Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise) [Archive] - Page 7

gs1968

07-12-2013, 03:09 PM

Another interesting development and tough to judge in the present time if this will help or hinder CIR in the long run

http://news.msn.com/us/janet-napolitano-to-resign-as-head-of-homeland-security?ocid=ansnews11

As far as Speaker Boehner is concerned-it is his prerogative to decide what Bill to bring to the floor and when just like Senator Reid in the Senate. I have not seen any Bill brought to the Senate Floor by Sen.Reid that would pass with the help of a majority of Republican Senators. Caucus unity is key for either party and procedures like discharge petitions are pure fantasy. Speaker Boehner has no choice but to wait till his caucus coalesces around a reasonably united strategy to deal with immigration reform because at this time the GOP viewpoints are all over the place. One member on the House Judiciary to watch is Spencer Bachus of Alabama who might help bring some other conservatives around to the citizenship path as he has clearly stated he does not like the idea of a huge swath of second-class citizens

idiotic

07-12-2013, 03:10 PM

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 ?

gcq,

Even though we might be intersted in doing lot of good things how many of us are willing to sacrifice our job and livelihood for those things? When we won't do something ourselves, its not fair to expect it from others.

It's the people who block the good things need to take the blame.. not the people who didn't do enough :)

idiotic

07-12-2013, 03:18 PM

Another interesting development and tough to judge in the present time if this will help or hinder CIR in the long run

http://news.msn.com/us/janet-napolitano-to-resign-as-head-of-homeland-security?ocid=ansnews11

I thought she resigning was intended to be a good thing for CIR in short term as they can put a nominee who is agreeable to both parties as new head, Right now she is face of administration not being credible even though I do not agree with that.

As far as Speaker Boehner is concerned-it is his prerogative to decide what Bill to bring to the floor and when just like Senator Reid in the Senate. I have not seen any Bill brought to the Senate Floor by Sen.Reid that would pass with the help of a majority of Republican Senators. Caucus unity is key for either party and procedures like discharge petitions are pure fantasy. Speaker Boehner has no choice but to wait till his caucus coalesces around a reasonably united strategy to deal with immigration reform because at this time the GOP viewpoints are all over the place. One member on the House Judiciary to watch is Spencer Bachus of Alabama who might help bring some other conservatives around to the citizenship path as he has clearly stated he does not like the idea of a huge swath of second-class citizens

Completely agree.

qesehmk

07-12-2013, 03:31 PM

I think that question is so stupid it doesn't warrant an answer. Is there any other CIR you are aware of that all of us don't?
Which CIR are you taking about ?

rupen86

07-12-2013, 03:42 PM

I think that question is so stupid it doesn't warrant an answer. Is there any other CIR you are aware of that all of us don't?

May be you have some inside knowledge that I and others do not. Anyone who is tracking immigration knows that house is not tacking up senate CIR and there is no house CIR yet. So which CIR are you talking about? I thought I did not have to elaborate question but am stupid to assume that.

rupen86

07-12-2013, 03:46 PM

Correct. It was a joke. Glad that we are on the same page here.

How?

By bringing senate bill for vote

rupen86

07-12-2013, 03:47 PM

idiotic

07-12-2013, 03:49 PM

By bringing senate bill for vote

Good luck.. I do not want to take this further as it is already discussed many times in this forum.

idiotic

07-12-2013, 03:55 PM

I am assuming not having speaker position is not the question of livelihood for person like Boehner.

Wrong assumption.. Whatever one does for an living is their livelihood.. Everyone will want to climb up the ladder in career chain and not climb down for earning an living.

It's not correct for us to expect and assume what they should be doing instead..

qesehmk

07-12-2013, 03:58 PM

Let others say what they know and don't. You speak for yourself.

If you don't understand something I say - ask nicely and you will get all honest answers from me. But if you ask in a condescending manners such as "What CIR" then good luck - I am not interested in a dialogue with you.

May be you have some inside knowledge that I and others do not. Anyone who is tracking immigration knows that house is not tacking up senate CIR and there is no house CIR yet. So which CIR are you talking about? I thought I did not have to elaborate question but am stupid to assume that.

qesehmk

07-12-2013, 04:02 PM

Sport- Your line of thinking is right. But in this particular case Obama views this as his legacy and democratic party senses an opportunity solidify their base for next generation or two. That's why they absolutely want this done.

The thing is - not having it done is not a big blow for them because with the bipartisan senate bill - they can already claim victory.

My 2 cents. If the democrats really wanted, passage of CIR in the house is a near certainty.

Think about it. All the democrats could vote along the party line. They would need 30 Republicans or so. Is it really difficult? I would say no.

However Democrats are in no urgency because they must be sensing a lot of anger from the white American voter. Remember them? Republicans take the white vote at 54-46 split, but the Dems do need that 46%...else, they won't be in power.

They need to play this carefully too. They have just done whatever they could in the Senate and are in a grand posturing mode now.

Sorry to be negative again...I don't see the CIR being passed and if it does get through at all, Dems will sure lose in the next election.

gcq

07-12-2013, 04:46 PM

gcq,

Even though we might be intersted in doing lot of good things how many of us are willing to sacrifice our job and livelihood for those things? When we won't do something ourselves, its not fair to expect it from others.

It's the people who block the good things need to take the blame.. not the people who didn't do enough :)

He is not going to lose his job ( congressman). He may lose the speaker title in short term. But once CIR is signed by president, he will be the hero again. All the GOP members who oppose it now will turn around praising him. If they don't praise him post CIR, those house members will be history in near future. All what speaker need to do is allow the senate bill to come to floor. It is guaranteed to pass in the house and president will definitely sign it. Speaker is kind of "switch" between CIR enactment and failure. The moment he changes his stand, it is a done deal.

I think it will ultimately happen, let us give it some time for pressure to build up on GOP.

bvsamrat

07-12-2013, 04:46 PM

I agree - If CIR is not passed, DEMs will loose for sure as they would get the blame of not supporting enough.
REP allways have a steady base and also could project present incumbent party's mistakes in next elections.

Frankly both parties would want CIR - but take credit some-how to thier side?

Sport- Your line of thinking is right. But in this particular case Obama views this as his legacy and democratic party senses an opportunity solidify their base for next generation or two. That's why they absolutely want this done.

The thing is - not having it done is not a big blow for them because with the bipartisan senate bill - they can already claim victory.

idiotic

07-12-2013, 04:54 PM

He is not going to lose his job ( congressman). He may lose the speaker title in short term. But once CIR is signed by president, he will be the hero again. All the GOP members who oppose it now will turn around praising him. If they don't praise him post CIR, those house members will be history in near future. All what speaker need to do is allow the senate bill to come to floor. It is guaranteed to pass in the house and president will definitely sign it. Speaker is kind of "switch" between CIR enactment and failure. The moment he changes his stand, it is a done deal.

I think it will ultimately happen, let us give it some time for pressure to build up on GOP.

Unfortunately that's not the way things work in American politics..

gcq

07-12-2013, 06:50 PM

Unfortunately that's not the way things work in American politics..
Need more proof about the "switch" factor ? Watch this video. It also has lot of information about the dynamics of CIR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3x4-xRBcpU

GhostWriter

07-12-2013, 07:54 PM

gcq

07-12-2013, 09:29 PM

WSJ reported today that "Congressmen Eric Cantor and Bob Goodlatte Are Crafting Legislation on Citizenship Path for People Brought to U.S. Illegally as Children" and that a consensus is emerging in GOP for that particular set of people.

The question I have us if house crafts a few piecemeal bills like these (assuming including one for skilled immigrants) and starts sending them to Senate (again assuming that they don't want to reconcile with Senate CIR in a conference), what happens then ?
What are the possible options. Basically what would the process look like if house stays adamant on not taking up CIR at all. Is there any chance democrats will budge and say that we have 50% of what we want in these bills so let us get that or will they do the same thing they did to HR3012 and not take up these bills at all.

Is there any possibility of partial immigration reform if CIR dies. Just want to see what people think.
I guess whatever bill house sends to senate won't have the items democrats want, illegal immigration component specifically. If that component is missing they are not going to accept it. If house tries to strip off illegal component of it, democrats may try to strip off the high skilled component of it as a tit-for-tat response. Once the bill is stripped of components that interests both sides, nobody would be interested in pushing that bill anymore. Net result, CIR fails. That is why senate bipartisan group was careful to put up a balanced package.

rupen86

07-12-2013, 09:35 PM

Let others say what they know and don't. You speak for yourself.

If you don't understand something I say - ask nicely and you will get all honest answers from me. But if you ask in a condescending manners such as "What CIR" then good luck - I am not interested in a dialogue with you.

"I think that question is so stupid it doesn't warrant an answer. Is there any other CIR you are aware of that all of us don't?"
Here all of us means you are also talking about all. So according to your advice, you also speak for yourself.

This is not the first time, you have talked about CIR and not the first time I have asked. If by me just asking "what CIR are you talking about" looks bad manners to you, yours is much more bad manners when you say question is stupid.

rupen86

07-12-2013, 09:49 PM

He is not going to lose his job ( congressman). He may lose the speaker title in short term. But once CIR is signed by president, he will be the hero again. All the GOP members who oppose it now will turn around praising him. If they don't praise him post CIR, those house members will be history in near future. All what speaker need to do is allow the senate bill to come to floor. It is guaranteed to pass in the house and president will definitely sign it. Speaker is kind of "switch" between CIR enactment and failure. The moment he changes his stand, it is a done deal.

I think it will ultimately happen, let us give it some time for pressure to build up on GOP.

I agree that he will still remain congressman. He looses job as speaker. If he has more broader aspirations, this might help him in that also. But I do not think he will take this risk. Some people want to play safe and kind of happy where they are.

qesehmk

07-12-2013, 10:32 PM

That's ok. Next time if you ask without condescending remark - I would respond with my best ability. I am as much a learner as you are. I don't have any inside knowledge.

"I think that question is so stupid it doesn't warrant an answer. Is there any other CIR you are aware of that all of us don't?"
Here all of us means you are also talking about all. So according to your advice, you also speak for yourself.

This is not the first time, you have talked about CIR and not the first time I have asked. If by me just asking "what CIR are you talking about" looks bad manners to you, yours is much more bad manners when you say question is stupid.

rupen86

07-13-2013, 07:51 AM

That's ok. Next time if you ask without condescending remark - I would respond with my best ability. I am as much a learner as you are. I don't have any inside knowledge.

Alright, here is the good way, I hope.

Senate CIR bill is not being taken up by house and house does not have its CIR. So, which CIR bill do we talk about when we call to congressman?

vizcard

07-13-2013, 07:51 AM

I agree that he will still remain congressman. He looses job as speaker. If he has more broader aspirations, this might help him in that also. But I do not think he will take this risk. Some people want to play safe and kind of happy where they are.

On what basis do you say, he will stay a congressman? He represents the 8th district in Ohio - moderately rural, white majority, Republican stronghold. If one Tea Party Republican stands against him in the primary, chances are he loses the primary and consequently his job.

vizcard

07-13-2013, 08:02 AM

Alright, here is the good way, I hope.

Senate CIR bill is not being taken up by house and house does not have its CIR. So, which CIR bill do we talk about when we call to congressman?

Maybe it's semantics but to me CIR is a concept. I would tell the Congresman to support (a) immigration reform and (b) a comprehensive approach as passing piece meal bills is a delaying tactic. Tell him/her to get the House CIR bill published and discussed.

Also, i would outline the components of immigration policy that need to be addressed and have them address. Worst case, they can copy/paste language from the individual policy docs/bills into one big document and now you have one bill that covers all topics. To have reform all pieces of the puzzle must be addressed or risk having no reform at all (and have de facto amnesty for illegals)
1. Illegal alien status
2. Border security incl entry/exit
3. Everify
4. Farm workers/Low skilled immigration
6. High skilled temp immigration incl STEM
7. Green cards incl STEM, family, Diversity and Entrepreneur Visas
8. Citizenship/ naturalization

Pass bill(s) related to these and then go to conference.

qesehmk

07-13-2013, 09:06 AM

idiotic

07-13-2013, 10:49 AM

Alright, here is the good way, I hope.

Senate CIR bill is not being taken up by house and house does not have its CIR. So, which CIR bill do we talk about when we call to congressman?

I think its best to keep simple things simple.. Just ask your congressman to support S.744. Period. I think that will cover all of our concerns without getting into details or politics.

gcq

07-13-2013, 10:51 AM

Alright, here is the good way, I hope.

Senate CIR bill is not being taken up by house and house does not have its CIR. So, which CIR bill do we talk about when we call to congressman?
We should start with talking about provisions in the senate bill that is beneficial to us, as we are primarily advocating for us. If he as anti-CIR congressman, we need to remind him that democrats probably won't support a piecemeal approach and hence he need to support CIR in its entirety.

Ramsen

07-13-2013, 11:07 AM

Rupen, I agree with Viz. We can always talk in terms of senate bill as a concept. The focus of making calls to congressman should be 3 fold:

1) It helps establish their position on senate CIR and clarify basis of opposition.
2) It helps strengthen support for CIR and improves their understanding of the need urgency as well as mass support behind it.
3) It creates ground for a discharge petition (if Boehner continues to refuse to table senate CIR or continues to stall senate CIR on one pretext or another).

Dynamics are changing. Recently Schumer and Mccain indicated they are ready to work piecemeal bills. Even Obama will start shifting in future.So the terms of House will dictate the course of immigration bills in future as the house is dealing with more people in grassroot level. It is difficult to find the people like Hatch who wants to be completely corporate friendly in house.
Discharge petition never going to work in immigration as single republican will not sign the petition. I doubt even democrats will sign. Discharge petition was last option given to use in rarest of rare situation arises.If they use this for just to give green cards to foreigners then credibility of US will be in question. So discharge petition is out of question for immigration and it is being discussed only in forums as we Indians take it easy any thing. So any immigration bill be mostly in terms of house(a tleast 70% mainly in illegal immigration and number of green cards) or never.

vizcard

07-13-2013, 05:13 PM

Dynamics are changing. Recently Schumer and Mccain indicated they are ready to work piecemeal bills. Even Obama will start shifting in future.So the terms of House will dictate the course of immigration bills in future as the house is dealing with more people in grassroot level. It is difficult to find the people like Hatch who wants to be completely corporate friendly in house.

This was always going to be the case. A Senate Bill is at the mercy of the house and vice versa. I won't go as far as saying it'll be on the House's terms as no final bill will be passed without both parties signing off in conference.

Discharge petition never going to work in immigration as single republican will not sign the petition. I doubt even democrats will sign. Discharge petition was last option given to use in rarest of rare situation arises.

This is the intention of a Discharge Petition. Why else would you use it?

If they use this for just to give green cards to foreigners then credibility of US will be in question.

Based on what?

So discharge petition is out of question for immigration and it is being discussed only in forums as we Indians take it easy any thing.

Huh?

So any immigration bill be mostly in terms of house(a tleast 70% mainly in illegal immigration and number of green cards) or never.
As I said before, this was always going to be the case. It's a matter of opinion what % will be based House's terms.

Ramsen

07-13-2013, 07:46 PM

You can make out from the history. Between 1931 and 2003, House members filed 563 discharge petitions. Only 47 of those managed to obtain the signatures of the majority of the House. The House voted to discharge just 26 of those bills, and passed only 19 of the bills they covered. In the end, only two of those 563 bills became law. Even for fiscal cliff Nancy Pelosi considered discharge petition but did not work on 2012 middle.

Top 5 reasons in the current climate that discharge petitions will not work
1. Apart from Partian politics there is also differences between house and Senate in immigration policy. Even democrats in house are ok to pass a different bill in house. So discharge petition is amost out of question
2. In Senate no one from top most leadership voted for immigration bill including Mcconnell. Each republican will think this in mind before signing
3. Now Reid is considering nuclear option in nominations on next week. It will harden the position of GOP further in both houses if Reid's effort succeed.
4. Immigration issue does not have any deadline and no compelling reason to pass within 1 month or 1 year or 5 years. So they will wait until compromise is reached.
5. Most cases compromise will be reached if there is threat of discharge petition as that is huge embarrasment to the leadership. Also if discharge petition fails that will be end of it for many years. So they will attempt for compromise instead of trying and closing the door for many years

gs1968

07-13-2013, 09:31 PM

qesehmk

07-13-2013, 10:57 PM

You make really excellent points.
On #2 I think you meant - establishment rather than top leadership. Because Graham and McCain are certainly top leaders that supported CIR. While Grahm is kind of establishment. McCain certainly isn't.

I however would disagree that Obama and dems will accept anything that is piecemeal. My definition of piecemeal would be anything that doesn't have path to citizenship and/or doesn't address 11m "undocumented/illegal" workers.

As per discharge petition I think even though odds are against - that threat needs to held out there in order for GOP to work in immigration reform. And as such various pro immigration groups must work to convince GOP senators to support senate CIR or majority of it.

You can make out from the history. Between 1931 and 2003, House members filed 563 discharge petitions. Only 47 of those managed to obtain the signatures of the majority of the House. The House voted to discharge just 26 of those bills, and passed only 19 of the bills they covered. In the end, only two of those 563 bills became law. Even for fiscal cliff Nancy Pelosi considered discharge petition but did not work on 2012 middle.

Top 5 reasons in the current climate that discharge petitions will not work
1. Apart from Partian politics there is also differences between house and Senate in immigration policy. Even democrats in house are ok to pass a different bill in house. So discharge petition is amost out of question
2. In Senate no one from top most leadership voted for immigration bill including Mcconnell. Each republican will think this in mind before signing
3. Now Reid is considering nuclear option in nominations on next week. It will harden the position of GOP further in both houses if Reid's effort succeed.
4. Immigration issue does not have any deadline and no compelling reason to pass within 1 month or 1 year or 5 years. So they will wait until compromise is reached.
5. Most cases compromise will be reached if there is threat of discharge petition as that is huge embarrasment to the leadership. Also if discharge petition fails that will be end of it for many years. So they will attempt for compromise instead of trying and closing the door for many years

vizcard

07-13-2013, 11:32 PM

Another important development today is Gov.Schweitzer's decision in Montana to not seek the Democratic nomination

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/13/schweitzer-wont-run-for-senate-in-2014/

This puts another red state Democratic Senate seat in play as Sen.Baucus is not seeking re-election. The GOP is feeling the tide turning in its quest for Senate control and they might feel that stalling now will put them in a better position after the next election

Unfortunately, its not going to be matter to the outcome for immigration. Senate bill has passed. Even if the Republicans gain control of the Senate and pass piece meal House legislation, Obama will veto anything without a P2C.

Besides democrats strongly believe that McConnell is vulnerable in KY. They think they can get that seat. Plus most likely interim Senator Chiesa (R-NJ) will not win a permanent seat in a blue state.

rupen86

07-14-2013, 09:47 AM

We should start with talking about provisions in the senate bill that is beneficial to us, as we are primarily advocating for us. If he as anti-CIR congressman, we need to remind him that democrats probably won't support a piecemeal approach and hence he need to support CIR in its entirety.

