of them, that makes the Senate Bil palatable, since it attempts to fix the unequal balance of supply and demand for EB immigrant visas. Without any of them, it's a no go for me. HR2131 actually goes in the opposite direction. I don't feel confident that we would get any of them back in any Conference discussions; the big players care more about including other provisions and there may be nobody influential enough to fight to retain them. They will become the sacrificial lamb if any compromise is possible.

Enough from me.

[qesehmk]

Rupen - yes I get that. But the point I made above is - likelihood of CIR failure increases if 2131 fails. 2131 if succeeds - makes it more likely that CIR will succeed. All of this because of a simple thing called "allowing other party to save their face".

I rest my arguments here!

While CIR increases H1b 2 times, it increases green card more than that. HR 2131 increases H1b 3 times but green card by less than 1.5 times. What can emerge as part of the conference is anyone's guess. But do not think that senate provisions are certain to remain as part of negotiations. Whoever has stronger lobby will remain. We certainly do not have that.

[ROCK72]

Some good news in the House....
1) http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/immigration-house-republicans-93969.html?hp=t1_3#

2)http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/nancy-pelosi-house-immigration-bill-93976.html?hp=l1

I think D's want Pathway to Citizenship & some R's want Pathway to legalization + Border Security ---> Pathway to Legalization + some more Border security (Compromise)

[seahawks2012]

I think D's want Pathway to Citizenship & some R's want Pathway to legalization + Border Security ---> Pathway to Legalization + some more Border security (Compromise)

Lets face it, without Pathway to Citizenship there is no motivation for Democratic party to fight this battle. If there are no new votes added to the system...

[ROCK72]

Yes, they may still have some path for citizenship. From CNN.com

"In an interview on Tuesday with PBS, GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who chairs a House subcommittee on immigration, made clear that the Senate measure had no chance of passage but also indicated areas of potential compromise regarding a path to legal status.

For example, Gowdy said some immigrants -- such as those who served in the military and children of undocumented immigrants brought into the country illegally by their parents -- could have a faster mechanism to residency and eventual citizenship.

In addition, he said those who had been in the country illegally for many years and made positive contributions could get a faster path to legal status than illegal newcomers.

In a separate interview, GOP Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho told MSNBC on Wednesday that the House would take a incremental approach by considering specific provisions that would add up to comprehensive immigration reform in the end.

Like Gowdy, Labrador included legal status for undocumented immigrants as part of the effort.

"It will include a path to legal status. I don't know that it will include a path to citizenship," he said. "It will be some sort of legal status, which I think should not prevent anybody from becoming citizens, but will not necessarily give them citizenship status."

Sticking points in the House debate include whether undocumented immigrants would be eligible for health care benefits during the years it would take to get citizenship, and empowering state and local police to work with federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws."

[rupen86]

Rupen - yes I get that. But the point I made above is - likelihood of CIR failure increases if 2131 fails. 2131 if succeeds - makes it more likely that CIR will succeed. All of this because of a simple thing called "allowing other party to save their face".

I rest my arguments here!

I do not see how failure of the HR 2131 is failure of CIR. CIR is certainly not dependent on HR 2131. House just needs a vehicle to get to conference committee. If HR 2131 is not included in that vehicle, it won't stop it from going to conference committee. It just needs to pass 1 or more bills and it can technically go to conference. I again reiterate, if house does not have high skill bill, then it is better because then there is no negotiation on that part since senate will be the only bill on high skill part.

[rupen86]

I guess Spec so now your main objections are:
a) worst case is - 2131 removes key CIR provisions.
b) best case is CIR becomes CIR + 2131.

I guess A) is already a no no for dems. So I wouldn't even worry about it. As per B - I don't see any problem there. Current GC backlogged candidates should not care about balance of demand and supply. All thye should care is if their pain is reduced in the short term by a straight combination of CIR and 2131.

Now lets see what happens if 2131 is defeated - there are two possiiblities:
1) House republicans feel pressured to do something on immigration and eventually support CIR.
2) House republicans harden further and CIR fails

If 2131 is defeated #2 is a very real possibility. #1 is the worst outcome for republicans and they won't do it.

Which is why #b above is better outcome where republicans claim partial victory where dems possibility make border a bit more strict. And dems possibility increase the path to citizenship or make it harder etc.

So more than merit of an individual path - we also need to think about realistically what is possible.

My last too on the topic. Already beaten this to death.

How is A no no for dems. They would be ok with A as long as CIR has "pathway to citizenship". Dems will be just fine if it is CIR- High Skill + 2131.
If 2131 fails, republicans will abandon their effort? I completely disagree with this. I would agree if it was something like border security or e-verify but not 2131.

[qesehmk]

The reason being then dems can go on a victory parade saying republicans failed in their efforts and finally had to come and join us. That's why republicans if they fail in 2131 or other similar efforts altogether - will NEVER back CIR at all.

The only way they could back CIR is if one or more of their own measures succeed and then Dems somehow create an illusion of breaking CIR down or striping it off some things and then club the remnants of dem and rep bills.


I do not see how failure of the HR 2131 is failure of CIR. CIR is certainly not dependent on HR 2131. House just needs a vehicle to get to conference committee. If HR 2131 is not included in that vehicle, it won't stop it from going to conference committee. It just needs to pass 1 or more bills and it can technically go to conference. I again reiterate, if house does not have high skill bill, then it is better because then there is no negotiation on that part since senate will be the only bill on high skill part.

[rupen86]

The reason being then dems can go on a victory parade saying republicans failed in their efforts and finally had to come and join us. That's why republicans if they fail in 2131 or other similar efforts altogether - will NEVER back CIR at all.

The only way they could back CIR is if one or more of their own measures succeed and then Dems somehow create an illusion of breaking CIR down or striping it off some things and then club the remnants of dem and rep bills.

