Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise) [Archive] - Page 8

qesehmk

09-18-2013, 09:06 AM

True. I think dems will take any deal that makes 11m legals. I don't think they will get hung up on citizenship. But at the end of the day - GOP wants to deny dems any victory on this. Their position seems to be -this is a lose-lose topic for us to address. So we would rather lose by denying victory to dems. Politically speaking - it makes sense from their perspective. But that is hurting all the effort made so far. Which is why I have been "FOR" for any house legislation immigration because that creates some opening for negotiations. Otherwise this topic may die within next 9 months. After that next election cycle begins and no republican will touch this with a 10 foot pole.

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.

druvraj

09-18-2013, 11:22 AM

True. I think dems will take any deal that makes 11m legals. I don't think they will get hung up on citizenship. But at the end of the day - GOP wants to deny dems any victory on this. Their position seems to be -this is a lose-lose topic for us to address. So we would rather lose by denying victory to dems. Politically speaking - it makes sense from their perspective. But that is hurting all the effort made so far. Which is why I have been "FOR" for any house legislation immigration because that creates some opening for negotiations. Otherwise this topic may die within next 9 months. After that next election cycle begins and no republican will touch this with a 10 foot pole.

Both can claim victory if they pass legal immigration reform which by the way no one object to. On the other hand there is no objection to legalizing 11M illegals. Dems are looking at vote bank politics as are repubs hence Dems have no interest in passing anything ,just making sure Repubs are branded as anti Hispanics. See if immi bill passes without pathway to citizenship then ground reality does not change and with current redistricting Repubs will win house easily. Only if the Dems keep the immi bill alive will they get lion share of Hispanic vote. On the other hand if Repubs agree to pathway to citizenship then senate in my opinion is not theirs for a long time.

Keeping politics aside I always feel like illegals should pay a bigger price as they were illegals. So this 10 years in nonsense. I waited for 10 years for my GC and if I am branded in the same league where is the incentive to follow the law. I feel like it should be 25 years and then 5 more for citizenship. Agree that most will not be alive but hey you pay a price for coming here illegally. If I am an administrator I would want most to follow the law otherwise my job becomes that much more difficult.

qesehmk

09-18-2013, 11:46 AM

Sure.. different constituents have different perspective and accordingly politicians work for their constituents. As per immigrants - for them it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white as long as it kills the mouse. In this case the mouse being - immigration reform :)

Both can claim victory if they pass legal immigration reform which by the way no one object to. On the other hand there is no objection to legalizing 11M illegals. Dems are looking at vote bank politics as are repubs hence Dems have no interest in passing anything ,just making sure Repubs are branded as anti Hispanics. See if immi bill passes without pathway to citizenship then ground reality does not change and with current redistricting Repubs will win house easily. Only if the Dems keep the immi bill alive will they get lion share of Hispanic vote. On the other hand if Repubs agree to pathway to citizenship then senate in my opinion is not theirs for a long time.

Keeping politics aside I always feel like illegals should pay a bigger price as they were illegals. So this 10 years in nonsense. I waited for 10 years for my GC and if I am branded in the same league where is the incentive to follow the law. I feel like it should be 25 years and then 5 more for citizenship. Agree that most will not be alive but hey you pay a price for coming here illegally. If I am an administrator I would want most to follow the law otherwise my job becomes that much more difficult.

idiotic

09-18-2013, 03:25 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..