I agree. It is not the bill but the provisions in the senate bill that we are supporting. As long as those provisions are in any bill, we support that bill. We are talking about our problems and suggesting solutions (senate provisions) for solving them.

Ramsen

07-14-2013, 04:32 PM

The main tricky issues in immigration are
1.To convince people for giving citizenship to illegal immigrants
2. How to achieve 90 to 100% reduction of future illegal immigration by border security and internal enforcement in a few years time
3. Number of future legal immigration numbers without impacting US workers.
4. Economy benefit

Senate bill failed 3 of 4 major points. If 3 of 4 will be satisfied there is no need for this much advocacy or lobbying.

qesehmk

07-14-2013, 05:09 PM

They are all good points - generally frequently heard from anti-immigrant groups.

While talking with our Sr VP HR (the kind of big shots that have company planes to fly them around) of one of my former employers, I learnt from him that this concern about US workers is nothing new. This resistance to immigration is nothing new.
Before Indians and Chinese there were Irish. "Oh irish are stealing our jobs!!" And before Irish there were italians and germans and dutch.
So every successive immigration group goes through same crucifix and the arguments are always the same.

So IMHO we need to stand together and continuously make our voice heard in a positive manner and make sure that whatever case we make is in the broader interest of people rather than just me or a bunch of my friends getting GCs.

The main tricky issues in immigration are
1.To convince people for giving citizenship to illegal immigrants
2. How to achieve 90 to 100% reduction of future illegal immigration by border security and internal enforcement in a few years time
3. Number of future legal immigration numbers without impacting US workers.
4. Economy benefit

Senate bill failed 3 of 4 major points. If 3 of 4 will be satisfied there is no need for this much advocacy or lobbying.

rupen86

07-15-2013, 09:08 AM

How momentum shifted.

http://news.yahoo.com/momentum-comprehensive-immigration-reform-collapsed-house-080007245.html

druvraj

07-15-2013, 10:23 AM

You make really excellent points.
On #2 I think you meant - establishment rather than top leadership. Because Graham and McCain are certainly top leaders that supported CIR. While Grahm is kind of establishment. McCain certainly isn't.

I however would disagree that Obama and dems will accept anything that is piecemeal. My definition of piecemeal would be anything that doesn't have path to citizenship and/or doesn't address 11m "undocumented/illegal" workers.

As per discharge petition I think even though odds are against - that threat needs to held out there in order for GOP to work in immigration reform. And as such various pro immigration groups must work to convince GOP senators to support senate CIR or majority of it.

I think all this pathway to citizenship should be looked differently. Let me give it a try

1. EB category people especially from India and Chine are here for 10+ years and are yet to get their GC(LPR). All these long years they maintained perfect legal status and stuck it out literally. After LPR or GC, wait another 5 years to get Citizenship. Total years to citizenship 15. Illegal immigrants with CIR will get citizenship in 13 years. Kind of unfair I think. Republicans offer -> we will document them but give them no guarantee of citizenship. Fair in my opinion. Work here on that temp status(Just like H1B and L1 do) and get your employer to sponsor your GC. Nobody can stop that right?

2. In the tax debate that happened last year, Dems demanded "let us pass on what we agree". Why not apply that to CIR(something like HR3012 from last congress).

3. Piecemeal legislation will ultimately benefit all in my opinion. Getting all illegals a documented status will motivate them to seek better opportunity and if employment GC is made merit based who is going to benefit ultimately these illegals right?

4 . Finally I agree in life nothing is fair but we all have to agree that vote bank politics is being played here on both sides and hence if we for once try to be (I don't know the right word here) subjective/fair we should realize that this actually motivates individual to do the wrong thing.

idiotic

07-15-2013, 10:29 AM

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/McConnell-House-immigration-border/2013/07/15/id/515049

"I don't think anybody's satisfied with the status quo on immigration," McConnell said. "And I hope the House will be able to move forward on something and we can get this into conference and get an outcome that will be satisfactory for the American people."

qesehmk

07-15-2013, 10:57 AM

druvraj - I have debated this many times and so I will respond only by reiterating my position that - politics will play its own role - we can't influece it too much - forget changing it. We should understand that EB community's well being is riding on back of "CIR" and hence 11m "undocumented/illegals" rather than vice versa. As such EB's should stand together with CIR rather than trying to take any other view for practical and selfish reasons.

I think your points are all valid points that can be argued eitherway. I am only emphasizing the practical/selfish reasons why EB's should join CIR or such efforts. This is my last on this topic.

I think all this pathway to citizenship should be looked differently. Let me give it a try

1. EB category people especially from India and Chine are here for 10+ years and are yet to get their GC(LPR). All these long years they maintained perfect legal status and stuck it out literally. After LPR or GC, wait another 5 years to get Citizenship. Total years to citizenship 15. Illegal immigrants with CIR will get citizenship in 13 years. Kind of unfair I think. Republicans offer -> we will document them but give them no guarantee of citizenship. Fair in my opinion. Work here on that temp status(Just like H1B and L1 do) and get your employer to sponsor your GC. Nobody can stop that right?

2. In the tax debate that happened last year, Dems demanded "let us pass on what we agree". Why not apply that to CIR(something like HR3012 from last congress).

3. Piecemeal legislation will ultimately benefit all in my opinion. Getting all illegals a documented status will motivate them to seek better opportunity and if employment GC is made merit based who is going to benefit ultimately these illegals right?

4 . Finally I agree in life nothing is fair but we all have to agree that vote bank politics is being played here on both sides and hence if we for once try to be (I don't know the right word here) subjective/fair we should realize that this actually motivates individual to do the wrong thing.

indiani

07-15-2013, 11:44 AM

I think all this pathway to citizenship should be looked differently. Let me give it a try

1. EB category people especially from India and Chine are here for 10+ years and are yet to get their GC(LPR). All these long years they maintained perfect legal status and stuck it out literally. After LPR or GC, wait another 5 years to get Citizenship. Total years to citizenship 15. Illegal immigrants with CIR will get citizenship in 13 years. Kind of unfair I think. Republicans offer -> we will document them but give them no guarantee of citizenship. Fair in my opinion. Work here on that temp status(Just like H1B and L1 do) and get your employer to sponsor your GC. Nobody can stop that right?

2. In the tax debate that happened last year, Dems demanded "let us pass on what we agree". Why not apply that to CIR(something like HR3012 from last congress).

3. Piecemeal legislation will ultimately benefit all in my opinion. Getting all illegals a documented status will motivate them to seek better opportunity and if employment GC is made merit based who is going to benefit ultimately these illegals right?

4 . Finally I agree in life nothing is fair but we all have to agree that vote bank politics is being played here on both sides and hence if we for once try to be (I don't know the right word here) subjective/fair we should realize that this actually motivates individual to do the wrong thing.

Unfortunately politicians ( atleast majority of them ) think about their own self-interest.
Like Q said politics will takes its own course, i think at this point the only thing EB community can do is lobby for legal provisions in CIR.
Democracy is a bad form of govt but its the best among all other alternatives ( paraphrasing a quote form well known person), (in a way there just can't be an ideal govt.)

idiotic

07-15-2013, 01:12 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/07/15/who-will-replace-janet-napolitano-as-head-of-homeland-security/

Republicans getting a trusted man as head of homeland security is a huge positive push towards CIR passing....

Once CIR passes, DHS is in for a major restructuring..

qesehmk

07-15-2013, 04:17 PM

rupen86

07-15-2013, 07:18 PM

Weak vs Weaker

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/310895-weak-vs-weaker-both-obama-boehner-struggle-to-gain-leverage

Ramsen

07-15-2013, 09:08 PM

They are all good points - generally frequently heard from anti-immigrant groups.

While talking with our Sr VP HR (the kind of big shots that have company planes to fly them around) of one of my former employers, I learnt from him that this concern about US workers is nothing new. This resistance to immigration is nothing new.
Before Indians and Chinese there were Irish. "Oh irish are stealing our jobs!!" And before Irish there were italians and germans and dutch.
So every successive immigration group goes through same crucifix and the arguments are always the same.

So IMHO we need to stand together and continuously make our voice heard in a positive manner and make sure that whatever case we make is in the broader interest of people rather than just me or a bunch of my friends getting GCs.

If we say those points are heard from anti immigrants then most of the US citizens and US congress is anti immigrants based on their policy. Democrats wants workers protection in legal immigration. So they can be considered as anti immigrant in that respect. Republicans does not to give pathway to citizens without complete control of border security. So they are anti immigrants. That is the major issue in immigration bill. Basically we Indians want GC fast as each one of us are thinking as Superior(Just because our Managers or CEO told ' You are doing excellent job'). So we are supporting any bill which gives faster GC and branding anyone points out problems in the bill as anti immigrant. But I am sure the bill is not going to be passed until the bill is acceptable to majority of US people

qesehmk

07-15-2013, 11:32 PM

1... If we say those points are heard from anti immigrants then most of the US citizens and US congress is anti immigrants based on their policy....

2.. So we are supporting any bill which gives faster GC and branding anyone points out problems in the bill as anti immigrant.

....
3. But I am sure the bill is not going to be passed until the bill is acceptable to majority of US people

#1 - not true. Majority people are quite liberal actually .... including republicans. Just because you are for American workers doesn't make you anti-immigrant. Anti-immigrant is anti-immigrant no matter what. Majority Americans like immigration.
#2 - Nothing wrong in that.
#3 - Kind of agree..except that congress doesn't always pass laws that represents people's wishes. Within the limits of indirect representation... yes one could argue ultimately people's wishes may be represented.

gcq

07-16-2013, 05:30 AM

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/outsourcing/Indian-IT-to-cheer-as-US-immigration-bill-gets-a-jolt/articleshow/21098482.cms (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/outsourcing/Indian-IT-to-cheer-as-US-immigration-bill-gets-a-jolt/articleshow/21098482.cms)

Ramsen

07-16-2013, 08:13 AM

#1 - not true. Majority people are quite liberal actually .... including republicans. Just because you are for American workers doesn't make you anti-immigrant. Anti-immigrant is anti-immigrant no matter what. Majority Americans like immigration.
#2 - Nothing wrong in that.
#3 - Kind of agree..except that congress doesn't always pass laws that represents people's wishes. Within the limits of indirect representation... yes one could argue ultimately people's wishes may be represented.

If majority likes immigration. That is correct. But what level is big question. For example wide majority will tell no for any bill which gives pathway to citizenship at the same time future illegal immigration continue(The current CIR does that as CBO report shows only 33 to 50% future illegal immigration will be reduced). I think some kind of legalization for illegal immigrants immediately and trigger for pathway for citizenship could go well.
Anyhow for legal immigration Senate numbers will not be accepted by house. So compromise will lead to moderate number.

So it is not that much difficult to reach a deal. But it may take many more years to reach a deal as both sides need to become flexible.But so called anti immigrants also will have a say on legislation that will be passed. I doubt you can can pass a legislation by completely ignoring Senator Sessions or Rep Steve King.

qesehmk

07-16-2013, 08:47 AM

We will see what happens! The picture is right now bleak for any reform ... comprehensive or piecemeal.
If majority likes immigration. That is correct. But what level is big question. For example wide majority will tell no for any bill which gives pathway to citizenship at the same time future illegal immigration continue(The current CIR does that as CBO report shows only 33 to 50% future illegal immigration will be reduced). I think some kind of legalization for illegal immigrants immediately and trigger for pathway for citizenship could go well.
Anyhow for legal immigration Senate numbers will not be accepted by house. So compromise will lead to moderate number.

So it is not that much difficult to reach a deal. But it may take many more years to reach a deal as both sides need to become flexible.But so called anti immigrants also will have a say on legislation that will be passed. I doubt you can can pass a legislation by completely ignoring Senator Sessions or Rep Steve King.

druvraj

07-16-2013, 09:54 AM

We will see what happens! The picture is right now bleak for any reform ... comprehensive or piecemeal.

Q or anybody,

Could anybody please help me understand what provisions are there in the currently passed CIR bill that helps EB2-3 I&C people?

rupen86

07-16-2013, 10:34 AM

Different thinking that immigration reform will have better chances in 2014.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/primary-immigration-reform-2014_n_3588225.html

rupen86

07-16-2013, 10:36 AM

Q or anybody,

Could anybody please help me understand what provisions are there in the currently passed CIR bill that helps EB2-3 I&C people?

1) Recapture
2) Exempting dependents
3) Exempting EB1
4) Exempting STEM
5) Per country Quota elimination
6) Early filing of I-485
7) Visa Revalidation
8) Job mobility provisions

Here is a good comparison of senate bill vs HR 2131.

http://www.illinoistech.org/FileTreeAjaxHandler.axd?filesystem=mainFilesystem&extraInfo=1&file=Advocacy/Comparison%20s%20744%20with%20HR%202131%20may%2031 %20clean.pdf

qesehmk

07-16-2013, 01:14 PM

Here is a summary on this forum by various people. http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2099-Senate-CIR-Bill-Summary-amp-Discussion
Q or anybody,

Could anybody please help me understand what provisions are there in the currently passed CIR bill that helps EB2-3 I&C people?

gs1968

07-17-2013, 05:48 AM

Sen.Rubio is very smartly stepping aside for now to let the House do its own job.He will most likely come back into the picture prominently when things come together between the House & Senate towards the end to claim credit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/gang-of-eight-house-republicans_n_3607357.html?1374016994

On a different note the House judiciary Immigration sub-committee is holding a hearing on the DREAM Bill on July 23

gcq

07-17-2013, 08:35 AM

1) Recapture

http://www.illinoistech.org/FileTreeAjaxHandler.axd?filesystem=mainFilesystem&extraInfo=1&file=Advocacy/Comparison%20s%20744%20with%20HR%202131%20may%2031 %20clean.pdf

Hr 2131 has all the signs that it originated in business friendly GOP house. No democratic/anti-immigrant effect on H1B. No significant improvement for GC. House is showing they did "something" for immigration.

idiotic

07-17-2013, 11:51 AM

On a different note the House judiciary Immigration sub-committee is holding a hearing on the DREAM Bill on July 23

How Shameless they can be.. Just last month they passed a bill to cut funding to DACA and this month we have KIDS act :) Wonder if Mr. King will vote for it.

rupen86

07-17-2013, 12:17 PM

Hr 2131 has all the signs that it originated in business friendly GOP house. No democratic/anti-immigrant effect on H1B. No significant improvement for GC. House is showing they did "something" for immigration.

I agree. Seems like it is written exactly as companies might have wanted.

psychedelicNerd

07-17-2013, 01:48 PM

'No Major Problems' As House Gang Of 7 Creeps Towards Comprehensive Bill

http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-2013-no-major-problems-house-gang-7-creeps-towards-comprehensive-bill-1349765

gs1968

07-17-2013, 02:29 PM

How Shameless they can be.. Just last month they passed a bill to cut funding to DACA and this month we have KIDS act :) Wonder if Mr. King will vote for it.

My understanding of that vote was to rebuke President Obama for using executive power in a situation where Congressional approval was more preferable. Of course if Congress had acted all these years in a timely manner-this situation would have never occurred.

gs1968

07-17-2013, 02:34 PM

'No Major Problems' As House Gang Of 7 Creeps Towards Comprehensive Bill

http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-2013-no-major-problems-house-gang-7-creeps-towards-comprehensive-bill-1349765

It speaks volumes of the difficulty in the House compared to the Senate.The senate conceived a plan in December 2012,announced a blueprint in Jan 2013,introduced legislation in April 2013,passed through committee in May 2013 and passed through the whole Senate in Jun 2013.The House group has been working for 4 years and is still trying to get it right.The earliest introduction date is now September 2013 by which time the House piecemeal bills and the Tea Party groups will be in full swing

I came across this article and I am not sure if this is supposed to be optimistic or otherwise

http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/17/rep-goodlatte-immigration-debate-absolutely-extends-into-fall-possibly-2014/

idiotic

07-17-2013, 02:42 PM

My understanding of that vote was to rebuke President Obama for using executive power in a situation where Congressional approval was more preferable. Of course if Congress had acted all these years in a timely manner-this situation would have never occurred.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/steve-king-amendment-deport_n_3397126.html

Here is the video to the house passing of that controversial piece.. It was using the congress's "power of purse" to counter the executive branch. Reid thrown it to dustbin on arrival with a statement.

seahawks2012

07-17-2013, 03:58 PM

It speaks volumes of the difficulty in the House compared to the Senate.The senate conceived a plan in December 2012,announced a blueprint in Jan 2013,introduced legislation in April 2013,passed through committee in May 2013 and passed through the whole Senate in Jun 2013.

By the same timelines of 7 months, a new bill from House will take another 7 months to pass House and another 2-4 months in conference with the Senate. This already puts the immigration reform to 9-11 months which is Summer next year. Timing-wise this fits well in the Republican primaries which has been the primary concern for House members. Though I don't know exactly when the GOP primaries are to select Candidates.

natvyas

07-17-2013, 06:33 PM

The only way out of this pickle for the republican party is that Mr. Boehner is "forced" to bring the Senate Version of the bill to the floor for voting. I think this is what is going to end up happening.

This way the House members (to the right) can be in the good books of their constituents and GOP Senator can hope to win the White House in 2016.

rupen86

07-18-2013, 06:36 AM

House gang of 7 bill after summer recess.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/immigration-bill-2013-house-gang-punts-immigration-bill-again-94336.html

GCKnowHow

07-18-2013, 09:45 AM

Today I bumped into below URL to sign petition to house. Are you guys aware of it. Is it a legit one?

http://www.fwd.us/house?recruiter_id=127876

rupen86

07-18-2013, 06:53 PM

some hope.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/boehner-immigration-reform-pass-before-debt-hike-94425.html?hp=f1

idiotic

07-18-2013, 08:59 PM

Today I bumped into below URL to sign petition to house. Are you guys aware of it. Is it a legit one?

http://www.fwd.us/house?recruiter_id=127876

fwd.us is Mark Zuckerberg's lobbying front for Immigration reform. They have spent the most money among the pro-immigration groups and is widely responsible for outspending the anti-immigrant groups.

Join hands with them.. Register as volunteer and do what they ask to do.. They ask to do some timely action items (like they asked everyone to call House of Representatives a day before the July 10th meeting).. It's easy to call through their website as you will get a incoming call based on your zip code automatically.

rupen86

07-19-2013, 01:46 PM

August recess-Make or Break

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/immigration-reform-2013-august-recess-94389.html

rupen86

07-19-2013, 01:49 PM

Hispanic media focusing exclusively on John Boehner

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/15/for-the-hispanic-media-its-all-about-john-boehner/

psychedelicNerd

07-19-2013, 01:57 PM

Some more reads

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/18/us-usa-congress-immigration-idUSBRE96H1B520130718

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/19/inside-the-plan-to-sell-house-republicans-on-immigration-reform/

rupen86

07-19-2013, 04:12 PM

Jagan01

07-19-2013, 04:22 PM

Opponents seem to have upper hand right now. August seems make or break for immigration reform.