If republicans are not able to pass any of their 5 bills that came out of judiciary committee, then democrats can claim that. Is it going to happen with just HR 2131 failing? I can't imagine that in the wildest dream. For the argument sake, let's say that it is true. Is CIR - High Skill + 2131 better than status quo for us? I do not think so. I agree with Spec that given choices between status quo and 2131, status quo is better.

[rupen86]

Confusion everywhere. There is even confusion over whether this is dead or not.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310269-sense-of-gloom-deepens-over-immigration-bills-prospects

[rupen86]

2 things have been heard repeatedly.

1) Pathway to citizenship
2) House will only pass bill that majority supports

These 2 are contradictory and I do not see a way out of this.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/310259-boehner-gop-would-be-in-much-weaker-position-without-action-on-immigration

[gcq]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578595733476062490.html?m od=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle
Hopefully saner voices in GOP will prevail.

The dumbest strategy is to follow the Steve King anti-immigration caucus and simply let the Senate bill die while further militarizing the border. This may please the loudest voices on talk radio, but it ignores the millions of evangelical Christians, Catholic conservatives, business owners and free-marketers who support reform. The GOP can support a true conservative opportunity society or become a party of closed minds and borders.

[qesehmk]

I would certainly disagree with this because this is basically saying -- now that I am on the train - I am not going to allow any more people on the train because it will increase the backlog on the train going to the next station. Think about it.

..given choices between status quo and 2131, status quo is better.

[gten20]

@#$! Boehner.. the worlds saddest tangerine.

http://www.gop.gov/press-release/13/07/10/joint-statement-by-house-gop

[seahawks2012]

http://www.gop.gov/press-release/13/07/10/joint-statement-by-house-gop

The article at least proves the two points:
1. It is going to be piecemeal approach in House and that eventually will land in conference with the Senate bill
2. House will take up 2 or more small bills that deal with immigration (This is good news as it is better than "do nothing" approach)

[rupen86]

I would certainly disagree with this because this is basically saying -- now that I am on the train - I am not going to allow any more people on the train because it will increase the backlog on the train going to the next station. Think about it.

You can draw whatever conclusion you want to draw but that is not what I am saying here. If the bill is making current situation worse then I would rather have the current situation. I think that would be the position of most people on this forum whose main concern is green card backlog.

[qesehmk]

I think you wrote this. So clearly there is concern about backlog. But then your solution is to oppose the backlog as opposed to increase supply. That's what I compared with the example of train with backlog going to next station. Didn't mean to demean you. Just wanted to point out the fallacy of the rationale. My last on this topic.

No GC increase and increase in H1B by 3 times..it is going to make backlog situation worse

You can draw whatever conclusion you want to draw but that is not what I am saying here. If the bill is making current situation worse then I would rather have the current situation. I think that would be the position of most people on this forum whose main concern is green card backlog.

[rupen86]

I think you wrote this. So clearly there is concern about backlog. But then your solution is to oppose the backlog as opposed to increase supply. That's what I compared with the example of train with backlog going to next station. Didn't mean to demean you. Just wanted to point out the fallacy of the rationale. My last on this topic.

I do not know what the confusion is. This bill as it stands is making green card backlog situation worse. That is why I am asking to oppose that. If by some magic, green card provisions are included in the same bill, we could support that but not without that.

[qesehmk]

That's ok Rupen. It's not a big deal. All of us are pro CIR. These are minor things and differences.
I do not know what the confusion is. This bill as it stands is making green card backlog situation worse. That is why I am asking to oppose that. If by some magic, green card provisions are included in the same bill, we could support that but not without that.

[GhostWriter]

Q, whether you are inside or outside, at some point the trains and elevators just can not bear any more load. As I said in the previous post there is nothing wrong with getting more temporary workers but either the GC numbers should increase or new visas be in a separate category. Also keep in mind that the current EB2 train almost stopped moving 2-3 years ago and the EB3-I train stopped moving 10 years ago. Taking more load in the same train will now be accomplished by throwing some existing passengers out (most likely EB1 getting backlogged by new applications and EB2-I and portable EB3-I never getting green cards). I agree that existing EB2-I taking this stand displays conflict of interest but I can very easily argue (though i won't) that your stand against it also poses a conflict of interest in your current situation.
I will leave it at that.

PS: Don't mean to offend you but it has been my experience in life that it is very easy to see what is in someone else's blind spot. The difficult part is to see what is in ours.


I would certainly disagree with this because this is basically saying -- now that I am on the train - I am not going to allow any more people on the train because it will increase the backlog on the train going to the next station. Think about it.

[qesehmk]

Ghost - you can't say it and then say if I said it. It is just unfortunate you think that way. And may I say that is quite coward of you. If you want to say it just say it.

Regarding system bearing load, .... who is bearing the load here? You as immigrant or the system? Do you care about the system but not about the future people who just like you would like to come to this country? I would urge you to think about it than blindly support or oppose anything based on whatever your compulsion.

p.s. - By your stupid logic - I should oppose CIR because that would be in conflict with my interest. Right?

.. I can very easily argue (though i won't) that your stand against it also poses a conflict of interest in your current situation.
I will leave it at that.

[GhostWriter]

I would have said it if I believed it to be true. I don't think it is true that is why I didn't. I am making a case that it gives the same appearance of a conflict that you are accusing rupen, myself and the rest of EB2-I for. A case can be made by both you and us that inspire of the conflict our stand would have been the same because of our beliefs. I am just asking you to not accuse us (which you did more than once with your train analogy) that you would not like to be accused of yourself. My only point is that neither you nor me are solely making a point for our personal benefit. The fact that we do stand to gain by what we state can not be denied in either case.

PS: I still refrain to use demeaning adjectives even though you used a few in your post. This is to maintain the same high standard that this forum deserves.


Ghost - you can't say it and then say if I said it. It is just unfortunate you think that way. And may I say that is quite coward of you. If you want to say it just say it.

Regarding system bearing load, .... who is bearing the load here? You as immigrant or the system? Do you care about the system but not about the future people who just like you would like to come to this country? I would urge you to think about it than blindly support or oppose anything based on whatever your compulsion.

p.s. - By your stupid logic - I should oppose CIR because that would be in conflict with my interest. Right?