House cancels the reccess
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/323109-house-cancels-recess-returns-sept-25

idiotic

09-18-2013, 03:39 PM

“The purpose of this trip is largely about immigration rather than Facebook,” said the 29-year-old billionaire, who replaced the suit he wore to the Capitol for his characteristic black hoodie.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/mark-zuckerberg-immigration-97012.html#ixzz2fHM0DaGq

idiotic

09-18-2013, 07:19 PM

http://www.theatlantic.com/events/archive/2013/09/watch-mark-zuckerberg-talk-with-i-atlantic-i-editor-in-chief-james-bennet/279787/

Interesting interview especially where he explained how CIR is important than high skilled immigration alone and how they are not very different..

idiotic

09-19-2013, 07:14 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/house-judiciary-chairman-pledges-action-on-immigration-says-work-happening-behind-the-scenes/2013/09/19/d2a3ecf2-2171-11e3-ad1a-1a919f2ed890_story.html

Goodlatte, R-Va., said members of his committee are working on four bills to address various aspects of the immigration system, in addition to four that the committee already has approved.
Goodlatte said he’d like to see the full House begin voting on the committee-passed bills next month.

idiotic

09-19-2013, 07:54 PM

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/Stockman-Block_Amnesty-Letter.pdf

Here is numbersusa attempt to block the conference from happening. They just want house to pass series of bills and no conference to happen and just let the bill die..

jackbrown_890

09-20-2013, 12:37 PM

so the house has voted and passed to defund obamacare with the budget:
what if the senate attached CIR to the budget and passed it.,(wild thought)
it is definitely heading to conference and will most probably be voted out,, but it can become interesting

geterdone

09-20-2013, 12:47 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/20/immigration-house-group/2843175/

so the house has voted and passed to defund obamacare with the budget:
what if the senate attached CIR to the budget and passed it.,(wild thought)
it is definitely heading to conference and will most probably be voted out,, but it can become interesting

qesehmk

09-20-2013, 12:50 PM

Just to clarify ... this house bill will conference with its senate version not with CIR. They are two separate things.
(This is a good reading on how conferences work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee)

This has zero chance of passing senate. Absolutely Zero because Obamacare is a bigger cornerstone of democratic future when compared with CIR.

so the house has voted and passed to defund obamacare with the budget:
what if the senate attached CIR to the budget and passed it.,(wild thought)
it is definitely heading to conference and will most probably be voted out,, but it can become interesting

jackbrown_890

09-20-2013, 12:57 PM

idiotic

09-20-2013, 01:06 PM

oh yes, i am aware of the house passed budget and senate version of the budget, i was just saying "What IF" dems do that. I understand, Dems don't need to attach anything and just pass the budget and it will still go to the conference..and possibly conference will remove "Defund obamacare" and pass it...OR shutdown for few days/weeks.

House can again attach keystone pipeline and it will be a never ending story in each side attaching their pet projects and it is not the way to negotiate..

The reason dems won't do such thing is because they want to clearly isolate the republicans that any negotiation holding "shutdown of govt" as hostage is not the right way to negotiate.. as Obama said it is similar to "extortion"

jackbrown_890

09-20-2013, 01:23 PM

qesehmk

09-20-2013, 01:24 PM

Jack - I suggest you read that link I provided earlier. The very first line says ...
A conference committee is a committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congressional_committee) of the Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) appointed by the House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) and Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) to resolve disagreements on a particular bill.
So first this committee is Ad Hoc i.e. formed as needed. Secondly the focus is a particular bill.

Now as idiotic says - yes indeed any pet projects can be inserted into it. But they are generally what is considered "pork barrel" projects that a senator or congressman is basically bought with in return for his vote on that bill.

CIR is an entirely different bill and there is Zero chance that democrats would like to sneak in its provisions in bills where focus is not immigration.

Unfortunately this is exactly what I tried to explain to Rupen the other day and it seems there is this misconception (or propaganda) out there that CIR can conference with any other bill. While technically true - practically I do not know any major bill like CIR findings its way into a conference of any other bill.

Sorry I didn't mean to say you are wrong. But just wanted to clarify this misconception that exists out there.

oh yes, i am aware of the house passed budget and senate version of the budget, i was just saying "What IF" dems do that. I understand, Dems don't need to attach anything and just pass the budget and it will still go to the conference..and possibly conference will remove "Defund obamacare" and pass it...OR shutdown for few days/weeks.

idiotic

09-20-2013, 01:25 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/20/immigration-house-group/2843175/

My view is this gang of 7 bill closely resembles senate version and will serve as "Trojan horse" bill evolving out of final conference committee which will have critical mass of votes to pass in both senate and house finally..