My two cents:
1. CIR wont pass this year. If it does then I will be happy as I have not even filed 485 yet. Republicans are fearing that they might loose their conservative votes and end up loosing the house to democrats. It is also important to note that there is a fair chance of having republicans form majority in both senate and house after 2014 elections. Most of the seats to be contested in senate in nov 2014 are belonging to democrats today. Thus Republicans can potentially turn them over and gain majority in both senate and house.
2. It will pass after 2014 elections which might be summer of 2015. I am hoping either democrats win house and retain senate OR republicans win senate and retain house. Both outcomes are good for legal immigrants and the reform we need will then be passed. So there is good chance for reform post 2014.

rupen86

07-19-2013, 04:49 PM

My two cents:
1. CIR wont pass this year. If it does then I will be happy as I have not even filed 485 yet. Republicans are fearing that they might loose their conservative votes and end up loosing the house to democrats. It is also important to note that there is a fair chance of having republicans form majority in both senate and house after 2014 elections. Most of the seats to be contested in senate in nov 2014 are belonging to democrats today. Thus Republicans can potentially turn them over and gain majority in both senate and house.
2. It will pass after 2014 elections which might be summer of 2015. I am hoping either democrats win house and retain senate OR republicans win senate and retain house. Both outcomes are good for legal immigrants and the reform we need will then be passed. So there is good chance for reform post 2014.

That is one line of thinking which may be right. But it may be too early to give up. Backers are preparing for final push.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/07/19/immigration-reform-backers-plan-big-push-to-finish-line/

vizcard

07-19-2013, 05:14 PM

That is one line of thinking which may be right. But it may be too early to give up. Backers are preparing for final push.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/07/19/immigration-reform-backers-plan-big-push-to-finish-line/

Its tough sledding because those Republicans who are not potential Presidential candidates (e.g. Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, etc) dont give a crap about national politics and could care less about the "greater good for America" as long as their jobs in their constituencies are secure

Jagan01

07-19-2013, 06:15 PM

Its tough sledding because those Republicans who are not potential Presidential candidates (e.g. Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, etc) dont give a crap about national politics and could care less about the "greater good for America" as long as their jobs in their constituencies are secure

If we keep ourselves in the shoes of Republicans we would be able to figure out what their strategy is:
1. Pro-Immigrant votes do not matter in the House or Senate elections as most people do not care to vote.
2. Pro-Immigrant votes do matter in Presidential elections
3. Anti-Immigrant votes do matter in Republican Primaries

There is no incentive for them to pass it this year due to senate and house elections coming up. The Republican congressmen (both pro and anti immigration stance) want the decision to be deferred.
- The pro-immigrants like (Rubio, Jeb Bush, McCain, Graham) would ideally benefit in the 2016 presidential race if the immigration reform was passed in 2015. Its human tendency to forget things that happened 3 years earlier and hence the best way for them to claim credit is to let it pass in 2015.
- The anti-immigrants like (Sessions, Goodlate) would benefit in primaries as they get the anti-immigrant vote . Hence even they want the decision to be deferred until 2015.

I am hoping against hope that it might pass sooner but looks like its destined to pass in 2015.

vizcard

07-20-2013, 06:37 PM

If we keep ourselves in the shoes of Republicans we would be able to figure out what their strategy is:
1. Pro-Immigrant votes do not matter in the House or Senate elections as most people do not care to vote.
2. Pro-Immigrant votes do matter in Presidential elections
3. Anti-Immigrant votes do matter in Republican Primaries

There is no incentive for them to pass it this year due to senate and house elections coming up. The Republican congressmen (both pro and anti immigration stance) want the decision to be deferred.
- The pro-immigrants like (Rubio, Jeb Bush, McCain, Graham) would ideally benefit in the 2016 presidential race if the immigration reform was passed in 2015. Its human tendency to forget things that happened 3 years earlier and hence the best way for them to claim credit is to let it pass in 2015.
- The anti-immigrants like (Sessions, Goodlate) would benefit in primaries as they get the anti-immigrant vote . Hence even they want the decision to be deferred until 2015.

I am hoping against hope that it might pass sooner but looks like its destined to pass in 2015.

CIR won't wait for 2015. It's 2013/2014 or bust. Moves will happen after the primaries and not elections. Republican citizens will vote republican where the candidate is tea party or regular. So the incumbents have to just get thru the primaries to avoid losing their jobs.

I don't think the Reps will win the Senate. In fact I believe the Dems will strengthen their majority.

rupen86

07-22-2013, 03:19 PM

Another thinking that Boehner is playing by strategy. Although, I do not quite agree with this.

http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-2013-why-boehner-avoiding-issue-pathway-citizenship-1355789

Jagan01

07-22-2013, 07:05 PM

CIR won't wait for 2015. It's 2013/2014 or bust. Moves will happen after the primaries and not elections. Republican citizens will vote republican where the candidate is tea party or regular. So the incumbents have to just get thru the primaries to avoid losing their jobs.

I don't think the Reps will win the Senate. In fact I believe the Dems will strengthen their majority.

I disagree. I feel that the chances are brighter in 2015.

I agree with the statement that "Moves will happen after the primaries and not elections". Presidential elections are 2016 and Primaries will be 2015. Thus 2015 is the best chance.

Another possibility is that dems might win the house in Nov 2014. If that happens then we can see CIR pass in Dec 2014. Even that would be technically called 2015.

Consider this... You have two sons... first has a bday in June and second in December... In May you will look for gifts for the son who's bday is in June and in Nov you will look for gifts for the other one.

Nov 2014 election is the main base of republicans... they cant afford to loose conservative voters in 2014 election.

Nov 2016 (Presidential) they know the conservatives will vote for Republican... That time they need the Latinos, Asians, etc to win White house. Hence 2015 :).

rupen86

07-22-2013, 10:07 PM

Very good interview by Gutiérrez

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/22/rep-luis-gutierrez-explains-how-immigration-reform-gets-out-of-the-house/?tid=pm_business_pop

He perfectly summarizes Republican insistence on Hastert rule.

"Don’t you see this anti-democratic, anti-democracy bent in everything they’re saying? In other words, “I can’t allow this process to go forward because the majority might win. Therefore, I’m going to use my minority status to obstruct. I’m going to join 30 other Republicans and say, ‘You’re not going to get anything because conference equals amnesty in your mind, or equals getting an immigration bill.’”

"How does that speak to American values? I don’t know. If you take that, there would be no vote for women, blacks would still be back at the back of the bus, the gay community would still not be recognized. Come on, it is the triumph of the majority, right, that sustains and strengthens democracy. You really weaken democracy when you allow a minority to use legislative tools to thwart the will of the majority. How’s that gonna make you feel? That’s what people rebel against."

"It’s almost too cavalier. “Of course Luis, you have 218 votes, but you need a majority of the majority.” It’s almost like that is what is taught in basic civics in America, and why would you question it? It’s the new truth.

We’re going to question that new truth. You just say, “Wait a minute, that’s not exactly fair. I thought the guy with the most votes wins.”

indiani

07-22-2013, 11:02 PM

I disagree. I feel that the chances are brighter in 2015.

I agree with the statement that "Moves will happen after the primaries and not elections". Presidential elections are 2016 and Primaries will be 2015. Thus 2015 is the best chance.

Another possibility is that dems might win the house in Nov 2014. If that happens then we can see CIR pass in Dec 2014. Even that would be technically called 2015.

Consider this... You have two sons... first has a bday in June and second in December... In May you will look for gifts for the son who's bday is in June and in Nov you will look for gifts for the other one.

Nov 2014 election is the main base of republicans... they cant afford to loose conservative voters in 2014 election.

Nov 2016 (Presidential) they know the conservatives will vote for Republican... That time they need the Latinos, Asians, etc to win White house. Hence 2015 :).

I have been following politics for more than a decade now, until about 6 months before elections its difficult to even remotely predict the outcome.
CIR will pass in the next few years, its just a matter of time but for someone who will get GC in 1-2 yrs even without CIR it might save at the most a year or so ( especially someone who doesn't have stable job)

vizcard

07-22-2013, 11:13 PM

See comments inline

I disagree. I feel that the chances are brighter in 2015.

I agree with the statement that "Moves will happen after the primaries and not elections". Presidential elections are 2016 and Primaries will be 2015. Thus 2015 is the best chance.
they have primaries for House and Senate elections too. I was referring to those primaries.

Another possibility is that dems might win the house in Nov 2014. If that happens then we can see CIR pass in Dec 2014. Even that would be technically called 2015.
All the more reason for Republicans to get it done before Nov then if Republicans want a say in the matter.

Consider this... You have two sons... first has a bday in June and second in December... In May you will look for gifts for the son who's bday is in June and in Nov you will look for gifts for the other one.

no idea what this means. But if either of those birthdays are important milestones, I'd be thinking a lot longer than 1 month.

Nov 2014 election is the main base of republicans... they cant afford to loose conservative voters in 2014 election.
they are not going to lose conservative voters. Congressional districts are less diverse in terms of republican vs democrat. They generally lean heavily one way or the other. For republicans districts,the issue is conservative vs ultra-conservative.
If incumbent candidate A is a normal republican and candidate B is tea party republican, the republicans population will generally pick the one who is more conservative. So the incumbent has to be overly conservative to win the primary. Once he gets past the primary ie beat candidate B, the entire republican population will vote for him/her against the Dem candidate regardless as he will always be more conservative than the Dem candidate.

Nov 2016 (Presidential) they know the conservatives will vote for Republican... That time they need the Latinos, Asians, etc to win White house. Hence 2015 :)
You are assuming ethnic groups are liberal which is false. Latinos are very conservative and religious. The only sticking point is immigration. Republicans will need time to get immigration done and then sell republican values to the ones that are on the fence. It's not a light switch - pass immigration and win election..

rupen86

07-23-2013, 02:11 PM

Some hope, threat and despair

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/312821-dems-warn-odds-of-immigration-reform-dim-in-2014-

gs1968

07-26-2013, 03:34 PM

Just to keep this thread alive-some info from Rep.Ryan (very vague) and no supporting information from either house leadership or other congressmen

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/paul-ryan-lays-out-immigration-proposals-in-racine-town-hall-b9962573z1-217134531.html

If this is indeed true there is no need to break our heads for 2 months at the least

rupen86

07-26-2013, 05:43 PM

idiotic

07-29-2013, 12:23 PM

rupen86

07-29-2013, 03:33 PM

Interesting report ..

http://www.americanbridgepac.org/2013/07/wire/study-republicans-vote-with-steve-king-on-immigration-90-of-the-time/

I am not sure what it takes for the republican national congress to keep the anti immigrant faction quiet..

This statics does not tell the fact that till now republican party was aligned with King's ideas on immigration but the shift is recent which has happened after November election.

rupen86

07-30-2013, 09:19 AM

Budget fights may affect immigration reform negatively.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/07/immigration_reform_how_budget_and_debt_limit_fight s_may_kill_comprehensive.html

rupen86

07-30-2013, 02:28 PM

Good analysis..Paul Ryan to take a lead.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/07/30/why-immigration-reform-isnt-a-hopeless-cause/

And below one, still asking valid question why house members would support it when their seats are safe unless Boehner brings bill without majority of republican supporting it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/30/immigration-reform-in-the-house/

idiotic

07-31-2013, 01:24 PM

Some funny stuff..

"As McCain, 76, walked out of the Dem-filled space, reporters pressed him as to why he stepped foot in the room.
Saying he “had to give a speech,” McCain was eyed walking away sporting a big grin."

"The senator on Wednesday joked it would a "difficult choice" for him if Paul and Democrat Hillary Clinton were to face off for the presidency in 2016."

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/314701-mccain-strolls-into-dem-caucus-meeting

PD2008AUG25

07-31-2013, 02:12 PM

qesehmk

07-31-2013, 02:43 PM

Thanks PD. The article is quite neat. I agree with the tone. Personally now I am of the opinion that even 35% is a tall order.

Republicans are entirely driven to see Obama fail. So their focus is going to be crafting a bill that in no way shape or form can be tied to Obama. It means one and only one thing - there won't be any bill.

Dems on the other hand are in a strong position here - win or lose - and are unlikely to yield.

The intransigence of GOP is far more systemic and not necessarily tied to immigration. It has to do with the psyche of the majority who feels their way is threatened in new america. And hence common sense is not going to prevail.

There are 2 specific examples of how common sense is not prevailing:
1) The entire economic crisis so badly warranted public spending on infrastructure. Yet we saw very little movement there.
2) With baby boomers retiring America is actually going to face crisis of young workers. But there is little appetite to address EB immigration on its own merit.

On both fronts - we are seeing lack of action because political climate is too muddy. Otherwise both issues are no-brainers.

this is very realistic scenario.

"My bet is, Democrats will demand far more than House Republicans can possibly deliver."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/so-much-for-immigration-reform-20130725?utm_content=bufferce00d&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

rupen86

07-31-2013, 06:10 PM

this is very realistic scenario.

"My bet is, Democrats will demand far more than House Republicans can possibly deliver."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/so-much-for-immigration-reform-20130725?utm_content=bufferce00d&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

One thing I do not understand. As the article correctly points out that most house republicans would be ok if the bill is passed without their votes, Boehner's insistence on hastert rule contradicts that point. If he allows vote on senate bill, he could pass without having to ask house republicans to vote for it.

seahawks2012

07-31-2013, 07:24 PM

this is very realistic scenario.

"My bet is, Democrats will demand far more than House Republicans can possibly deliver."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/so-much-for-immigration-reform-20130725?utm_content=bufferce00d&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

You should read the comments section of the article and you could see the comments as ultra-anti-immigration. People are talking about LEGAL immigration as detrimental to the country along with the regular bashing of amnesty provisions.

gcq

07-31-2013, 09:44 PM

You should read the comments section of the article and you could see the comments as ultra-anti-immigration. People are talking about LEGAL immigration as detrimental to the country along with the regular bashing of amnesty provisions.
These comments are probably by anti-immigrant groups. Anti-immigrant groups like NUSA has dedicated volunteers who write these comments.

vizcard

08-01-2013, 09:20 PM

These comments are probably by anti-immigrant groups. Anti-immigrant groups like NUSA has dedicated volunteers who write these comments.

Thats a pervasive theme ... loud anti-immigration minority... very very loud. Starting with Steve King and down to groups like NumbersUSA

Techsavvy1973

08-02-2013, 01:30 AM

rupen86

08-02-2013, 08:39 AM

Friends

Bob Goodlatte (House Judiciary committee chairman) has mentioned about the removing per country caps in this article on National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354890/reform-immigration-gradually-bob-goodlatte)

Looks like a good sign for at least some relief (i.e. without increasing gc quotas) and making the system fair.

There is nothing new in removing per country limit now. It is in the senate bill. It is in SKILL bill. And I believe, it will be part of any bill introduced in future. But it is not good as he is making it sound. SKILL bill raises H1 3 times and including dependents, it will raise it at least 6 times while only allocating 50,000 STEM green cards. Math does not look good to me even though it includes per country quota elimination.

vizcard

08-02-2013, 12:55 PM

There is nothing new in removing per country limit now. It is in the senate bill. It is in SKILL bill. And I believe, it will be part of any bill introduced in future. But it is not good as he is making it sound. SKILL bill raises H1 3 times and including dependents, it will raise it at least 6 times while only allocating 50,000 STEM green cards. Math does not look good to me even though it includes per country quota elimination.

The Senate bill doesn't remove per country limits. It raises it to 15% though (as I understand it).

gcq

08-02-2013, 02:37 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/dems-hit-gop-immigration-top-critics-home-160455883.html

AMES, Iowa (AP) — Kicking off an August of likely intense debate over immigration, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat traveled to Iowa Friday to rebuke House Republicans who oppose major changes embraced by the Senate.

rupen86

08-02-2013, 03:07 PM

The Senate bill doesn't remove per country limits. It raises it to 15% though (as I understand it).

That is in family based. For EB, it removes.

gcq

08-02-2013, 09:15 PM

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.

Here is more proof for it from their facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/****************

China EB2 (Master's degree required) is slower than EB3 (Bachelor's degree required) ...Need any more proof that Legal High-Skilled Immigration is broken??

gcq

08-07-2013, 09:14 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/08/05/evangelicals-we-will-denounce-those-that-block-immigration-reform/

“We are announcing the Gospel that welcomes the stranger and we will denounce those that block immigration reform.”

gcq

08-07-2013, 09:16 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/chuck-schumer-immigration-95293.html

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made his clearest indication yet that he would be fine with a piecemeal approach to immigration reform preferred by the Republican-led House.Schumer, the leader of the Gang of Eight whose comprehensive immigration reform legislation passed the Senate in June, said even if the House passes separate bills, those measures could eventually be bundled in a House-Senate conference committee.

rupen86

08-07-2013, 09:52 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/chuck-schumer-immigration-95293.html

"Schumer also noted on CNN that a few of the House bills — such as one on agriculture workers and another on high-skilled immigrants — are “very similar” to components in the Gang of Eight bill."

It is disappointing that he is not seeing or does not want to see difference between house and senate bill on high skill immigration.

PD2008AUG25

08-08-2013, 06:53 AM

At the center of the internal debate is Nancy Pelosi and the question of whether Democrats will file a so-called “discharge petition” for the Senate immigration bill. If a discharge petition were signed by a majority in the House, the measure would get a full floor vote.

This seems to be something new. Senate bill can still be on the house floor without Boehner's approval, not that it is very likely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/08/05/democrats-divided-over-immigration-strategy/

PD2008AUG25

08-08-2013, 06:56 AM

All the more proof that only focus of bill for Democrats is legalization and citizenship for undocumented. They are willing throw in anything together to get it done.

qesehmk

08-08-2013, 07:32 AM

All the more proof that only focus of bill for Democrats is legalization and citizenship for undocumented. They are willing throw in anything together to get it done.
The only reason there is ANY talk of ANY EB reform is because of what dems are trying to accomplish for illegals. So EB reform is riding on back of illegals. Without illegals nobody is even talking about EB. GOP's piecemeal approach is lipservice. They don't want to be seen sitting idle. But their core approach on immigration is "Do nothing".

PD2008AUG25

08-08-2013, 07:49 AM

The only reason there is ANY talk of ANY EB reform is because of what dems are trying to accomplish for illegals. So EB reform is riding on back of illegals. Without illegals nobody is even talking about EB. GOP's piecemeal approach is lipservice. They don't want to be sitting idle. But their core approach on immigration is "Do nothing".

Dems have been holding legal reform hostage for decades using arbitrary notion of "comprehensive", legal reform otherwise has broader support and is quite achievable. Dems are not doing legal immigration any favors by supporting it, they want more from legal immigration backers to push their ugly goat through fence.

qesehmk

08-08-2013, 07:58 AM

For decades? I am sorry but I don't know what you are talking about!

But as per arbitrary notion of "comprehensive" - what is arbitrary to you is a consistent position that Obama administration took. It is their policy prerogative to choose their constituency and to their credit they worked towards it and also included EB in it.