[qesehmk]

I don't think I am accusing EB2I. I am accusing those that are opposing 2131 because of their narrow EB3I interest. So who are they? There are organizations that have opposition to 2131 as their agenda. At the core they are formed by EB3 India folks. Good luck to them if that's what they are trying to do.

Please do not use this forum as propoganda tool for other organizations nor try to divide immigrants into EB2 vs EB3 vs EB2I etc. Lets use this to discuss individual merit of the bills and strategies.

I already said that 2131 is inadequate in that it doesn't address balancing demand and supply. But then remember perfect is enemy of good. I would rather let republicans use this as their bargaining chip in conference than they go empty handed in conference committee.

You may not want to support 2131. But opposing it is not productive. What is more productive is calling GOP congressmen about CIR. Those congressmen who are on the border. That is the best advocacy you can do.

p.s. - I also think that we need to take the mystery out of this whole advocacy thing that other people make you believe. None of this is rocket science. But if some body tells you that advocacy is a secret thing that a few people are supposed to do while all you can help is give us some money - that is a red alarm to me. If YOU want to buy that snake oil. Please buy it. Just don't sell it on this forum.


I would have said it if I believed it to be true. I don't think it is true that is why I didn't. I am making a case that it gives the same appearance of a conflict that you are accusing rupen, myself and the rest of EB2-I for. A case can be made by both you and us that inspire of the conflict our stand would have been the same because of our beliefs. I am just asking you to not accuse us (which you did more than once with your train analogy) that you would not like to be accused of yourself. My only point is that neither you nor me are solely making a point for our personal benefit. The fact that we do stand to gain by what we state can not be denied in either case.

PS: I still refrain to use demeaning adjectives even though you used a few in your post. This is to maintain the same high standard that this forum deserves.

[rupen86]

I don't think I am accusing EB2I. I am accusing those that are opposing 2131 because of their narrow EB3I interest. So who are they? There are organizations that have opposition to 2131 as their agenda. At the core they are formed by EB3 India folks. Good luck to them if that's what they are trying to do.

Please do not use this forum as propoganda tool for other organizations nor try to divide immigrants into EB2 vs EB3 vs EB2I etc. Lets use this to discuss individual merit of the bills and strategies.

I already said that 2131 is inadequate in that it doesn't address balancing demand and supply. But then remember perfect is enemy of good. I would rather let republicans use this as their bargaining chip in conference than they go empty handed in conference committee.

You may not want to support 2131. But opposing it is not productive. What is more productive is calling GOP congressmen about CIR. Those congressmen who are on the border. That is the best advocacy you can do.

p.s. - I also think that we need to take the mystery out of this whole advocacy thing that other people make you believe. None of this is rocket science. But if some body tells you that advocacy is a secret thing that a few people are supposed to do while all you can help is give us some money - that is a red alarm to me. If YOU want to buy that snake oil. Please buy it. Just don't sell it on this forum.

I do not know where EB3 or EB2 came into picture here. EB2/3 is certainly not my thinking. It is going to hurt everyone in the existing system and everyone coming in future. It is simple math. Current backlog is resulted by high H1B numbers. H1B numbers were increased in the past without increasing GC numbers and that is what again this bill is attempting.

You keep referring to CIR but there is not CIR in house. Senate CIR is history now. House is talking about piece-meal bill not CIR.

About the bargaining chip that you want to give to republicans, do you seriously think that they can go to conference with only this bill? If that is the case, democrats will be very happy to accommodate this in exchange for path to citizenship.

No sensible person would accept more bad situation than he is currently in. That's what this bill is bringing.

[GhostWriter]

Would have been very similar in the cold war era.
Commis disagree with me, you disagree with me, you must be a commi :)

So now everyone who disagrees with you on a bill has to pass "Are you a spy test".

I do not wish to continue this conversation any further. I just made simple arguments (and NEVER accused you of anything), repeating them won't make them any simpler.



I don't think I am accusing EB2I. I am accusing those that are opposing 2131 because of their narrow EB3I interest. So who are they? There are organizations that have opposition to 2131 as their agenda. At the core they are formed by EB3 India folks. Good luck to them if that's what they are trying to do.

Please do not use this forum as propoganda tool for other organizations nor try to divide immigrants into EB2 vs EB3 vs EB2I etc. Lets use this to discuss individual merit of the bills and strategies.

I already said that 2131 is inadequate in that it doesn't address balancing demand and supply. But then remember perfect is enemy of good. I would rather let republicans use this as their bargaining chip in conference than they go empty handed in conference committee.

You may not want to support 2131. But opposing it is not productive. What is more productive is calling GOP congressmen about CIR. Those congressmen who are on the border. That is the best advocacy you can do.

p.s. - I also think that we need to take the mystery out of this whole advocacy thing that other people make you believe. None of this is rocket science. But if some body tells you that advocacy is a secret thing that a few people are supposed to do while all you can help is give us some money - that is a red alarm to me. If YOU want to buy that snake oil. Please buy it. Just don't sell it on this forum.

[GhostWriter]

To put us back on track. Article by a republican Tom cotton, essentially saying what others here have expected. House is not going to take up Senate bill, chances of any conference for reconciliation also look bleak. House seems more inclined to go its own way. Let us see if that changes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578593750885340348.html

[Spectator]

To put us back on track. Article by a republican Tom cotton, essentially saying what others here have expected. House is not going to take up Senate bill, chances of any conference for reconciliation also look bleak. House seems more inclined to go its own way. Let us see if that changes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578593750885340348.htmlGh ost,

Unfortunately, that is a subscriber-only article, but I have seen similar sentiments on Oh (http://www.immigration-law.com/) (not a great source. I agree).


Report indicates that despite the mounting pressure from some Republican party leaders including President Bush, today's meeting reputed comprehensive reform and would focus on piecemeal immigration reform legislations. Fox News reports that the House leaders also are not enthusiatic with the House version comprehensive immigration reform work. This throws a chilling water on the back of the Gang of 7. Report indicates that today House Republicans affirmed that rather than take up the flawed legislation rushed through the Senate, House committees will continue their work on a step-by-step, common-sense approach to fixing what has long been a broken system,citing House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and other House GOP leaders' joint statement. The report indicates that Cheers erupted in the meeting when leadership said they would not take up the Senate bill. Additionally, the House lawmakers voiced concern about the possibility of passing a bill, and then leaving it up to a select team of lawmakers from each chamber -- known as a conference committee -- to come up with a compromise that they may not like. The harder line Repubs appear to be cool on any any CIR (including the yet to be published House CIR from the Gang of Seven).

It seems to be piecemeal or nothing and "my way or the highway" in terms of any compromise.

I'm sure part of that is political posturing, but such an attitude almost guarantees that nothing will eventually pass both Chambers.

[geterdone]

Question- how does advocacy work? Honestly I have no clue and I am just asking.It may not be rocket science but I think it has to do with money. I don't think simple phone calls and emails make any difference. But I still do not understand why all the big tech companies cannot get something done with all the clout and money they got. Are they really concerned about solving it or is it just a show? I know there is a lot of politics involved.

The sad part is that the legal community is not united as the 'other' group. I also don't understand what some of these groups like ** are doing. Instead of focusing on country limits everyone should have pushed for not counting dependents in HR3012. I may be wrong but atleast it would have got more support I guess.




I don't think I am accusing EB2I. I am accusing those that are opposing 2131 because of their narrow EB3I interest. So who are they? There are organizations that have opposition to 2131 as their agenda. At the core they are formed by EB3 India folks. Good luck to them if that's what they are trying to do.

Please do not use this forum as propoganda tool for other organizations nor try to divide immigrants into EB2 vs EB3 vs EB2I etc. Lets use this to discuss individual merit of the bills and strategies.

I already said that 2131 is inadequate in that it doesn't address balancing demand and supply. But then remember perfect is enemy of good. I would rather let republicans use this as their bargaining chip in conference than they go empty handed in conference committee.

You may not want to support 2131. But opposing it is not productive. What is more productive is calling GOP congressmen about CIR. Those congressmen who are on the border. That is the best advocacy you can do.

p.s. - I also think that we need to take the mystery out of this whole advocacy thing that other people make you believe. None of this is rocket science. But if some body tells you that advocacy is a secret thing that a few people are supposed to do while all you can help is give us some money - that is a red alarm to me. If YOU want to buy that snake oil. Please buy it. Just don't sell it on this forum.

[GhostWriter]

Spec, see below. The last two paragraphs of the article are Congressman Tom Cotton's quote and sum up their approach. The quote is freely accessible from sources other than the WSJ. For example, at the Congressman's website (http://cotton.house.gov/media-center/editorials/wall-street-journal-its-the-house-bill-or-nothing-on-immigration). (Sorry for the length of the post.)


America is a nation of immigrants, but we're also a nation of laws, and the U.S. immigration system should respect both traditions. Unfortunately, the Senate immigration bill undermines the rule of law without solving the country's illegal-immigration problem, and it will harm American workers. The House of Representatives will reject any proposal with the Senate bill's irreparably flawed structure, which is best described as: legalization first, enforcement later . . . maybe.

This basic design flaw repeats the mistake of the 1986 amnesty law, which, according to former Attorney General Edwin Meese, President Reagan considered the biggest mistake of his presidency. The Senate bill ensures, as did the 1986 law, that we'll have full legalization but little-to-no enforcement.

The Senate bill's advocates argue that its implementation of enforcement measures, such as extending the security fence on the border with Mexico, will precede and be a "trigger" for opening a path to citizenship. But these advocates are conflating legalization and citizenship. America has approximately 12 million illegal immigrants, who chiefly desire the right to live and work here legally. The Senate bill legalizes them a mere six months after enactment.

In the bill, legalization comes with trivial preconditions. Pay a "fine"? Yes, but it's less than $7 per month and can be waived. Pay back taxes? Only if a tax lien has already been filed, which will be rare for undocumented work. Pass a criminal-background check? Yes, with a gaping exception allowed for illegal immigrants with up to two misdemeanors—or more, if the convictions occurred on the same day—even if these were pleaded down from felony offenses and included serious offenses such as domestic violence and drunken driving.

This approach is unjust and counterproductive. We should welcome the many foreigners patiently obeying our laws and waiting overseas to immigrate legally. Instead, the Senate bill's instant, easy legalization rewards lawbreakers and thus encourages more illegal immigration.

What's worse, the bill's illusory enforcement mechanisms won't stop this illegal immigration. Effective enforcement requires a border fence, a visa-tracking system to catch visa overstayers, and a workable employment-verification system. The Senate bill fails on all three fronts.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated 700 miles of fencing, but the Senate bill merely restates this long-ignored requirement without mentioning specs or locations. It also doesn't prohibit delay-inducing lawsuits from fence opponents. Further, the bill explicitly lets the secretary of Homeland Security decline to build a fence in a specific location if she decides it's not "appropriate."

Instead, the bill throws billions of dollars at the border for new border-patrol agents (though not until 2017) and sensor technologies. These solutions are complements, not substitutes, for a fence. When I was a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, my units relied on guards and technology to secure our bases, but the first line of defense was always a physical perimeter.

That's because fences work. The fence built in the San Diego border sector dramatically reduced border crossings there from 100,000 per year to just 5,000 per year when it was completed in 2006, a 95% drop. Earlier this year, Israel reduced illegal crossings at its Sinai border to two per month from 2,000 per month by completing a fence. Why doesn't the Senate bill mandate an effective fence? The answer, plainly, is that the intention is not to build one.