My point is that GOP doesn;t want any reform EB or FB or illegal. Just go back to Bush Era .... Bush and McCain wanted reform. Who shot it down? Do you think democrats? Well you are wrong. It was their own party GOP who pushed back. Today McCain and Bush are supportive of reform. But GOP hasn't budged.

Politics and personal liking of political parties aside - EB folks need to understand that without CIR there is NO reform out there. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. People like Mark Zuckerberg are trying very hard ... but EB immigration is much tougher than you think. So the best way is to ride along with CIR.

Dems have been holding legal reform hostage for decades using arbitrary notion of "comprehensive", legal reform otherwise has broader support and is quite achievable. Dems are not doing legal immigration any favors by supporting it, they want more from legal immigration backers to push their ugly goat through fence.

rupen86

08-08-2013, 08:21 AM

This seems to be something new. Senate bill can still be on the house floor without Boehner's approval, not that it is very likely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/08/05/democrats-divided-over-immigration-strategy/

I personally favor discharge petition if they want to accomplish something seriously. Rather than relying on Boehner to do something and then relying again to go to conference committee and then again relying that conference report gets a vote and that too majority of republican vote, this seems to be easier option if they can get 20-30 republicans to sign for it.

bieber

08-08-2013, 09:08 AM

qesehmk

08-08-2013, 09:21 AM

Rubio was dem's proxy for CIR. The environment is so toxic - no democrat could've championed the reform by himself. So they had to put a republican as their proxy and that's what they did.
If not for Rubio, the senate bill wouldn't even stand a chance for voting. It's weird how dems get the credit even when reps did something about it.

Current administration did nothing when they have complete power on both houses. If Rubio didn't take initiative they wouldn't even do anything about it except saying they are for comprehensive reform. This administration stand is to do it 'comprehensive' yet president signed dream act before elections. that shows the priorities and true color of politics

PD2008AUG25

08-08-2013, 09:42 AM

For decades? I am sorry but I don't know what you are talking about!

At the hearing, you said “For ten years, I insisted that nothing happen on STEM [Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics] or any other particular part of comprehensive immigration reform unless we did it all.”

http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/10/dear-congressman-gutierrez-please-lift-your-hold-on-silicon-valley/

But as per arbitrary notion of "comprehensive" - what is arbitrary to you is a consistent position that Obama administration took. It is their policy prerogative to choose their constituency and to their credit they worked towards it and also included EB in it.

Consistent? DREAM act was hardly "comprehensive". Obama was ready to sign it, had it passed Senate.

President Barack Obama and top Democrats pledged to introduce the Dream Act into the House by November 29.[36] The House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act on December 8, 2010,[37][38] but the bill failed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to end debate on the Senate floor

My point is that GOP doesn;t want any reform EB or FB or illegal. Just go back to Bush Era .... Bush and McCain wanted reform. Who shot it down? Do you think democrats? Well you are wrong. It was their own party GOP who pushed back. Today McCain and Bush are supportive of reform. But GOP hasn't budged.

My point is Democrats don't want any reform. They consistently set unrealistic arbitrary goals (comprehensive, must-have-citizenship, diversity) to torpedo any real opportunity at any reform and blame the other party.

Politics and personal liking of political parties aside - EB folks need to understand that without CIR there is NO reform out there. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. People like Mark Zuckerberg are trying very hard ... but EB immigration is much tougher than you think. So the best way is to ride along with CIR.

This is what exactly Democrats have been selling for years. I don't think that's true. EB related bills can easily pass if Democrats change their stance. Republican opposition to CIR looks far more principled than Democrats' opposition to non-CIR bills. Border security, Amnesty are real concerns, but not the hypothetical grouping of immigrants based on nothing.

qesehmk

08-08-2013, 09:58 AM

PD - I wish you and anybody good luck working with republicans to get any EB reform done. I will be very happy if that happens either way. Dems or republicans. Comprehensive or Piecemeal.

At the hearing, you said “For ten years, I insisted that nothing happen on STEM [Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics] or any other particular part of comprehensive immigration reform unless we did it all.”

http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/10/dear-congressman-gutierrez-please-lift-your-hold-on-silicon-valley/

Consistent? DREAM act was hardly "comprehensive". Obama was ready to sign it, had it passed Senate.

President Barack Obama and top Democrats pledged to introduce the Dream Act into the House by November 29.[36] The House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act on December 8, 2010,[37][38] but the bill failed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to end debate on the Senate floor

My point is Democrats don't want any reform. They consistently set unrealistic arbitrary goals (comprehensive, must-have-citizenship, diversity) to torpedo any real opportunity at any reform and blame the other party.

This is what exactly Democrats have been selling for years. I don't think that's true. EB related bills can easily pass if Democrats change their stance. Republican opposition to CIR looks far more principled than Democrats' opposition to non-CIR bills. Border security, Amnesty are real concerns, but not the hypothetical grouping of immigrants based on nothing.

bieber

08-08-2013, 10:56 AM

bieber

08-08-2013, 10:58 AM

PD - I wish you and anybody good luck working with republicans to get any EB reform done. I will be very happy if that happens either way. Dems or republicans. Comprehensive or Piecemeal.

I think Marco Rubio is behind the current progress of immigration reform. and he deserves the credit more than any other senator/president.

gcq

08-08-2013, 11:01 AM

If not for Rubio, the senate bill wouldn't even stand a chance for voting. It's weird how dems get the credit even when reps did something about it.

Current administration did nothing when they have complete power on both houses. If Rubio didn't take initiative they wouldn't even do anything about it except saying they are for comprehensive reform. This administration stand is to do it 'comprehensive' yet president signed dream act before elections. that shows the priorities and true color of politics

Rubio is not a champion of anything. He was against amnesty till recently. He acted as if he likes CIR once he had a shot at becoming a presidential candidate. Even then he was confused as to what he want to do with CIR as CIR moved through senate. IMO presence/absence of Rubio would have made no impact to CIR. The real champions of CIR from Senate GOP is McCain and Graham. Regarding Rubio, democrats might have thought "one more GOP", more the merrier. Rubio is not mature enough to take a stand on CIR, all he sees is an opportunity to attract latino votes if he becomes a presidential candidate.

qesehmk

08-08-2013, 11:05 AM

The short answer is yes indeed.

Rubio is a relatively new young senator with sky high ambition of becoming a president. If Obama can be a half term senator turned president then why not me ..... that's the thinking here. With Obama's re-election on the back of latino votes he sensed an opportunity (it was proved beyond doubt that GOP is in trouble going forward without latino votes). His own being puerto rican is an asset and he thought he could do it. All others republicans knew immigration is a hot potato and let him lead it. Democrats would've been happy with any republican do their bidding for them ... so they let him be the proxy for their agenda.

Leadership and forming public opinions is not a trivial thing. Rubio is not that kind of material. He is just a proxy.

p.s. - As per 2016 .... GOP is going to have a tough time fighting latino power + the changing way of how elections are fought and won using technology and crowd sourcing of funds. The second factor is something that many of us don't realize. But Obama pretty much has transformed how elections are fought and won using technology.

Can you be more specific? Democrats convinced Rubio to be their proxy? and Rubio agreed to it risking his party support

bieber

08-08-2013, 11:11 AM

Q and gcq

no comments

qesehmk

08-08-2013, 11:21 AM

bieber - You are wiser than me. I generally am incapable of saying what you just said :)

Q and gcq

no comments

idiotic

08-09-2013, 10:42 AM

PD - I wish you and anybody good luck working with republicans to get any EB reform done. I will be very happy if that happens either way. Dems or republicans. Comprehensive or Piecemeal.

Well said.. It's amazing that people cannot see that the opposition to CIR is really doing nothing and sticking with current system and primarily driven by anti immigrant groups whose only goal is to reduce immigration.. They always think there is a fairyland in between these anti immigrants will solve all immigrant's problems in a ideological way and pro-immigrant groups are standing in the way..

qesehmk

08-09-2013, 02:57 PM

Obama right now speaking about CIR ..
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/52713163

Made a great point that CIR actually addresses all republicans concerns on immigration and actually improves situation on all counts. GOP members' objection now is that it doesn't solve problems 100%. Further he said that he doesn't know a human problem that can be solved 100% with a law.

Politics aside - but that is the right argument IMHO. GOP members just don't want to pass any immigration reform - comprehensive or otherwise and that's why they insist on a perfect bill.

rupen86

08-13-2013, 09:06 AM

Steve King again showing frustration. I think this is good, helping immigration reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/steve-king-immigration-reform_n_3746834.html

gten20

08-13-2013, 10:05 AM

Steve King again showing frustration. I think this is good, helping immigration reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/steve-king-immigration-reform_n_3746834.html

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/08/no-one-wanted-hear-steve-king-talk-about-immigration/68262/

rupen86

08-13-2013, 02:52 PM

Rubio: Pass immigration reform or Obama may legalize 11 million by fiat

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2013/08/rubio-pass-immigration-reform-or-obama-may-legalize-11-million-by-fiat

feedmyback

08-13-2013, 05:50 PM

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/08/no-one-wanted-hear-steve-king-talk-about-immigration/68262/

Hilarious!!!

qesehmk

08-13-2013, 06:06 PM

LoL!! How did I miss this. This is crazy hilarious!!
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/08/no-one-wanted-hear-steve-king-talk-about-immigration/68262/

gcq

08-16-2013, 01:47 PM

3 reasons why the Tea Party is losing August (http://news.yahoo.com/3-reasons-why-tea-party-losing-august-061000501.html)

Town hall season was supposed to be the anti-immigration fringe's time to shine. What happened?

August 2009 was the month of the Tea Party town hall.

We were just eight months into the Obama presidency, and Democratic congressmen headed home for recess only to get ambushed by mobs chanting their opposition to ObamaCare. As The New York Times reported at the time, "members of Congress have been shouted down, hanged in effigy, and taunted by crowds." The August 2009 town halls certainly created obstacles on the road to health care reform, and in many ways, gave birth to the national Tea Party movement.

Now here we are in August 2013, when some observers thought that Tea Party groups would actually derail the tenuous legislative push for immigration reform. The anti-immigration group NumbersUSA is certainly trying, posting "Town Hall Talking Points" along with lists of congressional events at which to reel them off.

But midway through August, the Tea Party is barely a blip on the national radar. What happened?

1. The anti-immigration Tea Party crowd is being out-crazied
Despite the heroic efforts of Rep. Steve "Cantaloupe Calves" King, the anti-immigration faction of the Tea Party is being crowded out by voices even farther out on the fringe.

The news out of the town halls has featured Oklahoma's "Birther Princess" and a Republican congressman casually musing about impeachment. Outside of the town halls, Republicans are publicly feuding with each other over whether to agitate for a government shutdown and conservative talk radio hosts are expending their energies defending the wisdom of turning a Missouri rodeo into a minstrel show.

The right wing's summer cacophony is muffling the noise of the anti-immigration forces, as well as deepening the Republican image problem among moderates and people of color.

2. The Republican leadership wants no part of Tea Party agitation
For all we know, the Tea Party fizzle may be exactly what the Republican leadership wants. According to Politico, "House Republican leaders have spoken about immigration only when asked during the August recess." That suggests Speaker John Boehner and his allies are looking to lower the temperature, creating a climate that eventually will allow compromise to win the day.

But it's not just the formal Republican leadership that is refusing to join the anti-immigration crusade. Tea Party favorites like Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz haven't been leading the anti-immigration parade either, despite their opposition to the bipartisan Senate bill. The Daily Caller's Mickey Kaus lashed out, saying, "If Amnesty Wins, Blame Cruz," as Cruz is siphoning off conservative grassroots energy for his fight against ObamaCare.

The best NumbersUSA could book for its Stop Amnesty tour is Rep. King. A recent rally led by King, held in the congressional district of the second-highest ranking House Republican, attracted a mere 60 people. Meanwhile 1,500 pro-immigration-reform activists held a Wednesday rally in the heavily Latino congressional district of the third-highest ranking House Republican.

3. Republican money is on the other side
The 2009 town hall outbursts were nationally organized in part by conservative groups FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, which were funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.

But the Kochs support immigration reform, as do Karl Rove and 100 other major Republican donors. As of June, pro-immigration groups had outspent opponents more than 3-to-1.

These three factors are connected. Because the anti-immigration squad is so poorly funded and lacking in leadership, it is vulnerable to being marginalized by louder fringe voices and better organized mainstream voices.
The louder the fringe voices become, the stronger the case mainstream Republicans can make to their leaders to accept immigration reform, on
the grounds that the party can't survive if it remains associated with birthers and bigots. At the same time, since the Tea Party can't get the conservative grassroots riled up now, they won't have much of a case to make to incumbent congressmen that they will face fierce primary challenges next year if they agree to a compromise with Democrats.

Score August as a big win for immigration reform.

rupen86

08-16-2013, 04:09 PM

vizcard

08-17-2013, 09:30 AM

The question in my mind is whether these "offline" wins will translate to legislative wins. The key guys still don't seem to be overtly convinced (Goodlatte, Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy)

gcq

08-17-2013, 02:22 PM

The question in my mind is whether these "offline" wins will translate to legislative wins. The key guys still don't seem to be overtly convinced (Goodlatte, Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy)
Goodlatte - is not a hard liner. He will go with whatever GOP wants.
Boehner - Might have changed to non-committal mode after Steve King's behind the scenes co-ordination with NUSA and other groups.
Cantor - Same

If GOP finds that anti-immigrants don't have that clout as they feared, CIR will be back in business.

vizcard

08-19-2013, 06:16 PM

Goodlatte - is not a hard liner. He will go with whatever GOP wants.
Boehner - Might have changed to non-committal mode after Steve King's behind the scenes co-ordination with NUSA and other groups.
Cantor - Same

If GOP finds that anti-immigrants don't have that clout as they feared, CIR will be back in business.

None of those 3 are extreme right...true... but they are the GOP leaders in the House. They need to drive the process...instead..they are being taken for a ride by the extreme right. And that's really the point I was making. Until the leadership takes a stand, nothing will move.

gcq

08-22-2013, 10:28 AM

Voices opposing immigration law muted this August

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — It was the kickoff of a "Stop Amnesty Tour" organized by the Tea Party Patriots and other groups. But the crowd was so sparse that immigrant advocates were soon gleefully circulating photos of the featured speaker, Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, standing alone on an empty stage.
(http://news.yahoo.com/voices-opposing-immigration-law-muted-august-070346071.html)

seahawks2012

08-22-2013, 02:35 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/recess-roar-immigrations-quieter-than-expected-august-the-note/

"TED CRUZ: ‘I WILL RENOUNCE ANY CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP’. Here are the facts: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who may run for president in 2016, was born in Canada and his mother was a U.S. citizen, ABC’s ABBY PHILLIP reports. Most legal scholars and Cruz agree that he’s an American. And if Cruz chooses to run for president in 2016, his technical Canadian citizenship shouldn’t matter, either. But it seems to matter to Cruz. After a spokesman initially denied that Cruz was a dual citizen, the senator said in a statement that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship. “Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,” Cruz said. “Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. “Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator, I believe I should be only an American.” http://abcn.ws/16DMWWA

–BACKSTORY: Why would Sen. Cruz duck his Canadian birth? Here’s a clue: Billionaire-turned-political-agitator Donald Trump, arguably the only voice of the birther conspiracy theorists, also believes that being born in Canada is a problem for Cruz. When asked whether he thought Cruz was eligible to run for president, Trump told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl: “If he was born in Canada, perhaps not. I don’t know the circumstances. I heard somebody told me he was born in Canada. That’s really his thing.” Incidentally, Trump also doubts whether President Obama, who was born in Hawaii to an American mother, is eligible to be president. Trump has not yet responded to an ABC News request for comment on the latest revelations"

Look at the backstory's last statement of the dual standards people follow!

rupen86

08-22-2013, 02:54 PM

Crux of the problem is not letting bill to come up for a vote by insisting Hastert rule.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/22079626-452/brown-gutierrez-crossing-country-to-push-immigration-reform.html

rupen86

08-23-2013, 02:02 PM

Good summary on where things stand right now.

http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/23/is-immigration-legislation-still-a-go-yep-say-reform-proponents/

idiotic

08-25-2013, 02:45 AM

We all know that house democrats are at bottom of the political food chain .. Funny letter from them to Boehner at start of Recess .. But it is indicative of what to expect.. September 30th is the next logical milestone where things will be clear.. Godolatte already said that the 5 piecemeal bills will be taken up in the house floor in September..

"we write to inform you that if a "bipartisan" immigration reform package is not introduced in House of Representatives - ... - by september 30th,"
http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/sites/newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/files/polisscans_20130802_162613.pdf

gcq

08-26-2013, 08:07 PM

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/careers/job-trends/Infosys-plans-to-cut-onsite-effort-by-20/articleshow/22081032.cms

Jagan01

08-26-2013, 08:29 PM

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/careers/job-trends/Infosys-plans-to-cut-onsite-effort-by-20/articleshow/22081032.cms

Doesn't matter if they reduce H1 onsite effort. I think many used to be holding H1 but never came to USA. They might be cutting the excess H1 that they hold.

idiotic

08-28-2013, 09:52 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/08/28/the-gop-not-the-calendar-is-the-obstacle-for-immigration-reform/

What this is really about is looking for excuses, even far-fetched ones, for why they’re not doing comprehensive immigration reform without actually admitting that they’re against comprehensive immigration reform.
It remains very simple. If most mainstream conservative Republicans in the House want comprehensive immigration reform to pass, it will pass. If they don’t, it won’t. It really is that simple. Anything else you hear is poor analysis or spin.

rupen86

08-29-2013, 04:34 PM

Jagan01

08-29-2013, 07:21 PM

The strategy of house gang seems to be introducing bill in October when piece-meal bills would have failed. Seems like a good strategy.

http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-2013-house-gang-preps-comprehensive-bill-october-push-1401634

Another way to look at the same information.
- Even Democrats do not expect House passing/considering CIR until Oct
- Republicans will try to push piecemeal bills until they keep failing to a point when they decide to give up. The democrat speaker believes that the Republicans will give up on piecemeal bills sometime in Oct. It may be December or even Next summer. It is upto the discretion of Republicans and only when they think that piecemeal will not work would they even think of CIR
- Even if House later on decides to bring CIR it is still not taking the Senate CIR. This means going to conference and a lot of back and forth.

Overall this article says that expect no bill to be passed for another year.

Jagan01

08-29-2013, 07:34 PM

Another way to look at the same information.
- Even Democrats do not expect House passing/considering CIR until Oct
- Republicans will try to push piecemeal bills until they keep failing to a point when they decide to give up. The democrat speaker believes that the Republicans will give up on piecemeal bills sometime in Oct. It may be December or even Next summer. It is upto the discretion of Republicans and only when they think that piecemeal will not work would they even think of CIR
- Even if House later on decides to bring CIR it is still not taking the Senate CIR. This means going to conference and a lot of back and forth.

Overall this article says that expect no bill to be passed for another year.