Similarly, the Senate bill restates a 17-year-old requirement in federal law that the government have a functioning visa-tracking system. But it delays implementation for six years and increases by millions the visas available for low-skill immigrants. This will lead to more illegal immigration by visa overstayers, while depressing wages for young and lower-skill Americans. The bill also delays implementation of the employment-verification system by at least five years and doesn't require mandatory effectiveness levels for the system.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recognizes that these enforcement measures will be largely ineffective. The CBO estimates that, even with them, annual illegal immigration will decline by only one-third to one-half compared with current projections. After 10 years, the CBO predicts, the illegal-immigrant population will have declined to only eight million from today's 12 million. So much for solving the problem. All we're doing is setting up the next amnesty.

But it's actually worse because even these modest enforcement measures likely won't happen. Any future Congress can defund these programs, as has happened too often. The bill grants enforcement discretion to the bureaucracy in hundreds of instances. Opponents can tie up the bill in court for years, which would block implementation of key enforcement measures but not the path to citizenship. This is exactly what happened with the 1986 law: legalization now and enforcement never.

And what's to stop President Obama from refusing to enforce this law? After all, he just announced he won't enforce ObamaCare's employer mandate because of complaints from big business. If that's his attitude toward his biggest legislative accomplishment, imagine what he'll do when big business complains about, say, an employment-verification system he never wanted to begin with.

If enforcement fails, what's more likely: that legalized persons won't become citizens or that future Congresses will simply relax or eliminate the required "triggers"? If past is prologue, we know the answer.

Given all this history, the American people rightly doubt that the government will finally enforce immigration laws. Thus the best solution is to abandon the Senate bill's flawed framework and proceed with an enforcement-first approach that assures Americans that the border is secure and immigration laws are being enforced. The House is already pursuing that goal with committee-approved bills such as the Legal Workforce Act, which expedites the employment-verification system, and the SAFE Act, which empowers local and state law-enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws.

If the full House approves such bills, they should be sent directly to the Senate for consideration. They should not be handed to a conference committee so that they can be reconciled with the Senate bill—the Senate and House measures are irreconcilable. Instead, the Senate must choose whether it wants common-sense, confidence-building immigration legislation this year.

If the Senate insists on the legalization-first approach, then no bill will be enacted. Meanwhile, the House will remain focused on addressing ObamaCare, the economy and the national debt—which, after all, Americans overwhelmingly regard as higher priorities than immigration reform.

[qesehmk]

Fair enough.

I do not wish to continue this conversation any further.

[gcq]

I don't think I am accusing EB2I. I am accusing those that are opposing 2131 because of their narrow EB3I interest. So who are they? There are organizations that have opposition to 2131 as their agenda. At the core they are formed by EB3 India folks. Good luck to them if that's what they are trying to do.

Please do not use this forum as propoganda tool for other organizations nor try to divide immigrants into EB2 vs EB3 vs EB2I etc. Lets use this to discuss individual merit of the bills and strategies.

I already said that 2131 is inadequate in that it doesn't address balancing demand and supply. But then remember perfect is enemy of good. I would rather let republicans use this as their bargaining chip in conference than they go empty handed in conference committee.

You may not want to support 2131. But opposing it is not productive. What is more productive is calling GOP congressmen about CIR. Those congressmen who are on the border. That is the best advocacy you can do.

p.s. - I also think that we need to take the mystery out of this whole advocacy thing that other people make you believe. None of this is rocket science. But if some body tells you that advocacy is a secret thing that a few people are supposed to do while all you can help is give us some money - that is a red alarm to me. If YOU want to buy that snake oil. Please buy it. Just don't sell it on this forum.

I should point out that ** is a pro-EB2 organization. Though some of their core members are EB3 guys, their agenda is pretty much EB2-I specific. I am one of the EB3-I guys who quit participating in their activities for that reason. They try to use hapless EB3-I as their campaign tool taking advantage of their misery. But when it comes to their internal work, EB2-I drives their agenda except for HR 3012.

[qesehmk]

geterdone - I think vested interests or lack of interests is the answer why EB immigration doesn't have good sponsor.

I do think advocacy is not obvious and certainly needs money. Based on my small experience in activism I have realized that money is less important than people organization connections and vision. Money ranks after all the other bases are checked in.


Question- how does advocacy work? Honestly I have no clue and I am just asking.It may not be rocket science but I think it has to do with money. I don't think simple phone calls and emails make any difference. But I still do not understand why all the big tech companies cannot get something done with all the clout and money they got. Are they really concerned about solving it or is it just a show? I know there is a lot of politics involved.

The sad part is that the legal community is not united as the 'other' group. I also don't understand what some of these groups like ** are doing. Instead of focusing on country limits everyone should have pushed for not counting dependents in HR3012. I may be wrong but atleast it would have got more support I guess.

[gcq]

Question- how does advocacy work? Honestly I have no clue and I am just asking.It may not be rocket science but I think it has to do with money. I don't think simple phone calls and emails make any difference. But I still do not understand why all the big tech companies cannot get something done with all the clout and money they got. Are they really concerned about solving it or is it just a show? I know there is a lot of politics involved.

The sad part is that the legal community is not united as the 'other' group. I also don't understand what some of these groups like ** are doing. Instead of focusing on country limits everyone should have pushed for not counting dependents in HR3012. I may be wrong but atleast it would have got more support I guess.
Advocacy does not need money. Money definitely adds power to it. Basic level advocacy is meeting with your congressman/senator and educating him/her about your issues. US democracy is different from many democracies we have experienced. As US government has power over whoever resides in US, US constitution also guarantees rights to whoever resides in US whether citizen, greencard, H1, L1 or even illegals. That is the beauty of US democracy.

Once you continuously keep in contact with lawmaker, his/her view on the issue changes. Many of us will be surprised to know that many of the lawmakers are not aware of the backlogs. Some of them even don't understand GC aspects of immigration for high skilled. They always co-relate high tech employees to H1B/L1. That is all they know. Reason might be it has been the corporate interests that has lobbied for high skilled applicants. All these corporates want is H1 visas. Thankfully this perspective has changed by continuous advocacy by high skilled immigrants.

Money definitely adds power, but human suffering and 1-0-1 contacts with your lawmaker definitely changes position. Lawmaker offices are appreciative of us reaching to them with our issues.

[GhostWriter]

Thank you both, i should have provided the alternate link. Thanks for adding it Spec.


Q,

I'm not sure that is necessary.

GhostWriter has said he has not quoted the entire WSJ article. The article (or at least what was quoted) is on Congressman Tom Cotton's own website (http://cotton.house.gov/media-center/editorials/wall-street-journal-its-the-house-bill-or-nothing-on-immigration) and many others. It is not violating any walled-garden the WSJ may have, since it is otherwise freely available.

I agree he might also include a link to a site where it can be read freely and I have done that.


Thanks Spec. If this is available on Congressman's website then no issues. I deleted my request.

[GhostWriter]

See the link below. Boehner confirms today about the piecemeal approach. McCain still seems optimistic though.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-10/house-republicans-seek-secure-border-first-on-immigration.html

[idiotic]

See the link below. Boehner confirms today about the piecemeal approach. McCain still seems optimistic though.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-10/house-republicans-seek-secure-border-first-on-immigration.html

I think this is a tremoundous step forward by House members. The bad news at this step was for house deciding to "do nothing" and just kill the immigration reform discussion, which is not the case here.

It basically indicates house will pass a omnibus bill and negotiate with senate in conference(Shumer and McCain statements on same day confirms this).

[druvraj]

Does anybody have a list of points will benefit and harm Legal immigrants esp the backlogged legal immigrants. I mean i am looking general high level points that the senate passed that might harm or help legal immigrants

[qesehmk]

Exactly my thoughts idiotic. This is a negotiations phase. There will be a lot of posturing. We need to understand our core interests and we need to understand other side's limitation compulsions and motivations.

A lot of statements are meant for their own constituency to show that they are doing all they can to oppose this. Just a few days back Bush Jr said this

America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time.
GOP will find it very hard to not get into conference and eventually support CIR.


I think this is a tremoundous step forward by House members. The bad news at this step was for house to do nothing, which is not the case.

It basically indicates house will pass a omnibus bill and negotiate with senate in conference(Shumer and McCain statements on same day confirms this).

[idiotic]

Exactly my thoughts idiotic. This is a negotiations phase. There will be a lot of posturing. We need to understand our core interests and we need to understand other side's limitation compulsions and motivations.

A lot of statements are meant for their own constituency to show that they are doing all they can to oppose this. Just a few days back Bush Jr said this

GOP will find it very hard to not get into conference and eventually support CIR.

I was expecting the antiimmigration wing in House will just kill the reform. Boehner seems to have clearly conveyed the message that "Doing nothing is not an option". I also think the message given is it has to be "bi-partisan" just like the senate and not just right wing's enforcement only bills. Goodlatte will be forced to Markup the bipartisan "Gang of 7" house version bill soon :) Please let me know your take on this.

[axecapone]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/10/19400122-house-gop-divided-on-immigration-but-united-against-senate-obama?lite

"Trusting Barack Obama with border security is like trusting my daughter with Bill Clinton," he said.

Ouch!! That was blunt.

Sorry if this is a repeat question but I don't understand why the senate is so opposed to "Enforcement first and legalization later". To me, that sounds fair. I mean cant they just put a trigger in place that states that if border security does not meet certain xyz conditions, legalization process is ruled out. In any case, the current CIR bill requires illegal immigrants to wait 10 years before starting their process. Its just a matter of adding a trigger to their bill.

[qesehmk]

In other words, idiotic, Boehner is signalling GOP hardliners to soften up. Right? GOP is completely in a corner and if they produce a GOP only bill - that doesn't help them much. a bi partisan bill puts them in equal footing and then they are in a position to reject senate bill.

But since senate has already shown its hand, it will be extremely difficult for congress to come up with a bi partisan bill that is piecemeal. So we will see.

The good news I read here is that the leadership is signalling hard line folks to soften up.

I was expecting the antiimmigration wing in House will just kill the reform. Boehner seems to have clearly conveyed the message that "Doing nothing is not an option". I also think the message given is it has to be "bi-partisan" just like the senate and not just right wing's enforcement only bills. Goodlatte will be forced to Markup the bipartisan "Gang of 7" house version bill soon :) Please let me know your take on this.

[rupen86]

In other words, idiotic, Boehner is signalling GOP hardliners to soften up. Right? GOP is completely in a corner and if they produce a GOP only bill - that doesn't help them much. a bi partisan bill puts them in equal footing and then they are in a position to reject senate bill.

But since senate has already shown its hand, it will be extremely difficult for congress to come up with a bi partisan bill that is piecemeal. So we will see.

The good news I read here is that the leadership is signalling hard line folks to soften up.

Their goal right now seems to be passing something so that they can claim that they have done something. If it can be reconciled with senate and become a law is least of their worry.

[qesehmk]

i dont disagree.
Their goal right now seems to be passing something so that they can claim that they have done something. If it can be reconciled with senate and become a law is least of their worry.

[idiotic]

Their goal right now seems to be passing something so that they can claim that they have done something. If it can be reconciled with senate and become a law is least of their worry.

True. Caveat is their bill needs to have some "heart" to gain over the latino voters for sure. Otherwise, it is as good as passing nothing. That's why it will be a bill which will be "conferencable"

[vizcard]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/10/19400122-house-gop-divided-on-immigration-but-united-against-senate-obama?lite

"Trusting Barack Obama with border security is like trusting my daughter with Bill Clinton," he said.

Ouch!! That was blunt.

Sorry if this is a repeat question but I don't understand why the senate is so opposed to "Enforcement first and legalization later". To me, that sounds fair. I mean cant they just put a trigger in place that states that if border security does not meet certain xyz conditions, legalization process is ruled out. In any case, the current CIR bill requires illegal immigrants to wait 10 years before starting their process. Its just a matter of adding a trigger to their bill.

They get RPI (legal) status immediately without triggers. That's the issue.