Sorry for being pessimistic... but after all the wait and after all the hype around CIR... I somehow believe that all of the immigration bill etc is just false hopes...The further it delays the less likely it is to pass.... I am fearing that if this runs into next year then the elections will be another excuse of not taking up the immigration reform...

idiotic

08-30-2013, 12:23 AM

http://judiciary.house.gov/news/2013/Parental%20Interest%20Directive.PDF

The next executive order legalizing more categories...

Timing of this will ensure that Republicans have more stake now in passing CIR to get their enforcement piece atleast..

rupen86

09-03-2013, 10:36 AM

From Oh Law firm, seems new compromise in the discussion. If it is true and if that's the way they try to do it, it might benefit us because they would add more green cards to clear existing backlog.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/09/01/in-immigration-reform-battle-house-republicans-advocate-path-not-pathway-to/

idiotic

09-03-2013, 11:25 AM

it might benefit us because they would add more green cards to clear existing backlog.

Traditionally House republicans are always for net Green Card neutral solutions to satisfy the anti immigrant groups..

rupen86

09-03-2013, 12:27 PM

Traditionally House republicans are always for net Green Card neutral solutions to satisfy the anti immigrant groups..

Ya, that is true. That shows up in HR 2131 also but if they choose this route, they also have to show how it will work. Without increasing green cards, it never will.

idiotic

09-03-2013, 01:13 PM

Ya, that is true. That shows up in HR 2131 also but if they choose this route, they also have to show how it will work.

Show it to whom(immigrants in queue)?? They will claim America is one of the most generous countries already when it comes to immigration and there is no need for increasing it further. Everyone need to wait for their turn.

Without increasing green cards, it never will.
Agreed.

cbordu_111

09-03-2013, 02:11 PM

idiotic

09-03-2013, 02:19 PM

Join the action on September 10th..

http://www.fwd.us/doa

idiotic

09-03-2013, 03:02 PM

There is one thing for certain with this whole immigration debate and that is there is absolutely no chance of immigration reform passing this year at all. I say so just looking at the legislative priorities this year and immigration does not fit the bill anywhere. The best possible chance if any would probably be after next year mid terms and if there is no change in the house/senate dynamics, this issue is only going to come alive in 2016. That's the irony of immigration reform!

“It looks like the House will bring [for a vote] some portion of five bills that have been ready since July,” she said.
Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/08/28/white-house-domestic-policy-official-says-immigration-reform-vote-not-likely/#ixzz2drTtrY1f

rupen86

09-03-2013, 03:16 PM

Join the action on September 10th..

http://www.fwd.us/doa

My take on this so far is this. They are heavily lobbying for immigration bills including HR 2131. As we all know HR 2131 does not do anything significant on green cards. Being tech organization, we would have expected it to lobby for problems faced by people like us. Instead it has happily embraced H1 increase without green card increase and for that reason, I do not support it. Just my opinion.

rupen86

09-03-2013, 03:22 PM

Show it to whom(immigrants in queue)?? They will claim America is one of the most generous countries already when it comes to immigration and there is no need for increasing it further. Everyone need to wait for their turn.

Agreed.

Bob Goodlatte during house hearing said it is most generous countries but not for employment based green cards. EB green cards run in single digits compared to overall immigration which is among the lowest compared to other countries

idiotic

09-03-2013, 03:23 PM

idiotic

09-03-2013, 03:25 PM

Bob Goodlatte during house hearing said it is most generous countries but not for employment based green cards. EB green cards run in single digits compared to overall immigration which is among the lowest compared to other countries

This is quoted numerous times by various members even during hearing of country cap removal bill sponsored by Jason Chaffetz in last congress..
For Anti immigrants, it does not matter whether it is employement based/family based/diversity,etc.. the only goal is to reduce immigration..

Spectator

09-03-2013, 03:36 PM

My take on this so far is this. They are heavily lobbying for immigration bills including HR 2131. As we all know HR 2131 does not do anything significant on green cards. Being tech organization, we would have expected it to lobby for problems faced by people like us. Instead it has happily embraced H1 increase without green card increase and for that reason, I do not support it. Just my opinion.rupen,

Totally agree with you.

If their "tech agenda" means supporting HR 2131, is not helpful and does not align with the hopes and wishes of those in (or who might wish to be in) the Immigrant queue.

It would be a mistake for HR 2131 SKILLS Bill to be one side of a potential compromise. It is so unbalanced it is dangerous.

fwd.us has also used some rather dubious tactics to garner support.

If it comes down to "take it or leave it", I'd rather leave it thank you very much.

qesehmk

09-03-2013, 04:34 PM

Spec / Rupen - agree w you on HR 2131.
It is disappointing yet not entirely surprising that the tech industry is primarily interested in having H1 slave labor but not necessarily throwing their weight behind solving EB immigration imbalance in demand and supply.
rupen,

Totally agree with you.

If their "tech agenda" means supporting HR 2131, is not helpful and does not align with the hopes and wishes of those in (or who might wish to be in) the Immigrant queue.

It would be a mistake for HR 2131 SKILLS Bill to be one side of a potential compromise. It is so unbalanced it is dangerous.

fwd.us has also used some rather dubious tactics to garner support.

If it comes down to "take it or leave it", I'd rather leave it thank you very much.

gcq

09-03-2013, 07:23 PM

My take on this so far is this. They are heavily lobbying for immigration bills including HR 2131. As we all know HR 2131 does not do anything significant on green cards. Being tech organization, we would have expected it to lobby for problems faced by people like us. Instead it has happily embraced H1 increase without green card increase and for that reason, I do not support it. Just my opinion.

Tech Industry or any other industry for that matter doesn't care about green cards. They are businesses and are looking for a much larger labor pool. That is all they really care about. They are sponsoring green cards just to retain their work force. They only care about the smooth operation of their businesses. When they go to lawmakers, they will ask for H1B because that satisfies their need.

seahawks2012

09-03-2013, 07:31 PM

CIR/Immigration bills unlike before October:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/immigration-reform-95980.html#ixzz2dIFeo4Sb

vizcard

09-03-2013, 07:46 PM

I had a discussion with a friend about immigration reform. She's is in HR at a division of a fortune 10 conglomerate (but not a tech company). She's a midwesterner living in NY, white, very liberal and has a lot of immigrant friends. She had a very interesting point of view - essentially that most companies don't give a crap.

There are 2 types of skilled labor (and this applies to both natives and immigrants) - the guys who make the major breakthroughs - R&D, Engineering, etc (and these are not necessarily PhDs) and those that are do-ers (programmers, testers, processors, etc). In the eyes of most companies (incl tech), the hiring is done to fill a need regardless of the above category. Sponsoring green card is a carrot offered (similar to additional vacation days, etc.). There is no deep intent to keep a specific individual in the US. However, just naturally companies that hire for more of the former category tend to prefer EB GC reform while the others care about H1B reform.

Her particular company has many divisions and some hire foreigners and some don't at all. She said their company job postings say "Candidates must be eligible to work in the US. In some cases, <company name> may be willing to sponsor permanent residency" (I'm paraphrasing)

idiotic

09-04-2013, 08:41 AM

fwd.us has also used some rather dubious tactics to garner support.

If it comes down to "take it or leave it", I'd rather leave it thank you very much.

fwd.us is the one organization which spent most money for the cause of passing immigration reform. On the Senate floor, Jeff Sessions called out called out Zuckerberg's name numerous times accusing him of being behind the senate bill.

Please see the source of who spent what on immigration reform.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/hotlineoncall/2013/06/immigration-backers-outspent-opponents-2-5-to-1-27

americans for conservative direction == fwd.us

If you decide to not be behind the one who spent most on the cause of immigrants, I am not sure who else do you want to get behind.. numbersusa/FAIR?

I have lot of respect for your meticulous calculations. I am disappointed by your post because your words and opinion will carry lot of respect among others in the forum and will cause loss of valuable support to immigration bill's cause from other forum members.

Please do not put too much weightage into HR2131.. Most important thing is to get the house to pass **something** so that they can go into conference and negotiate. At the moment anti immigrants in house is hell bent on doing nothing and just killing the bill.

Spectator

09-04-2013, 09:19 AM

fwd.us is the one organization which spent most money for the cause of passing immigration reform. On the Senate floor, Jeff Sessions called out called out Zuckerberg's name numerous times accusing him of being behind the senate bill.

Please see the source of who spent what on immigration reform.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/hotlineoncall/2013/06/immigration-backers-outspent-opponents-2-5-to-1-27

americans for conservative direction == fwd.us

If you decide to not be behind the one who spent most on the cause of immigrants, I am not sure who else do you want to get behind.. numbersusa/FAIR?

I have lot of respect for your meticulous calculations. I am disappointed by your post because your words and opinion will carry lot of respect among others in the forum and will cause loss of valuable support to immigration bill's cause from other forum members.

Please do not put too much weightage into HR2131.. Most important thing is to get the house to pass **something** so that they can go into conference and negotiate.idiotic,

What big business wants != What people wanting to immigrate to the USA via EB want (at least not necessarily).

I think that is a lesson many people have learnt already by painful experience.

The advertising spend to buy backing also featured non-immigration agenda items which many pro immigration people certainly could not support. That was a huge mistake by fwd.us.

fwd.us need to distance themselves from the SKILLS BILL or actively campaign against its passage. The SKILLS Bill would provide short term relief in the EB system while not fixing the root problem. Then it allows the backlogs to become worse.

That Bill is so bad, it must not be allowed to become the House side starting point for any conference compromise. If it is, I think there is little chance of getting EB dependents excluded from numerical limitations, which is the one measure that would make a lasting difference.

We will only get one chance at reform of the EB system in the medium term. Let's make sure it is a meaningful one.

I cannot in good conscience blindly follow a lobbying group that doesn't necessarily have our best interests at heart. I admire their opposition to the antis - but that is as far as it goes if they can support the House Republican stance on EB reform.

I also have respect for you, but certain parts of your post are not worthy of you.

rupen86

09-04-2013, 09:22 AM

fwd.us is the one organization which spent most money for the cause of passing immigration reform. On the Senate floor, Jeff Sessions called out called out Zuckerberg's name numerous times accusing him of being behind the senate bill.

Please see the source of who spent what on immigration reform.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/hotlineoncall/2013/06/immigration-backers-outspent-opponents-2-5-to-1-27

americans for conservative direction == fwd.us

If you decide to not be behind the one who spent most on the cause of immigrants, I am not sure who else do you want to get behind.. numbersusa/FAIR?

I have lot of respect for your meticulous calculations. I am disappointed by your post because your words and opinion will carry lot of respect among others in the forum and will cause loss of valuable support to immigration bill's cause from other forum members.

Please do not put too much weightage into HR2131.. Most important thing is to get the house to pass **something** so that they can go into conference and negotiate. At the moment anti immigrants in house is hell bent on doing nothing and just killing the bill.

While fwd.us supported senate bill, it does not matter if it is not pushing for green cards in the house bill. If senate bill has it and final bill does not, it does not mean anything. It is very disappointing to see that they are happily embracing house bill without making any noise for green card in house bill. To go to conference, house does not need to pass this bill. They can go to conference with any other bill like border security, e-verify or agricultural bill. You are asking people to shoot themselves first and then ask them to hope that they will be cured eventually. It does not make sense. If we were "sadhus", we would do that where we agree for something that is bad for ourselves but good for someone else. But I do not think we are, at least not me. Anything can happen in conference and anything would be up for negotiation which is not common between the bills. Issues related to us will be easily traded in exchange for "undocumented".

idiotic

09-04-2013, 09:53 AM

idiotic,

What big business wants != What people wanting to immigrate to the USA via EB want (at least not necessarily).

I think that is a lesson many people have learnt already by painful experience.

The advertising spend to buy backing also featured non-immigration agenda items which many pro immigration people certainly could not support. That was a huge mistake by fwd.us.

fwd.us need to distance themselves from the SKILLS BILL or actively campaign against its passage. The SKILLS Bill would provide short term relief in the EB system while not fixing the root problem. Then it allows the backlogs to become worse.

That Bill is so bad, it must not be allowed to become the House side starting point for any conference compromise. If it is, I think there is little chance of getting EB dependents excluded from numerical limitations, which is the one measure that would make a lasting difference.

We will only get one chance at reform of the EB system in the medium term. Let's make sure it is a meaningful one.

I cannot in good conscience blindly follow a lobbying group that doesn't necessarily have our best interests at heart. I admire their opposition to the antis - but that is as far as it goes if they can support the House Republican stance on EB reform.

I also have respect for you, but certain parts of your post are not worthy of you.

Hi Spec,

First of all I am sorry if any part of my post was offensive to you.

I understand your concern of HR2131 being a bad bill and we are all on the same page there. Anti immigrants and house republicans need to blamed for the bad bill like HR2131. Opposing the enforcement only net green card neutral piecemeal immigration bills (which is the best house can do) will ensure immidiete death of immigration bill chances in this congress. More clever stratergy will be to get the house to pass the best bill they can and then get into conference and get an final immigration bill passed. The final immigration bill may not have all the portions we need but it will have some portions which will be immidiete relief to us like country cap removal. Over long term, no one knows what future congress will do and how the house and Senate will look like. Its not wise to worry about it now as it will solve itself in the future. There are numerous indications that anti immigrant groups are already afraid of any conference taking place between house and senate like Rand Paul theretening Boehner on his speakership if he passes the conferenced bill with majority democratic support. If you think the conferenced bill will not be good for employement based candiates(worser than now in the immidiete term not the longer term), then it makes sense to oppose. But we do not know that now and we have to wait till the conference finishes. For now, it is more important to get the ball rolling.

fwd.us advertising on non immigration matters was a deliberate startergy because what matters in the end is to get the representative reelected because of his support to immigration. In some states it makes sense not to talk about pro immigrant stance and instead how conservative the representative has been in other areas. I do not see a problem with it.

I think we have to agree to disagree. I am sorry again if any parts are offensive as it is not meant to be. I have huge respect for you in the amount of time and effort you spend in educating us.

Thanks..

Spectator

09-04-2013, 10:03 AM

idiotic,

All's good.

I think it's fair to say we fundamentally disagree on a number of items of strategy, but the eventual goal is common.

Life would be boring if everyone agreed. At least we can disagree politely on this forum.

qesehmk

09-04-2013, 10:06 AM

rupen86

09-04-2013, 10:07 AM

Hi Spec,

First of all I am sorry if any part of my post was offensive to you.

I understand your concern of HR2131 being a bad bill and we are all on the same page there. Anti immigrants and house republicans need to blamed for the bad bill like HR2131. Opposing the enforcement only net green card neutral piecemeal immigration bills (which is the best house can do) will ensure immidiete death of immigration bill chances in this congress. More clever stratergy will be to get the house to pass the best bill they can and then get into conference and get an final immigration bill passed. The final immigration bill may not have all the portions we need but it will have some portions which will be immidiete relief to us like country cap removal. Over long term, no one knows what future congress will do and how the house and Senate will look like. Its not wise to worry about it now as it will solve itself in the future. There are numerous indications that anti immigrant groups are already afraid of any conference taking place between house and senate like Rand Paul theretening Boehner on his speakership if he passes the conferenced bill with majority democratic support. If you think the conferenced bill will not be good for employement based candiates(worser than now in the immidiete term not the longer term), then it makes sense to oppose. But we do not know that now and we have to wait till the conference finishes. For now, it is more important to get the ball rolling.

fwd.us advertising on non immigration matters was a deliberate startergy because what matters in the end is to get the representative reelected because of his support to immigration. In some states it makes sense not to talk about pro immigrant stance and instead how conservative the representative has been in other areas. I do not see a problem with it.

I think we have to agree to disagree. I am sorry again if any parts are offensive as it is not meant to be. I have huge respect for you in the amount of time and effort you spend in educating us.

Thanks..

Here is what you are asking. We take whatever we get like per country removal and go to conference and other provisions may or may not be added, but that's ok since per country quota will remove some pain in short term. We leave it up to the future immigrants to take care of themselves.

Here is my opinion on that. While you are right that in the short term it will provide some relief because per country quota will be gone, in medium to long term, it will create huge backlog bigger than what it is today. It will be too naive to think that one more bill just for that purpose will be passed by congress. Last time major immigration bill was passed was in 1986. Everything else that passed in between were just small fixes. After passing huge immigration bill like this, there won't be any appetite in congress to try another bill to solve green card backlog problem considering the fact that there won't be any powerful lobby to do that. And it is not just future immigrants who will have problems, people like you and me who will have green card by that time, will find H1 people stuck in green card backlog working at cheaper rate because their options will be limited. Green card then won't have that much value left.

Again, there is no need to pass this bill in order to go to conference. Any other bill like border security bill will do. This does not have to be the bill to start negotiation.

rupen86

09-04-2013, 10:19 AM

It always helps to make your point across if you put forth objective information. At this time I am not educated enough to say this is what skills bill does and this is what it doesn't. It would help if one of you know it then list key provisions 1 2 3 4 ....

We should be focused on what affects us. Others will do what is in their interest - including fwd.org or numbersusa.

As per conferencing - theoretically even if everything is up for grabs - I would tend to "believe" that people wouldn't take up something for discussion unless there is some prework or some basis. So in that sense I agree with idiotic that this needs to move forward to give republicans some sense of ownership and a basis for conferencing.

Rupen - I know you think otherwise. So would be happy to learn if what I am saying doesn't make sense.

Detailed comparison between house and senate bill
http://immigration.uschamber.com/uploads/sites/400/summary_house_senate_high_skilled_comparison_table _8_5_2013.pdf

In regard to conference, I do not understand why we think that senate provisions will be automatically included. Conference negotiation will be give and take. Senate side negotiators will be happy to trade anything in exchange for "path to citizenship". At that time, house can ask for green card neutral system. I do not see any powerful lobby opposing that.

Once again, as I said number of times, there is no need for this bill to pass in order to start negotiations. There are other bills like border security, e-verify, agricultural bill if starting conference was the goal.

idiotic

09-04-2013, 11:42 AM

And it is not just future immigrants who will have problems, people like you and me who will have green card by that time, will find H1 people stuck in green card backlog working at cheaper rate because their options will be limited. Green card then won't have that much value left.

This is no different argument that the anti immigrant groups make today. Reality is it is not just cheap labour which decides your value. One has to competitive to ensure his/her surivival.

Again, there is no need to pass this bill in order to go to conference. Any other bill like border security bill will do. This does not have to be the bill to start negotiation.

It is not a choice we have. Given a choice, I too would prefer that this is not a starting point. It is political reality house wants to pass the piecemeal bills as their immigration solution. Rather than opposing and ensuring immidiete death it is wise to atleast get into conference with whatever we have.

Spectator

09-04-2013, 11:50 AM

qesehmk

09-04-2013, 12:27 PM

Spec as always ---- many thanks for wonderful factual information!!

So here is my simplified view of the bill from EB perspective.

The bill is more focused towards increasing immigration focus on technology and skills while remaining visa neutral - which means it increased EB immigration at the expense of FB. So while I am not happy about impact on FB - I think this bill is great for EB folks.

Secondly - the bill does away with per country cap - which to me is accute necessity for EB ICMP folks across various categories. I believe that would address backlog immediately and reduce backlog fast. While ROW may see this unfair - my view is that the situation was unfair to begin with and so this is a great bill from that perspective.

Thirdly - the bill is great for American industry - especially technology where they will be able to retain sorely needed EB folks. Yes this increases H1 .... and it would create future problems ... but it would be injustice to say that this bill only accomplishes that. Rather I hold H1 increase as a plus since that furthers immigration. It creates a good problem.

The bill may not be perfect ... but remember PERFECT IS ENEMY OF GOOD.

So overall I take my words back and would wholeheartedly support this bill. Being visa neutral and business friendly this is extremely realistic bill. Let republicans take this into conference and try to extract some concessions from dems on pathway to citizenship.

Q,

Here is what the HR 2131 SKILLS Bill contains. I am not going to claim it is exhaustive.

idiotic

09-04-2013, 12:38 PM

Sure it is different. What I am saying is that when you call more people from outside and make them stuck in the backlog, they will have no option but to work at cheaper rate because their options are limited. I do not have problem with increasing H1 if there is corresponding increase in green card. If being competitive was enough, there would not be any limit on H1 or green card. We can not find that anywhere in the world.

Sure there is a choice. There is no need to pass this bill to go to conference. There are other bills that have passed out of judiciary with which conference can begin.

All I can say is there is no need for green card holder or citizens to fear cheap labour.

House immigration solution has to address every areas of problem in today's immigration including high tech. This is house version of the solution. It is not a choice for us to dictate house not to have this as solution.

I have to stop this here. Good luck to you.

Spectator

09-04-2013, 01:13 PM

Spec as always ---- many thanks for wonderful factual information!!

So here is my simplified view of the bill from EB perspective.

The bill is more focused towards increasing immigration focus on technology and skills while remaining visa neutral - which means it increased EB immigration at the expense of FB. So while I am not happy about impact on FB - I think this bill is great for EB folks.

Secondly - the bill does away with per country cap - which to me is accute necessity for EB ICMP folks across various categories. I believe that would address backlog immediately and reduce backlog fast. While ROW may see this unfair - my view is that the situation was unfair to begin with and so this is a great bill from that perspective.

Thirdly - the bill is great for American industry - especially technology where they will be able to retain sorely needed EB folks. Yes this increases H1 .... and it would create future problems ... but it would be injustice to say that this bill only accomplishes that. Rather I hold H1 increase as a plus since that furthers immigration. It creates a good problem.

The bill may not be perfect ... but remember PERFECT IS ENEMY OF GOOD.

So overall I take my words back and would wholeheartedly support this bill. Being visa neutral and business friendly this is extremely realistic bill. Let republicans take this into conference and try to extract some concessions from dems on pathway to citizenship.Q,

I'm really surprised that you would trade strictly short term gains for immense losses beyond that.

EB Immigrant increase - (235,000 - 140,000) = 95,000 including dependents (of which 10,000 can't be made available to EB2 or EB3 as far as I can see)

H1B increase - (155,000 + 40,000) - (65,000 + 20,000) = 110,000 which excludes dependents

That increase in H1B numbers will equate to about 200,000 new Immigrant applicants per year eventually, virtually all in EB2 and EB3.

There will be a Net (200,000 - 85,000) = 115,000 extra applicants in EB2 & EB3 per year even after the extra EB visas are accounted for.

Do you understand what that would do to waiting times?

kd2008

09-04-2013, 01:58 PM

Q,

I'm really surprised that you would trade strictly short term gains for immense losses beyond that.

EB Immigrant increase - (235,000 - 140,000) = 95,000 including dependents (of which 10,000 can't be made available to EB2 or EB3 as far as I can see)

H1B increase - (155,000 + 40,000) - (65,000 + 20,000) = 110,000 which excludes dependents

That increase in H1B numbers will equate to about 200,000 new Immigrant applicants per year eventually, virtually all in EB2 and EB3.

There will be a Net (200,000 - 85,000) = 115,000 extra applicants in EB2 & EB3 per year even after the extra EB visas are accounted for.

Do you understand what that would do to waiting times?

Spec, you are absolutely right. The bill will increase backlogs. From what I have heard in discussions with political types is that a sensible bill from house is not expected. Any bill would work as long as it has some sort of path to citizenship for the undocumented. Rest of it is posturing - minor details including EB stuff - if multiple and separate bills are needed then so be it. Key would be to hammer out things in conference and get the assurance that it will be brought to a vote in both chambers.

Plus not passing a bill helps Dems more than it helps Repubs. If Dem can get political traction out of the fact that no bill has come out of Repub. controlled house then that is a bonus. Repubs are saddled with reactionary types in the house who think saying NO to anything desired or wanted by the President is a badge of honor no matter how illogical or self-destructive. Sometimes the ship has to sink before a new resurgence starts. There was an interesting article in todays NYTimes about how Repubs have gotten anti-business even though unlimited spending by corporations has been allowed after Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. In fact some 44% of the "unlimited spending" comes from 1% very wealthy tea-party types - read Koch brothers and not businesses in general. Business are good at lobbying but they are failing miserably this time to get House Repubs to budge.

Anyways, I digress.

qesehmk

09-04-2013, 03:15 PM

Spec - there are no losses here. I am surprised you call it a loss when the net EB immigration is going up. If there is any loss here - it is in terms of FB numbers.

Everything is a gain here. What is increasing here is possible future backlog. I am actually surprised that you are willing to sacrifice gain today for "perceived" future increase in backlog.

Secondly the increase you mention below is the max that can happen (plus any dependents.). But in reality the PHDs are already applying under either EB1 or 2 . So the US is not losing a whle lot of them. And whatever are being lost won't all be retained through EB6 or 7 visas. So net net the increase will be beneficial to EB categories as a whole.

Q,

I'm really surprised that you would trade strictly short term gains for immense losses beyond that.

EB Immigrant increase - (235,000 - 140,000) = 95,000 including dependents (of which 10,000 can't be made available to EB2 or EB3 as far as I can see)

H1B increase - (155,000 + 40,000) - (65,000 + 20,000) = 110,000 which excludes dependents

That increase in H1B numbers will equate to about 200,000 new Immigrant applicants per year eventually, virtually all in EB2 and EB3.

There will be a Net (200,000 - 85,000) = 115,000 extra applicants in EB2 & EB3 per year even after the extra EB visas are accounted for.

Do you understand what that would do to waiting times?

qesehmk

09-04-2013, 03:19 PM

I know what you are talking about may be you do not want to understand it.

There is no need to pass HR 2131 in order to start conference. Any other bill like border security will start the process. This is not me saying it. This is what senators like Mccain and others have said.
What part of "theoretical vs practice" is difficult to understand. What you say is theory. In practice it aint happening. GOP strategy is to kill CIR without mention. They don't want to deal with immigration at all.

I am not saying 2131 is necessary to start conference. Conference is neither a one time grand event. Conference is an ongoing process and is just a logical name for where in its life a bill is.

Spectator

09-04-2013, 03:40 PM

Spec - there are no losses here. I am surprised you call it a loss when the net EB immigration is going up. If there is any loss here - it is in terms of FB numbers.

Everything is a gain here. What is increasing here is possible future backlog. I am actually surprised that you are willing to sacrifice gain today for "perceived" future increase in backlog.

Secondly the increase you mention below is the max that can happen (plus any dependents.). But in reality the PHDs are already applying under either EB1 or 2 . So the US is not losing a whle lot of them. And whatever are being lost won't all be retained through EB6 or 7 visas. So net net the increase will be beneficial to EB categories as a whole.Q,

I can only say I am flabbergasted at your attitude!!

The Bill trades an annual increase in EB visas of less than half the new Immigrants it probably introduces. +85,000 minus 200,000 equals minus 115,000. I always thought a negative number was a loss.

Yes there is a lag, which will probably clear the existing backlog, but at what cost to future EB immigrants. I'm reminded of Marie Antoinette.

EB2-I is currently worried about a backlog that is likely not much more than 100k by the end of this year. How hypocritical not to worry about an increasing backlog of a mere extra 115k per year.

I'll leave it at that. It will be my last on the subject.

qesehmk

09-04-2013, 03:45 PM

Good, now we are on the same page that HR 2131 does not need to pass to start conference. So, what is the point in supporting HR 2131 when senate is much better bill ? If conference is the goal, it is best that it happens without HR 2131.
I am not so sure we are. I don't want to be rude - so excuse my persistence. But I think you are using the word conference as if it is an event. As I said - conference is a stage of the bill. A bill goes into its own conference. If there is no bill .... there is no conference. Theoretically people can discuss immigration under industrial security bill and environmental bills.... but that's just theory. Immigration has to be the topic of some bill that goes into conference and then people will borrow good ideas from all over including senate bill. But for any conference on immigration - there needs to be an immigration bill and senate bill is not going to be that bill UNLESS congressional democrats force it using discharge petition.

Now it doesn't look like that's going to happen either - which is why 2131 doesn't seem as bad option at all as the bill on its own merit is good for EB + it gives a good excuse for republicans to start negotiating.

My last one on this.

qesehmk

09-04-2013, 03:51 PM

Spec - 2131 improves status quo. It is not perfect solution - neither is CIR for that matter. We live in an imperfect world and one has to put a peg somewhere.

Q,

I can only say I am flabbergasted at your attitude!!

The Bill trades an annual increase in EB visas of less than half the new Immigrants it probably introduces. +85,000 minus 200,000 equals minus 115,000. I always thought a negative number was a loss.

Yes there is a lag, which will probably clear the existing backlog, but at what cost to future EB immigrants. I'm reminded of Marie Antoinette.

EB2-I is currently worried about a backlog that is likely not much more than 100k by the end of this year. How hypocritical not to worry about an increasing backlog of a mere extra 115k per year.

I'll leave it at that. It will be my last on the subject.

rupen86

09-04-2013, 04:01 PM

Spec - 2131 improves status quo. It is not perfect solution - neither is CIR for that matter. We live in an imperfect world and one has to put a peg somewhere.

That is where we disagree. By we, I have taken liberty to include Spec also here. Status quo is better than HR 2131.

qesehmk

09-04-2013, 04:33 PM

That is where we disagree. By we, I have taken liberty to include Spec also here. Status quo is better than HR 2131.
I haven't heard him say so yet - although I know spec is not very enthusiastic about removing per country caps.

As per 2131 - I or anybody can easily put numbers in a table and prove this philosophy wrong that status quo is better than 2131. It is really very very easy to do. I just think that anybody who spends enough time to read it can grasp it in a second. It's me who is flabbergasted that anybody would think preceived future demand supply balance is a more pressing needs than volume of immigration and net reduction in average wait times.

It is like saying - I would be ok to stay at 30% margin at $2B revenue than go for $10B revenue at 20% margin. To me its a no brainer to go for $10B at 20%. people will argue about ROI and ROA but that's theoretical discussion. In real world marginal ROI is never same as current ROI. Anyway ..... I digress.

Spectator

09-04-2013, 04:39 PM

I haven't heard him say so yetQ,

I don't know how I could have said it any more clearly.

It would be a mistake for HR 2131 SKILLS Bill to be one side of a potential compromise. It is so unbalanced it is dangerous.

If it comes down to "take it or leave it", I'd rather leave it thank you very much.

gcq

09-04-2013, 04:51 PM

The risk of two not-so-identical bills going into conference is that it will be a deal cut between democrats (who are primary pro-illegal) and GOP (who is either against immigration/favors H1B increase only) is that our GC provisions will be shot down as part of the compromise( labor & anti-immigrants cut the deal) or GC provisions will be ignored.

So the best case is to go with bills that are very identical or democrats filing a discharge petition.

idiotic

09-04-2013, 04:54 PM

Status quo is better than HR 2131.

Nope.. It will also differ from which prism you are viewing it from.. for example, if you ask an H4 visa holder, they might think otherwise because they will be benefited immediately.

Overall..
=> HR 2131 is just a starting point for negotiation and it is not a poison pill just you are making it out to be. It's not fair to predetermine as if it already made it into the final bill and just kill the bigger bill itself affecting everyone's cause without even trying to let house and senate negotiate. You have time to kill or oppose the conferenced bill if you do not like it then but not now.. I am sure cosponsors and lobbying organizations may change their stance depending on what the outcome of the conferenced bill is..

=> Even if it makes it into final bill it will make future backlog times worse for all countries not just India and China unlike now. It will mean the problem will be corrected much sooner. Future problems will be corrected on a need basis at that time. It's too early to worry about it and law will change based on need and market will correct itself. US will not lose its pursuit of young bright minds. It is not an contentious issue like illegal immigrants where the parties are going to hold up legislative change for 20-30 years.

idiotic

09-04-2013, 05:14 PM

You are saying that it is better than status quo because you are stuck on the short term gain it provides and refuse to look beyond that.

No one knows what will happen in longer term.. The key is making progress now.. Also, it is not the last immigration bill congress is ever going to pass.. it will be milestone bill for sure since it solves existing problems for many many categories.. minor problems will continue to exist and market and laws will correct itself.. That should not be an excuse for not making progress

rupen86

09-04-2013, 05:19 PM

Nope.. It will also differ from which prism you are viewing it from.. for example, if you ask an H4 visa holder, they might think otherwise because they will be benefited immediately.

Overall..
=> HR 2131 is just a starting point for negotiation and it is not a poison pill just you are making it out to be. It's not fair to predetermine as if it already made it into the final bill and just kill the bigger bill itself affecting everyone's cause without even trying to let house and senate negotiate. You have time to kill or oppose the conferenced bill if you do not like it then but not now.. I am sure cosponsors and lobbying organizations may change their stance depending on what the outcome of the conferenced bill is..

I just do not understand why this bill has to be starting point for starting negotiations. For starting negotiation, house does not need to pass this bill.

=> Even if it makes it into final bill it will make future backlog times worse for all countries not just India and China unlike now. It will mean the problem will be corrected much sooner. Future problems will be corrected on a need basis at that time. It's too early to worry about it and law will change based on need and market will correct itself. US will not lose its pursuit of young bright minds. It is not an contentious issue like illegal immigrants where the parties are going to hold up legislative change for 20-30 years.

If it was so easy problem to fix, it would have been done much earlier. EB community do not have powerful to lobby to lobby for green cards now and I do not know how it will have in future. At one end we are seeing that republicans in general do not like increase in green card and other hand we are seeing that democrats are interested in undocumented. So, I do not understand how that attitude will suddenly change once CIR passes and both parties will change their attitude towards EB community to allow more green cards and it won't remain contentious issue any more.

rupen86

09-04-2013, 05:22 PM

No one knows what will happen in longer term.. The key is making progress now.. Also, it is not the last immigration bill congress is ever going to pass.. it will be milestone bill for sure since it solves existing problems for many many categories.. minor problems will continue to exist and market and laws will correct itself.. That should not be an excuse for not making progress

It is not like predicting future. It is Maths. We are not trying to predict future based on some unknown events. We are seeing numbers and based on that making prediction. What you are saying minor problem is the major and fundamental problem which is green card backlog. If not having enough H1 number is the major problem you are considering then yes, this bill solves that.

idiotic

09-04-2013, 05:23 PM

I just do not understand why this bill has to be starting point for starting negotiations. For starting negotiation, house does not need to pass this bill.

Because it is the plan of House confirmed by Cecilia Munoz and this bill already passed out of committee and ready to make it to the floor just like other piecemeal bills..

If it was so easy problem to fix, it would have been done much earlier. EB community do not have powerful to lobby to lobby for green cards now and I do not know how it will have in future. At one end we are seeing that republicans in general do not like increase in green card and other hand we are seeing that democrats are interested in undocumented. So, I do not understand how that attitude will suddenly change once CIR passes and both parties will change their attitude towards EB community to allow more green cards and it won't remain contentious issue any more.

Because dynamics will change with new rules like E-Verify, etc.. Market and laws will correct themselves..

idiotic

09-04-2013, 05:26 PM

It is not like predicting future. It is Maths. We are not trying to predict future based on some unknown events. We are seeing numbers and based on that making prediction. What you are saying minor problem is the major and fundamental problem which is green card backlog. If not having enough H1 number is the major problem you are considering then yes, this bill solves that.

You are trying to predict the future assuming there will be no more immigration bills once this one is passed.. It cannot be simple maths because you do not know even if the demand for green cards will be there in future considering the backlog it is going to generate.. people will go elsewhere if existing backlog and wait times are huge.. Future problems will be corrected in future.. Future problem for one category is not an excuse for not solving current problems of many categories..

What is a problem will differ from which prism you are looking at .. wheather it is existing backlogs or H1 both of them will be solved now along with lot more things like illegal immgiration, E-Verify, H4 work auth etc.. future backlogs will be corrected at a later time depending on need at that time..

the best public policy approach is to do what is correct now and see how the market reacts and adapt in future based on need..

qesehmk

09-04-2013, 05:32 PM

Q,

I don't know how I could have said it any more clearly.
It would be a mistake for HR 2131 SKILLS Bill to be one side of a potential compromise. It is so unbalanced it is dangerous.

If it comes down to "take it or leave it", I'd rather leave it thank you very much.

Spec - I hope you opposition is more philosophical than factual. Because based on facts your are utterly wrong that status quo is better than 2131.

qesehmk

09-04-2013, 05:42 PM

You are saying that it is better than status quo because you are stuck on the short term gain it provides and refuse to look beyond that.

I am sorry but you are consistently misreading me.

I am saying 2131 as Spec wrote above:
1) Increases net EB immigration (applause!! great thing to do)
2) Removes country capts (even bigger applause!! terrific thing to do)
3) Increases H1 quota (mild applause!! because although that becomes a contributor to industry's needs .... it potentially creates future demand supply balance and contributes to backlog creation.).
4) It does 1&2 in visa neutral manner which for FB is not a great news nor it is a great news for diversity visa beneficiary. (That's a big -ve from their point of view).
5) It brings ROW folks to the same level playing fields as ICMP folks ... (from their POV it's a mild -ve because now instead of waiting 4 months - they will be waiting 18-24 months like other EB GC applicants.)

So what you say about short term gain vs long term pain; there is this permanent gain but there is no long term pain. Long term pain is a bogey. The bill is +ve.

Here is another request if you will - look at the bill on its own merit to EB folks. Do not bring in any organizational politics into it. Clearly there are many groups trying to be the leaders .... not just FWD.org who is the sponsor of this bill. So obviously those groups wouldn't be happy if another group's bill gets ahead.

My request is -- look at it purely from EB benefit perspective. Perhaps that will help you too.

GhostWriter

09-04-2013, 07:57 PM

Q, Spec, rupen and idiotic

Here is an idea. You all have made good arguments in favor and opposition of the bill. How about we create a poll on this forum. Basically put a link to the last couple of pages and let people read that and decide if they favor or oppose it. We (EB community) don't get any vote in the matters that concern us but this would be a good way to find out if in aggregate we think it is a good bill for us or not. If it is 60-40 in one direction then we can say it is quite balanced (and inconclusive), if however it comes out to be 90-10 in either direction then we know what we (at least a sample of us) think in aggregate.