My perfect solution would be RPI for 5 yrs - renewable once.
Triggers before LPR incl border fence, entry/exit and EVerify implemented AND all legals have gotten their GC first.
Citizenship 5 yrs after LPR

[Ramsen]

True. Caveat is their bill needs to have some "heart" to gain over the latino voters for sure. Otherwise, it is as good as passing nothing. That's why it will be a bill which will be "conferencable"

Bohner told many times that even compromise bill from conference committee needs to have the support of majority of majority. That rules out any bill which has special pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. It is likely that Hastert rule will kill the bill.

[gs1968]

I came across this interesting article.House Democrats also seem to have a problem with excessive border security provisions in Senate Bill

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/11/reid-blocks-own-immigration-bill-house-vote/?page=1

Earliest possible vote in House is in September on Rep McCaul's border security Bill

[vizcard]

I came across this interesting article.House Democrats also seem to have a problem with excessive border security provisions in Senate Bill

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/11/reid-blocks-own-immigration-bill-house-vote/?page=1

Earliest possible vote in House is in September on Rep McCaul's border security Bill

I agree with the House Democrats. I think throwing money at the border is not going to make it more secure. I'd rather they throw that money at eVerify and Entry/exit systems and expedite those. But as long as the bill moves forward, I don't care about all these details :)

[rupen86]

This article is discussing what I was asking earlier. It is Leadership vs Representatives. If Boehner has courage to live up to the occasion and leave his love for the job behind, it would be good for the party and country.

http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-2013-do-house-republicans-have-leadership-problem-1342483

[idiotic]

Bohner told many times that even compromise bill from conference committee needs to have the support of majority of majority. That rules out any bill which has special pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. It is likely that Hastert rule will kill the bill.

Political posturing. He has gone back on those words several times on other bills to get them passed in the larger interest of party. Once an immigration bill comes out of conference committee, it will defnitely pass both houses, if it gets thus far. Otherwise, they will never fix this issue for years to come unless either party gains control of all 3 legislative bodies(house/senate/white house), which is very bleak.

[rupen86]

Good summary of 5 reasons why immigration reform has problems in the house.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/immigration-reform-5-things/index.html

[rupen86]

Pelosi On Immigration Reform: We’ll Save Hardball For Later. She is giving the hint that she would reserve the option of discharge petition for later.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/pelosi-on-immigration-reform-well-save-hardball-for-later.php

[rupen86]

Different take on gloom and doom on immigration reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/immigration-john-boehner_n_3573669.html

[idiotic]

This article is discussing what I was asking earlier. It is Leadership vs Representatives. If Boehner has courage to live up to the occasion and leave his love for the job behind, it would be good for the party and country.

http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-2013-do-house-republicans-have-leadership-problem-1342483

It's unfair to expect Boehner to sacrifice his job by going against the will of his caucus. He has done his job in clearly saying the fact that party will be much weaker if they do not act in a meaningful way. Blame the Tea party if nothing happens out of it in the end and not Boehner.

[axecapone]

The fundamental issue is that USA is very wide sharing miles of border with Mexico. So border security under any president is not going to easy to solve. I think the measures in the Senate bill are reasonable. Its unfair to compare CIR with the Reagen's bill because that was a 100% pure amnesty bill.

I don't think E Verify is going to work either all by itself. Even if you mandate it, its the job of E Verify to conduct audits to find if an employer is hiring illegal immigrants. That requires man power and whole lot of other resources. That will collapse once you are talking about farming, meat processing and other commodities industries. E Verify will work well only if border is secure and US border is not easy to secure.

So if everything is going to be pinned on border security, there is no hope of CIR even in 2025.

[vizcard]

It's unfair to expect Boehner to sacrifice his job by going against the will of his caucus. He has done his job in clearly saying the fact that party will be much weaker if they do not act in a meaningful way. Blame the Tea party if nothing happens out of it in the end and not Boehner.

I don't agree. The leader is always held accountable. Agreed he may not win the battle but he needs to go beyond talk. For every positive statement he has made, he has 5 negative statements. If Paul Ryan has the stones to be an advocate why can't Boehner be a leader and drive some of the process rather than be driven by the nut jobs.


The fundamental issue is that USA is very wide sharing miles of border with Mexico. So border security under any president is not going to easy to solve. I think the measures in the Senate bill are reasonable. Its unfair to compare CIR with the Reagen's bill because that was a 100% pure amnesty bill.

I don't think E Verify is going to work either all by itself. Even if you mandate it, its the job of E Verify to conduct audits to find if an employer is hiring illegal immigrants. That requires man power and whole lot of other resources. That will collapse once you are talking about farming, meat processing and other commodities industries. E Verify will work well only if border is secure and US border is not easy to secure.

So if everything is going to be pinned on border security, there is no hope of CIR even in 2025.

No solution is going to work all by itself. It has to be a combination of things. You prevent illegals from coming in and make sure people who are supposed to leave actually go. Then you taken away the reason why people come here in the first place - work.

I agree that audits and such are going to be tough in certain industries. Same thing with day labor where they get paid with cash (like today). but you can't say its tough so we won't do it at all.

Hope for CIR is in the genuine belief that people want to do the right thing for America and not just for themselves. There are certain people who truly don't want reform and then there are others who want reform but are afraid for their jobs. Cant blame the latter category but until that changes, its going to be tough sledding. I think the only real chance for CIR is the House Democrats taking matters in their own hands. Otherwise, its going to die. No House votes will happen till Sept and then things will drag on till the Christmas recess. Nothing will happen in any lame duck session and before you know it, its election season.

I really wish, the Republican party splits up because they are killing themselves. I personally am a fiscal Republican and a social Democrat. But if the Republican party splits in to more centrist folks (the Lincoln Republicans) and the nut jobs (aka Tea Party), then I might actually shift my thinking. I'm sure there are a LOT of immigrants who think that way. Most immigrants IMO are open minded to reality but deep down are conservative on certain issues. I'll get off my soap box now. thanks for listening :)

[rupen86]

It's unfair to expect Boehner to sacrifice his job by going against the will of his caucus. He has done his job in clearly saying the fact that party will be much weaker if they do not act in a meaningful way. Blame the Tea party if nothing happens out of it in the end and not Boehner.

He is the only person who can bring the bill for vote and he is surrendering to tea party not because he agrees with them but because he wants to keep his job. It is ok for normal person to behave that way but having hold such a post, this behavior does not make him good speaker when he himself has agreed with immigration reform as a good thing. On the other hand, GOP leadership should provide him cover and enable him to bring bill for a vote if they believe it is a good thing for the party.

[qesehmk]

GOP leadership (McConnell) is more concerned about making Obama fail than anything else. Not immigration bill, not jobs bill, not anything else really.
On the other hand, GOP leadership should provide him cover and enable him to bring bill for a vote if they believe it is a good thing for the party.

[Jagan01]

He is the only person who can bring the bill for vote and he is surrendering to tea party not because he agrees with them but because he wants to keep his job. It is ok for normal person to behave that way but having hold such a post, this behavior does not make him good speaker when he himself has agreed with immigration reform as a good thing. On the other hand, GOP leadership should provide him cover and enable him to bring bill for a vote if they believe it is a good thing for the party.

I feel the Boehner is consistenet with his stance. He supports immigration. Immigration is a collective term for illegal immigration and legal immigration. Boehner just said he supports immigration. This does not mean he supports citizenship for undocumented.

It is not correct to hold him accountable.

[Jagan01]

Pelosi On Immigration Reform: We’ll Save Hardball For Later. She is giving the hint that she would reserve the option of discharge petition for later.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/pelosi-on-immigration-reform-well-save-hardball-for-later.php

Getting 50% vote for moving discharge petition is also tough. If we can think about it then the republicans in the house surely can also think about it. Democrats need at least 17-18 republicans to move the discharge petition.

I had a question about the piecemeal approach. I am sure Republicans will pass all that is in the Senate bill for skilled workers like us. In the event they go to conference with differences only on path to citizenship of undocumented workers, then what will be the outcome of conference ?

Can the conference pass at least the part that both Dems and Repubs agree upon ?

[idiotic]

He is the only person who can bring the bill for vote and he is surrendering to tea party not because he agrees with them but because he wants to keep his job. It is ok for normal person to behave that way but having hold such a post, this behavior does not make him good speaker when he himself has agreed with immigration reform as a good thing. On the other hand, GOP leadership should provide him cover and enable him to bring bill for a vote if they believe it is a good thing for the party.

Tell me clearly what do you want Boehner to do :

=> Bring S.744 to house vote immediately. (This cannot procedurally happen because we all know Reid has not yet sent S.744 to house yet. Formal reason is all revenue bills must originate from House)
=> Bring House republicans bill (CIR equivalent -- bunch of piece meal bills solving the immigration problem).. (This is what is going on now except that the piecemeal bills are not complete and there are problems which are completely unaddressed yet)
=> Do nothing and let immigration reform die (He did not do that clearly even though it may be tea party stance.)

Also remember immigration reform is one of the problems for Boehner not the "only" problem. For someone to suggest he has to put his job on line for one issue is unfair. He has to mediate solutions for all issues and get some legislation done for the country. That is his job.

[qesehmk]

Guys ... my quick opinion on Boehner and then I will shut on Boehner.

Boehner is absolutely inconsequential. He just doesn't have anything in him. Show me one legislation where he rallied his troops and/or worked across the aisle to make anything happen. Show me one example.

So don't even waste time talking about Boehner. It's McConnell and other GOP stalwarts who will move things. Luckily McCain and the Bush Jr have thrown their weight behind CIR (McCain directly - Bush Jr indirectly). So work positively and make calls to republicans congressmen in your district and ask them to support CIR.

Better yes ... somebody write a letter and post to this forum for everybody to print and sign and send to your congressman - regardless which party. The severely backlogged folks are 50K or more. If 50K letters go to congressmen... it is very powerful.

[axecapone]

Also remember immigration reform is one of the problems for Boehner not the "only" problem. For someone to suggest he has to put his job on line for one issue is unfair. He has to mediate solutions for all issues and get some legislation done for the country. That is his job.

This is the standard excuse by the Congress. They say priority is economy, jobs and debt. I want to know what they have passed so far. The previous Congress had the reputation of being the most unproductive one in its history (or atleast one of the most unproductive ones if my facts are incorrect) and this one is not far away from beating that goal.

[idiotic]

This is the standard excuse by the Congress. They say priority is economy, jobs and debt. I want to know what they have passed so far. The previous Congress had the reputation of being the most unproductive one in its history (or atleast one of the most unproductive ones if my facts are incorrect) and this one is not far away from beating that goal.

What does this has to do with the original question that "Tell me what you want Boehner to do"?

To fight for high skilled immigration backlog and lose his job ??

[gcq]

What does this has to do with the original question that "Tell me what you want Boehner to do"?

To fight for high skilled immigration backlog and lose his job ??
If he loses his job by bringing the bill to floor, he is still a winner. He might loose his job, but will be remembered as the bold speaker who sacrificed his job for betterment for the immigrants. I am sure millions who will be legalized by this bill will remember him in their lifetime and generations to come.

What would he want ? A short term job or a legacy ?

[rupen86]

What does this has to do with the original question that "Tell me what you want Boehner to do"?

To fight for high skilled immigration backlog and lose his job ??

Fight for high skill immigration ? That's a joke. No one would even fight for high skill immigration. Forget about fighting for that and loosing job. I am asking him to fight for his party and nation if he feels it is going to be beneficial which he has said it is.

[rupen86]

So work positively and make calls to republicans congressmen in your district and ask them to support CIR.


Which CIR are you taking about ?

[gten20]

You can call the congressmen and tell your story and what you think would help. I personally think individual stories will have more impact over the robotic repeated message suggested by a well known site, but I could be wrong.