What do you say ?

Spectator

09-04-2013, 08:00 PM

GhostWriter,

Trouble maker!! :) ;)

GhostWriter

09-04-2013, 08:33 PM

Life would be quite boring otherwise :)

GhostWriter,

Trouble maker!! :) ;)

rupen86

09-04-2013, 09:46 PM

I am sorry but you are consistently misreading me.

I am saying 2131 as Spec wrote above:
1) Increases net EB immigration (applause!! great thing to do)
2) Removes country capts (even bigger applause!! terrific thing to do)
3) Increases H1 quota (mild applause!! because although that becomes a contributor to industry's needs .... it potentially creates future demand supply balance and contributes to backlog creation.).
4) It does 1&2 in visa neutral manner which for FB is not a great news nor it is a great news for diversity visa beneficiary. (That's a big -ve from their point of view).
5) It brings ROW folks to the same level playing fields as ICMP folks ... (from their POV it's a mild -ve because now instead of waiting 4 months - they will be waiting 18-24 months like other EB GC applicants.)

So what you say about short term gain vs long term pain; there is this permanent gain but there is no long term pain. Long term pain is a bogey. The bill is +ve.

Here is another request if you will - look at the bill on its own merit to EB folks. Do not bring in any organizational politics into it. Clearly there are many groups trying to be the leaders .... not just FWD.org who is the sponsor of this bill. So obviously those groups wouldn't be happy if another group's bill gets ahead.

My request is -- look at it purely from EB benefit perspective. Perhaps that will help you too.

Sure, we are trying to see merit of the bill. Now about that

Point 1, net EB immigration will increase. Do you mean non-immigrant community will increase? surely, it will based on increase in H1. There will be some increase in green cards. So that will increase. Just because it is increasing, it is a good thing? I do not think so. Increasing or decreasing immigrant community is not the point here. The main point is it creates significant imbalance between demand and supply which is a bad thing. If you are trying to say that future immigrants getting stuck in green card backlog is a good thing because overall immigrant community is increasing, I strongly disagree.

Point 2, good thing.

Other points circle around mainly point 1.

rupen86

09-04-2013, 09:53 PM

You are trying to predict the future assuming there will be no more immigration bills once this one is passed.. It cannot be simple maths because you do not know even if the demand for green cards will be there in future considering the backlog it is going to generate.. people will go elsewhere if existing backlog and wait times are huge.. Future problems will be corrected in future.. Future problem for one category is not an excuse for not solving current problems of many categories..

When policies are designed, they are designed for long term not short term. This is not me saying but all politicians who are taking part in this process are saying. That they want to solve problem for long term in a way that they would not have to look again in next 20 years. So, they do not want to look at this problem even after 20 years. Forget about 20 years, this bill will create problems much before that.

What is a problem will differ from which prism you are looking at .. wheather it is existing backlogs or H1 both of them will be solved now along with lot more things like illegal immgiration, E-Verify, H4 work auth etc.. future backlogs will be corrected at a later time depending on need at that time..

the best public policy approach is to do what is correct now and see how the market reacts and adapt in future based on need..

Same point as above. Your suggestion is to do exactly opposite of what policy decisions are designed to solve. The bills designed to solve policy problems try to solve them for long term rather than short term.

rupen86

09-04-2013, 09:54 PM

Jagan01

09-04-2013, 10:38 PM

I am sorry but you are consistently misreading me.

I am saying 2131 as Spec wrote above:
1) Increases net EB immigration (applause!! great thing to do)
2) Removes country capts (even bigger applause!! terrific thing to do)
3) Increases H1 quota (mild applause!! because although that becomes a contributor to industry's needs .... it potentially creates future demand supply balance and contributes to backlog creation.).
4) It does 1&2 in visa neutral manner which for FB is not a great news nor it is a great news for diversity visa beneficiary. (That's a big -ve from their point of view).
5) It brings ROW folks to the same level playing fields as ICMP folks ... (from their POV it's a mild -ve because now instead of waiting 4 months - they will be waiting 18-24 months like other EB GC applicants.)

So what you say about short term gain vs long term pain; there is this permanent gain but there is no long term pain. Long term pain is a bogey. The bill is +ve.

Here is another request if you will - look at the bill on its own merit to EB folks. Do not bring in any organizational politics into it. Clearly there are many groups trying to be the leaders .... not just FWD.org who is the sponsor of this bill. So obviously those groups wouldn't be happy if another group's bill gets ahead.

My request is -- look at it purely from EB benefit perspective. Perhaps that will help you too.

I concur with Q.

I think most of the questions are revolving around point 1 and some think that the demand supply imbalance is the reason that the bill is not good.

Let me give you an example. Lets say a bill is passed saying, annual H1 limit = 0, and annual green card limit = 0 . Now supply== demand. I think according to the people who are solely proposing the demand supply viewpoint this is a perfect bill ? Isnt it ?

Please try and understand the basic issue. You are making an assumption that everyone who is here on H1 needs a GC. That is not true. H1 is designed for a different purpose and GC for a different purpose.

I think the bill is doing its bit. Short term as well as long term.
1. Well they are increasing the number of people that can get in a year and that itself is positive.
2. They are increasing the number of people who can come to US every year and get a job and learn skills.
3. Now if everyone who comes here for a project wants to spend the entire life in US then we cannot hold the US govt responsible for it. Can we ?

Of course, it would be ideal to have many more GC. In fact have no limit. Make it unlimited. Where you stop is subjective. The objective answer is this:
"(n + x) is and will always be greater than (n)" provided x is positive.

qesehmk

09-04-2013, 10:50 PM

idiotic

09-05-2013, 07:37 AM

It is never a plan which includes HR 2131 to be passed in order to go to conference. Cecilia Munoz said house will work on series of bills passed out of judiciary committee. This does not mean it has to pass all of those bills in order to go to conference.

“It looks like the House will bring [for a vote] some portion of five bills that have been ready since July,” she said.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/08/28/white-house-domestic-policy-official-says-immigration-reform-vote-not-likely/#ixzz2e1NfkWGH

Watch between 6:00 and 7:00 minutes for the exact wording.. very clearly she told that "different pieces each of them corresponding to portions of senate bill..."
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2584547150001/cecilia-muoz-talks-with-juan-williams/

idiotic

09-05-2013, 07:51 AM

When policies are designed, they are designed for long term not short term. This is not me saying but all politicians who are taking part in this process are saying. That they want to solve problem for long term in a way that they would not have to look again in next 20 years. So, they do not want to look at this problem even after 20 years. Forget about 20 years, this bill will create problems much before that.

True. Please see things from a broader angle.

Senate bill comptely brings in a new immigration system scrapping the old one altogether. No one knows what problems will happen in the new system. Fixes will be required even in that. It is not bulletproof for next 20 years.

House approach is instead of going down that path of completely unknown new system they are trying to just fix the problems in existing system by a series of bills. It makes more sense to me actually but I do not agree with their fundamental principles like "net green card neutral" and "enforcement only" etc.

H1B is designed to fill temporary labour shortage. When I came to USA on my first H1B I never came with intent of settling down here. I worked here for few years earned some money and left back. After many years, I came here back on my 4th H1B with the intent of settling down. I am sure there are lot more folks out there come here on different visas for different needs. Not every H1B will translate to green card and H1B is not the only visa to enter the path to get a green card. The system is far more complex. H1B visa increase is lobbied for filling labour shortage and nothing else. They have also put strict things for preventing the abuse of the visa. They are also increasing the fees to fund STEM education so that they wont have the labour shortage in STEM in future removing the need for H1B altogether in future.

If huge backlogs occur in future in premium EB categories, congress will fix it then. Proof for this is to just look at the past. Even though there have not been any immigration bills passed in the last 20 years there are still bills passed to programs like EB5 in the recent past. Also, EB1 is not backlogged. EB2 has reasonable timelines for most people except India and China. No need to fret about unforeseen future issues now and kill the overall progressive bill on such a narrow cause which has way more goodies for lots and lots of people.

My last on this.

GhostWriter

09-05-2013, 09:07 AM

Sure Q, I will try to create a poll later in the day. I will PM you if i get into technical issues.

Spec, i could not find the post where you had summarized the contents of the bill.

Ghost - great idea. No good deed goes unpunished - so please go ahead and create this poll !!

idiotic

09-05-2013, 09:58 AM

Sure Q, I will try to create a poll later in the day. I will PM you if i get into technical issues.

Spec, i could not find the post where you had summarized the contents of the bill.

Spec's post is missing.. I am not sure why..

You can find the bullet points in the sumamry section in the following link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:HR02131:@@@L&summ2=m&

qesehmk

09-05-2013, 10:08 AM

Spec's post is missing.. I am not sure why..

You can find the bullet points in the sumamry section in the following link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:HR02131:@@@L&summ2=m&

Thanks idiotic. Spec deleted and then undeleted and then modified his own post and posted a link to original bill. That link is also not working. I am puzzled but he is probably more comfortable with original source than us using his description. So it's understandable.

Thanks again for posting original source.

GhostWriter

09-05-2013, 12:08 PM

Since we are discussing the short term vs. long term of the bill, i thought i will attempt to put down how it might play out over the next few years. The comparison is with current situation (i.e. no bill) and not with Senate bill.
It is guesswork so can be totally off.

Overall the bill can be summarized as below for EB

HR2131 = HR3012 (EB country limit removal) + H4 work authorization + 85K new EB GCs + 4K new nurse GCs + 110K new H1-Bs

Of the 85K EB visas 70K will be used in EB1/EB2 and 15K will be exclusively used in EB3.

Let us say it goes into effect from Sep-2014 (could be any other time, should not matter a lot)

FY-2015 - EB2 (combined) should get a cut-off in 2012 or 2013 (better for EB2-I than where it would have been otherwise).
EB3 (combined) should get a cut-off in 2008 (better for EB3-I than where it would have been otherwise).

FY-2016 - EB2 (combined) should most likely be current, possible spillover to EB3
EB3 (comined) should get a cut-off in 2009 or 2010

FY-2017 - This is when we can expect the new H1-Bs filed in 2015 and 2016 to start filing for Greencards. The extra filings besides the normal should be moderate, we are still 2 years from the increased H1-Bs. EB2 most likely should stay current. EB3 should be in 2011.

FY-2018 onwards - We can expect the additional GC applications to increase from 2018 onwards. Very hard to predict what will happen. It will depend on the mix of EB1, EB2 and EB3 applications. If two-thirds of the additional 110K H1-Bs file for GC (assuming H1-B quota is fully used) with two dependents each we get 146K extra applications with 85K extra Greencards. That is an incremental backlog of 61K per year (will be distributed unevenly between EB2 and EB3 as EB3 gets 15K out of 85K new GCs).

To be honest it is hard to forecast the dynamics 5 years from now. Depends on the economy not only in US but in other countries as well.

rupen86

09-05-2013, 12:37 PM

I concur with Q.

I think most of the questions are revolving around point 1 and some think that the demand supply imbalance is the reason that the bill is not good.

Let me give you an example. Lets say a bill is passed saying, annual H1 limit = 0, and annual green card limit = 0 . Now supply== demand. I think according to the people who are solely proposing the demand supply viewpoint this is a perfect bill ? Isnt it ?

Please try and understand the basic issue. You are making an assumption that everyone who is here on H1 needs a GC. That is not true. H1 is designed for a different purpose and GC for a different purpose.

I think the bill is doing its bit. Short term as well as long term.
1. Well they are increasing the number of people that can get in a year and that itself is positive.
2. They are increasing the number of people who can come to US every year and get a job and learn skills.
3. Now if everyone who comes here for a project wants to spend the entire life in US then we cannot hold the US govt responsible for it. Can we ?

Of course, it would be ideal to have many more GC. In fact have no limit. Make it unlimited. Where you stop is subjective. The objective answer is this:
"(n + x) is and will always be greater than (n)" provided x is positive.

H1 is dual intent visa and majority of H1 apply for green card. That is what is happening now and it is not hypothetical situation. What you are saying is that green card backlog is not a problem. It is just fine to to increase H1 without paying any attention to green card. If that's what you saying, then there is no point in discussing anything. I thought this forum was for people suffering from green card backlog problem and that's what we are keen in solving.

GhostWriter

09-05-2013, 12:47 PM

Spectator

09-05-2013, 01:00 PM

FY-2018 onwards - We can expect the additional GC applications to increase from 2018 onwards. Very hard to predict what will happen. It will depend on the mix of EB1, EB2 and EB3 applications. If just half of the additional 110K H1-Bs file for GC with two dependents each we get 110K extra applications with 85K extra Greencards. That is an incremental backlog of 25K per year (will be distributed unevenly between EB2 and EB3 as EB3 gets 15K out of 85K new GCs).I think that is hopelessly optimistic.

Most of the extra 110k H1B will be used by Countries with very low return rates.

More likely is that at least 80% will seek PR.

With one dependent per H1B by the time they seek PR, that is an extra 175k applicants.

Of the 85k extra EB visas, some are required to service the existing load from only 85k H1B a year, otherwise we would have static net retrogression, which we don't. EB2-I is not moving a PD year per FY and none of EB3 is currently.

Even if we said that only decreased the number available from the 85k extra visas by 10k (which I think is conservative), the net incremental backlog would be (175 - (85 - 10)) = 100k per year.

qesehmk

09-05-2013, 01:18 PM

I thought this forum was for people suffering from green card backlog problem and that's what we are keen in solving.
Yes indeed. But the solution should not come at the expense of other people's right to immigrate.

e.g. A solution that says "abolish entire H1B" could easily reduce backlog very fast. But then that wouldn't be acceptable because it would hurt others right to immigrate. Similarly opposing H1 increase to contain future immigrants is anti-immigrant IMHO.

Even if we said that only decreased the number available from the 85k extra visas by 10k (which I think is conservative), the net incremental backlog would be (175 - (85 - 10)) = 100k per year.
Same argument to you Spec. Solving backlog problem shouldn't come at the expense of future immigrants ability to immigrate. I would rather have more immigration with more wait times than reduced immigration levels with reduced wait times. Unfortunately your arguments are coming quite close to me thinking you are not quite interested in seeing higher levels of immigration.

geterdone

09-05-2013, 01:39 PM

I am not sure why they cannot include removing dependants from the limit in the house bill. It will really help in reducing the backlog.

Here is my case in FAVOR of 2131.

1. It removes per country caps which brings all EB immigrants in FIFO systems within their own categories. I think this is a just system.
2. It increases EB cap by 95K.
3. It allows H4 spouses to work.
4. It increases H1 by almost 100K.

So on all fronts it furthers immigration. For current backlogged candidates it will result in faster backlog reductions. For future candidates it can't promise that backlogs will be eased. However my personal opinion is that because it furthers the goal of increased immigration while doing away with the unjust country caps, it is a great bill and an improvement over status quo.

GhostWriter

09-05-2013, 01:45 PM

Spec, the percentage of H1-Bs that file for GCs was an assumption. The 50% was a random guess, I think we can use an average of PERMs + EB1 GCs filed over H1-Bs issued over a period of 5 years as a proxy. I have changed it to two-thirds since you think it is too low. 80% seems too high. A lot of companies use H1 for just short term projects (few months) with no intentions to file GC and people come and do the projects and return. Also we should not rule out the possibility of H1-B cap never being reached. The costs of filing H1-B and the scrutiny are also increasing. The usage may be much below 100%.

With 67% H1-B to GC conversion rate, the incremental backlog comes out to be 61K per year. I have changed the original post.

I think that is hopelessly optimistic.

Most of the extra 110k H1B will be used by Countries with very low return rates.

More likely is that at least 80% will seek PR.

With one dependent per H1B by the time they seek PR, that is an extra 175k applicants.

Of the 85k extra EB visas, some are required to service the existing load from only 85k H1B a year, otherwise we would have static net retrogression, which we don't. EB2-I is not moving a PD year per FY and none of EB3 is currently.

Even if we said that only decreased the number available from the 85k extra visas by 10k (which I think is conservative), the net incremental backlog would be (175 - (85 - 10)) = 100k per year.

idiotic

09-05-2013, 01:46 PM

I am not sure why they cannot include removing dependants from the limit in the house bill. It will really help in reducing the backlog.

House republicans "net green card neutral" solution.. roots can be traced to antiimmigration and population control..

qesehmk

09-05-2013, 03:23 PM

If the said bill gets passed the other bills will not have a greater chance of passing, even if they are better for current and future immigrants overall. This one is designed and being proposed to really dilute and scuttle out a better one.
pdfeb - this would be a good argument against the bill and I might even agree with it - but that was not what was being discussed. The earlier discussion was about whether the current bill improves status quo. My position is it does.

As per my other comments - I can only say that I did not make those comments either lightly or with prejudice. Perhaps reading 3-4 pages might help you understand.

suninphx

09-05-2013, 03:33 PM

Jagan01

09-05-2013, 03:35 PM

H1 is dual intent visa and majority of H1 apply for green card. That is what is happening now and it is not hypothetical situation. What you are saying is that green card backlog is not a problem. It is just fine to to increase H1 without paying any attention to green card. If that's what you saying, then there is no point in discussing anything. I thought this forum was for people suffering from green card backlog problem and that's what we are keen in solving.

Rupen,

You said it right there. H1 is dual intent. Not single intent. Also you used the word "majority" and that also means that there are some who want to go back to India and do not care about GC. I am not contending the fact that majority like to go for GC. It is more true for Indians compared to Europeans, British, Canadians, Australians, etc. The H1 and GC rules are the same. Have you ever wondered why "we indians" want to stay here more compared to other richer countries. Think from the US govt perspective as it is their law. Not from your perspective.

The question here is "Is this bill better than status quo". Please tell me what you think. I think your answer in YES/NO will sum up the debate. The moment we get to reality and come out of the subjective world , things become crystal clear.

I think you are too concerned about the Senate bill and comparing everything with Senate bill. Dont you think "One bird in hand is better than two int the bush".

rupen86

09-05-2013, 05:02 PM

Rupen,

You said it right there. H1 is dual intent. Not single intent. Also you used the word "majority" and that also means that there are some who want to go back to India and do not care about GC. I am not contending the fact that majority like to go for GC. It is more true for Indians compared to Europeans, British, Canadians, Australians, etc. The H1 and GC rules are the same. Have you ever wondered why "we indians" want to stay here more compared to other richer countries. Think from the US govt perspective as it is their law. Not from your perspective.

The question here is "Is this bill better than status quo". Please tell me what you think. I think your answer in YES/NO will sum up the debate. The moment we get to reality and come out of the subjective world , things become crystal clear.

I think you are too concerned about the Senate bill and comparing everything with Senate bill. Dont you think "One bird in hand is better than two int the bush".

I have already answered that. This bill is not better than status quo.

rupen86

09-05-2013, 05:06 PM

A new thread with the poll (Do you favor HR 2131 over status quo) along with relevant information about the bill has been created at the link below. Please review the information and vote. This can give us an idea about our opinion in aggregate. The poll is at the top of the page.

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2213-Poll-Do-you-favor-HR2131-over-status-quo-(no-bill)

Thanks

I would suggest Following polls.

1) Passing HR 2131 will help us in conference process to include senate green card provisions or not passing it
2) Is H1 increase at the expense of green card backlog good solution ?

idiotic

09-05-2013, 06:34 PM

I am not for status quo.

Great. We are also not for status quo.

My position is that senate green card provisions should make into final bill.

Good. We all feel the same way.

If we do not ask for it, it is not going to be automatically done.

Lobbying against HR2131 will only hurt the CIR progress. Instead there should be some meaningful amendment to HR2131 prepared by some lobbying organization and you can support that amedment if such things exists. If it exists, let us know and we can support the amedment.

If no such thing exists, instead of lobbying against any individual immigration bills we have to focus on lobbying for whatever the house has as that is the only thing we can practically do for progressing CIR.

We are better off in the conference without HR 2131.

First we have to get to the conference. For that house has to pass its version of CIR. Since they are proposing an alternate solution to Senate bill, they have an obligation to address all the current problems in today's immigration system. How can we expect them not to address high tech problem and present something as their solution. It is just not practical.

If we are just satisfied with whatever we get like HR 2131, there is not going to be another chance to get senate like provisions.

No one knows what will the conference committee decide. It is our best chance atleast for next couple of years to proceed with whatever we have rather than obstruct on things we do not agree. We may not like it all but as long as the bill makes progress we should support it for the benefit of the whole CIR.

It is not the bill that we have to ask support for. It is the green card provisions for which we have to ask support for.

Disagree. It is the CIR we have to support for as a whole immigrant community and we have to fight in a united way. United we will stand, divided we will fall.

GhostWriter

09-05-2013, 07:14 PM

rupen, you can conduct any poll that you think is helpful and see the response. It is fairly easy to set up, the question is what are you trying to accomplish. I can tell you my motivation. I was opposed to the bill based on the opinions that were posted here initially. But when the discussion between mostly four of you started and i looked at the summary posted by Spec, the summary on links provided by you and idiotic and the arguments provided by all four of you, then I actually ended up challenging my initial opinion. I was also sincerely interested in knowing what will people chose if the facts are clearly laid out. One thing i had overlooked earlier was H4 authorization and the second was trying to actually see how things will look year by year. I gave it some thought and looked at the short term pros and long term cons and reached a conclusion that I will take it over status quo (i.e. no bill).

The current EB2-I people have been backlogged for 5+ years and current EB3-I people have been backlogged for 10+ years. The bill will reduce that to zero for EB2-I and 5 years for EB3 as I tried to explain here (http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2213-Poll-Do-you-favor-HR2131-over-status-quo-(no-bill)?p=40017#post40017). The new backlog will start from 2018 onwards and that will be fresh (A person filing in 2018 will be backlogged by 1 year in 2019). The system is horrible after 2019 (with a lot of assumptions which may or may not hold true but let us say they do) and it will totally breakdown in 1-2 years if the backlog increases as expected (by 2020) requiring a fix. Unlike the current situation where the backlog built slowly it will build very fast (in 2 years) to a level that will draw attention. For EB-I the great thing would be there will be no EB-I there will only be countryless EB categories. 7 years from now is not a short time frame to think of new bills.

Till last year we were all excited about just removal of country cap and this offers 85K extra GCs, H4 work authorization and a backlog not in immediate future but at least 4-5 years from now.

Irrespective of our opinions the fact is that in the limited sample people will chose this bill over nothing. It will improve their situation (without making anyone in current EB-I worse-off).

Coming to your two poll questions the first one is a very technical political opinion. I would say if you can provide some research or facts related to the conference process that would be helpful in educating everyone (myself included). I have very limited idea about that process and I wouldn't even be able to participate in your poll question due to the lack of that knowledge. If you provide the facts I will certainly try to make a choice.
The second one is already incorporated in the existing poll. The trade-off depends on the number of new GCs and new H1Bs. They are posted on the poll page, people looked at that and arrived at the conclusion that they will take it. It does not matter what motivated people to make that choice, the fact is they chose it.

Senate bill is the best option and no one disputes it. The question is do we prefer HR2131 over nothing or not and it seems from the current results that people do prefer it.

PS: I saw after posting my reply that you are in banned status, but I hope you can see my response. You are very helpful in providing updates about the bill and i hope you return. At the same time irrespective of our opinions we should respect the choices that people make for themselves.

I would suggest Following polls.

1) Passing HR 2131 will help us in conference process to include senate green card provisions or not passing it
2) Is H1 increase at the expense of green card backlog good solution ?

idiotic

09-05-2013, 07:51 PM

Writing in the conservative National Review, Fred Bauer argues that even if the House only passes a series of small-bore immigration bills, the far more ambitious Senate legislation will set the terms of debate when House and Senate conferees meet to hash out the final version: "Instead of being independent pieces of legislation, the House's piecemeal immigration measures would become mere details in a broader Senate-driven bill." [See On Immigration, Conference Means Ruin, by Fred Bauer, 22.Aug.2013, National Review Online.] According to Bauer's National Review article, the piecemeal approach lets CIR opponents have it both ways: they can "talk tough" while supporting individual House immigration bills, but emerge with enough political cover to pass a Senate-dominated conference bill in the end.

http://www.murthy.com/2013/09/03/new-momentum-for-cir/

idiotic

09-06-2013, 02:03 PM

Right bipartisan moment is finally here for Gang of 7 .. plan is to club appropraitions and immigration.. Republicans already linked appropriations and Obamacare.. Its going to be fun this fall once syria issue is done with :)

Becerra is a member of the House’s “Gang of Seven,” which is working on a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill it hopes to introduce in October. Becerra believes his party's immigration reform plan tackles two big issues that will be before Congress this fall with a single strike.

http://www.ibtimes.com/2013-immigration-reform-house-dems-sell-overhaul-bill-deficit-reduction-1403139

idiotic

09-06-2013, 04:08 PM

Cantor's official memo to GOP lawmakers of agenda this september and october...

Good news for immigration.. It's not dead yet.. Things will be clear by October 31.. World needs a time machine..

http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/cantor-sees-syria-vote-within-two-weeks/

Immigration
==========
We know that the current legal immigration system is broken and should be fixed in a deliberate and responsible manner. That is why the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees have produced a number of specific bills which the House may begin considering this fall. Before we consider any other reforms, it is important that we pass legislation securing our borders and providing enforcement mechanisms to our law enforcement officials.

idiotic

09-09-2013, 03:44 PM

Now that members of Congress are returning to Washington, D.C., immigration reform advocates have bigger plans.
They are gearing up for major mobilization efforts in October.

http://octoberimmigration.org/

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/return-congress-immigration-reform/#ixzz2eQkSHwCc

GhostWriter

09-09-2013, 06:39 PM

Some practical issues

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-09/packed-congress-calendar-topped-by-syria-crowds-out-bills.html

Now that members of Congress are returning to Washington, D.C., immigration reform advocates have bigger plans.
They are gearing up for major mobilization efforts in October.

http://octoberimmigration.org/

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/return-congress-immigration-reform/#ixzz2eQkSHwCc

idiotic

09-09-2013, 06:43 PM

http://homeland.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-hearing-fulfilling-key-911-commission-recommendation-implementing-biometric

Biometric exit hearing postponed due to syria

Ramsen

09-09-2013, 07:58 PM

As always immigration is top most priority issue for immigrants but for country and congress it least priority whether you accept or not.

Some practical issues

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-09/packed-congress-calendar-topped-by-syria-crowds-out-bills.html

gcseeker

09-10-2013, 01:07 PM

Some practical issues

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-09/packed-congress-calendar-topped-by-syria-crowds-out-bills.html

Yup I agree there are multiple articles on this....Unless the situation in Syria resolves with Usa accepting a transfer of chemical weapons, the timeline leaves very little scope for taking up any other bills. Also next year the President has to deal with multiple issues and upcoming elections.

gcseeker

09-10-2013, 01:10 PM

Nytimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/us/politics/immigration-reform-falls-to-the-back-of-the-line.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

PBS

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/bellantoni_09-08.html

CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/obama-agenda/?hpt=po_c2

Policymic

http://www.policymic.com/articles/62743/immigration-reform-2013-why-syria-means-it-s-the-wrong-time

All the above articles highlight this

Put simply, immigration reform is hanging on by a very fine and easily broken thread. While Senate Gang of Eight members like John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have been outwardly optimistic in their assessment of immigration reform's chances in the House, the fact is that with the addition of military intervention in Syria, it may be too much to overcome.

idiotic

09-10-2013, 01:47 PM

idiotic

09-10-2013, 02:05 PM

Jagan01

09-10-2013, 02:23 PM

There have been strong indications that House will cancel the September recess to work on the lengthy agendas for September and October as laid out by Eric Cantor officially..

Immigration fireworks will be in early October with piecemeal bills being taken up in the floor..

Its naive to believe everything everyone says about immigration...

I can see this movement fading as we speak... Haven't seen any progress since the passage of Senate bill... I am not expecting anything from Republicans...
I think it is time we realize that it is more to do with politics than commonsense... We can hope that Democrats get back the house in 2014 and then we can see the senate bill pass in 2015...

gcseeker

09-10-2013, 02:43 PM

Its naive to believe everything everyone says about immigration...

I can see this movement fading as we speak... Haven't seen any progress since the passage of Senate bill... I am not expecting anything from Republicans...
I think it is time we realize that it is more to do with politics than commonsense... We can hope that Democrats get back the house in 2014 and then we can see the senate bill pass in 2015...

I would agree with this. Purely poltically speaking Obama is expending a lot of political capital on the Syria issue and then there is the impending debt ceiling discussion and if nothing is done the usa govt will not have money to meet its financial obligations by Oct 18th.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/10/we-could-breach-the-debt-ceiling-as-soon-as-oct-18-heres-what-happens-next/

I cannot imagine Immigration reform will be taken up in early October with that looming on the horizon.

idiotic

09-11-2013, 08:26 AM

I cannot imagine Immigration reform will be taken up in early October with that looming on the horizon.

Piecemeal bills will brought to the house floor as next step in October to move the process forward. We are just weeks away and let us wait and watch.

idiotic

09-11-2013, 05:24 PM

http://allthingsd.com/20130911/zuckerberg-to-meet-with-top-house-republicans-on-immigration-reform/

“Mark is coming to Washington to discuss issues important to the knowledge economy, including immigration reform,” a Facebook spokesperson told AllThingsD.

idiotic

09-12-2013, 02:01 PM

There have been strong indications that House will cancel the September recess to work on the lengthy agendas for September and October as laid out by Eric Cantor officially..

It's almost confirmed that House will be working overtime to finish appropriations bill.. Syria is also over "for now" already officially announced by Obama.. This will implicitly mean Immigration vote on piecemeal will be on track for early October..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/12/cantor-house-may-cancel-september-recess/

idiotic

09-12-2013, 02:22 PM

Ros-Lehtinen told MSNBC that the “Gang of 7″ bill could serve as an eventual compromise with the Senate down the road, but that it may have to wait until the House passes a series of more modest individual bills first.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/12/dont-abandon-us-immigration-reformers-assail-congress/

idiotic

09-13-2013, 01:55 PM

http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-2013-remain-session-tackle-too-says-pelosi-1405522

Nancy Pelosi -- (minorty leader and architect behind getting ObamaCare passed) starts gets involved..

idiotic

09-16-2013, 02:41 PM

Jagan01

09-16-2013, 03:36 PM

Congress has a couple of weeks to get this done. If they’re focused on what the American people care about — faster growth, more jobs, better future for our kids — then I’m confident it will happen. And once we’re done with the budget, let’s focus on the other things that we know can make a difference for middle-class families — lowering the cost of college; finishing the job of immigration reform; taking up the work of tax reform to make the system fairer and promoting more investment in the United States.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/transcript-video-obama-remarks-on-navy-yard-shooting-syria-economy-96864_Page2.html#ixzz2f5PhOGTg

I am getting a feeling that no one cares about the immigration reform anymore. Even within the immigrant community it is taking the backseat. I do not think the american citizens care about it anymore.

Delays are not good. Once we hit 2014, there would not be a compromise. Republicans will try and get back the Senate and Democrats will try and get back the House. I seriously hope either it ends up being Democrats in both chambers or Republicans in both chambers. If democrats in both chambers then the Senate bill passes and if Republicans in both chambers then something like HR2131 can pass

idiotic

09-16-2013, 03:45 PM

I am getting a feeling that no one cares about the immigration reform anymore. Even within the immigrant community it is taking the backseat. I do not think the american citizens care about it anymore.

Delays are not good. Once we hit 2014, there would not be a compromise. Republicans will try and get back the Senate and Democrats will try and get back the House. I seriously hope either it ends up being Democrats in both chambers or Republicans in both chambers. If democrats in both chambers then the Senate bill passes and if Republicans in both chambers then something like HR2131 can pass

Wait till end of October and we will have clear picture.. For now, look up Eric Cantor's majority leader website for next week's legislative agenda and stay tuned.. Already farm bill is back along with budget fight :) Next will be immigration

idiotic

09-16-2013, 04:14 PM

Wait till end of October and we will have clear picture.. For now, look up Eric Cantor's majority leader website for next week's legislative agenda and stay tuned.. Already farm bill is back along with budget fight :) Next will be immigration

If law do not pass before this year end, administration will do something like below (USCIS memo on alternatives to CIR)..

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/memo-on-alternatives-to-comprehensive-immigration-reform.pdf

gcq

09-16-2013, 06:38 PM

If law do not pass before this year end, administration will do something like below (USCIS memo on alternatives to CIR)..

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/memo-on-alternatives-to-comprehensive-immigration-reform.pdf

USCIS goes out of way to make legal non-immigrant's life miserable. Se how creative they become to make life easier for CIR aspirants !

Also don't understand how granting EAD to H4 dependents to only those H1 applicants who has also filed for AOS helps them. If H1 applicant has filed AOS, isn't spouse able to apply for EAD automatically ? Don't see how USCIS is doing them a favor !

idiotic

09-16-2013, 06:44 PM

USCIS goes out of way to make legal non-immigrant's life miserable. Se how creative they become to make life easier for CIR aspirants !

Also don't understand how granting EAD to H4 dependents to only those H1 applicants has also filed for AOS helps them. If H1 applicant has filed AOS, isn't spouse able to apply for EAD automatically ? Don't see how USCIS is doing them a favor !

These are set of things which they could make without breaking the immigration law as written in books to bring some relief to certain categories of immigrants... Administration should be praised for this .. This is an old memo and new one will be different if law does not pass in 2013.. Let's worry about the specifics then.. this is just FYI to learn some history..

sstest

09-17-2013, 05:00 PM

Also don't understand how granting EAD to H4 dependents to only those H1 applicants who has also filed for AOS helps them. If H1 applicant has filed AOS, isn't spouse able to apply for EAD automatically ? Don't see how USCIS is doing them a favor !

gcq,

Under second and less discussed provision of AC-21, someone on H1B beyond 6 years, can extend it on a year to year basis. I think that is the AC 21 H1B type mentioned here.

I would love to see this extended to dependents of H1B tied to approved 140 but I suspect they are trying to interpret current definition of AC-21 in the most helpful manner - which will still help some people.

idiotic

09-17-2013, 07:26 PM

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he could support the House of Representatives taking a piece-by-piece approach to changing immigration policy as long as key elements such as a "pathway to citizenship" for undocumented immigrants were included.

"If those elements are contained in a bill, whether they come through the House a little bit at a time or they come in one fell swoop ... I'm less concerned about process, I'm more interested in making sure it gets done," he said.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/usa-immigration-obama-idINL2N0HD28420130917

qesehmk

09-17-2013, 07:45 PM

I think Obama will also eventually drop the path to citizenship as long as the reform is comprehensive - meaning - bringing those people out of the shadows and making them legal.

Oct is going to be an interesting month.
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he could support the House of Representatives taking a piece-by-piece approach to changing immigration policy as long as key elements such as a "pathway to citizenship" for undocumented immigrants were included.

"If those elements are contained in a bill, whether they come through the House a little bit at a time or they come in one fell swoop ... I'm less concerned about process, I'm more interested in making sure it gets done," he said.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/usa-immigration-obama-idINL2N0HD28420130917

gcseeker

09-18-2013, 08:06 AM

I think Obama will also eventually drop the path to citizenship as long as the reform is comprehensive - meaning - bringing those people out of the shadows and making them legal.

Oct is going to be an interesting month.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/18/the-final-showdown-why-the-coming-budget-crisis-may-be-the-worst/

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/322599-dems-tire-of-waiting-on-reform

Unfortunately it is increasingly looking like the president might not have the time to deal with this. The budget crisis is increasingly looking to be a major fight for both parties this time which might occupy all of october and the repubs are doing their best to defund obama care .Syria is on the backburner for now .

I just do not beleive congress has the will/time to get it passed in october...

qesehmk

09-18-2013, 08:26 AM

That is true. That's why I said that Obama and Dems are looking for any victory on this topic and so as long as GOP can offer them a a deal that addresses 11m illegals - they will take it.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/18/the-final-showdown-why-the-coming-budget-crisis-may-be-the-worst/

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/322599-dems-tire-of-waiting-on-reform

Unfortunately it is increasingly looking like the president might not have the time to deal with this. The budget crisis is increasingly looking to be a major fight for both parties this time which might occupy all of october and the repubs are doing their best to defund obama care .Syria is on the backburner for now .

I just do not beleive congress has the will/time to get it passed in october...

druvraj

09-18-2013, 08:49 AM

That is true. That's why I said that Obama and Dems are looking for any victory on this topic and so as long as GOP can offer them a a deal that addresses 11m illegals - they will take it.

I have a different take on it. If the Dems compromise with Repubs on the immigration stuff they agree then not only can they claim victory on the immigration front but will have a better barganing chip with the budget thing. If they can compromise on the immigration issue(Which is good for the economy by quickly clearing all high skilled workers) Dems can get obamacare, debt ceiling increase and a compromise on tax reform. Only if they can not care so much for the 11M illegals gaining citizenship. I am all for 11M people can get LPRs don't get me wrong but the bigger picture is what I am looking at. After 2014 they can always revisit the citizenship clause but for now just look at the bigger picture.

idiotic

09-18-2013, 08:59 AM

I have a different take on it. If the Dems compromise with Repubs on the immigration stuff they agree then not only can they claim victory on the immigration front but will have a better barganing chip with the budget thing. If they can compromise on the immigration issue(Which is good for the economy by quickly clearing all high skilled workers) Dems can get obamacare, debt ceiling increase and a compromise on tax reform. Only if they can not care so much for the 11M illegals gaining citizenship. I am all for 11M people can get LPRs don't get me wrong but the bigger picture is what I am looking at. After 2014 they can always revisit the citizenship clause but for now just look at the bigger picture.

Immigration is considered as a major legislative priority in second term just like ObamaCare in first term.
Debt Ceiling and budget issues are always there year after year..
Please view it from that prism..