The reason of leaving and timing is very dubious.. Let us see how these two senators vote in the final bill if it gets to that stage :)

Also, even if they ended up finishing it, Goodlatte will send it to dustbin publicly by never bringing it to house judiciary committee as he is already going the piecemeal way publicly..

PD2008AUG25

09-20-2013, 01:26 PM

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/20/20601846-two-more-republicans-bolt-immigration-working-group

idiotic

09-20-2013, 01:39 PM

well, yes i agree with you, both sides are not going to add everything they want to this but as GOP voted 41st time to defund obamacare (including this budget) to mainly please their conservative base(even though they know it is not going to pass in the senate),

Dems have a chance to energize their base (mainly latino) by attaching CIR to the budget to get back to GOP if shutdown down is unavoidable (from GOP side) for few days/weeks. This move may help keep immigration supporters energized for few more weeks till they reach agreement on the budget and come back to immigration issue. .

CIR is a priority for sure.. but budget battle is not the right place to do this.. Best and easiest way for democrats to win the budget battle is make the republicans look like "smugglers demanding extortion".. If we tie multiple issues then it will only muddle the water in front of public..

The problem right now is the CIR proponents' enthusiasm is fading away and as many have mentioned, CIR may head towards a slow death..
Too early to declare.. October is an interesting month and Goodlatte has publicly agreed he will bring 4 more bills and they will come to house floor as a vote.. Antiimmigrant groups are already resigned to this fact and now fighting for #noconference :)

jackbrown_890

09-20-2013, 01:44 PM

both of you are right, as i said it was "Wild thought", and Dems most probably won't do that.
plus i know it is easy for GOP to include "defund Obamacare" in the budget since there is a funding for it in the budget; thn to attach CIR provisions (not impossible).
i guess i should say this is more of my wishful thinking to re-energize the CIR debate..(has close to 0% chances of happening)

on the related issue,, any thoughts on possible govt. shut-down and effect of it on Spillover...

btw, sorry if you have already discussed it, (i ll check last few days' posts later in the evening) again I have been out of loop for awhile...with a new baby, not getting much time to sit back and read/enjoy/enlighten myself; all u gurus' analysis and discussions..

idiotic

09-20-2013, 01:45 PM

i guess i should say this is more of my wishful thinking to re-energize the CIR debate..(has close to 0% chances of happening)

I think declaring house gang of 7 as dead is the best way to reenergize the public to participate in the marches already well scheduled in October in various cities.. Let us see..

with a new baby, not getting much time to sit back and read/enjoy/enlighten myself; all u gurus' analysis and discussions

Welcome to Parenthood :) CIR debate is not worth anywhere close to spending time with your precious :)

qesehmk

09-20-2013, 01:59 PM

I have been out of loop for awhile...with a new baby, not getting much time ..Big news jack! Nothing is worth more. Stay awake and give the new mom some rest. Something I regretted not having done with our first baby. Many many congratulations and wish the new baby all the health wealth and wisdom.

jackbrown_890

09-20-2013, 02:13 PM

Thank you Q & Idiotic

idiotic

09-20-2013, 02:13 PM

I think declaring house gang of 7 as dead is the best way to reenergize the public to participate in the marches already well scheduled in October in various cities.. Let us see..

Cat is out of the bag..

http://gutierrez.house.gov/press-release/guti%C3%A9rrez-calls-community-continue-pressure-bipartisan-immigration-reform

idiotic

09-23-2013, 06:52 PM

The strategy was detailed at a meeting hosted by Pelosi last week with top House Democrats and several immigration-rights advocates, the sources said. The plan would be to publicly release the bill timed to the Oct. 5 National Day of Action that is meant to mobilize grass-roots support and pressure the House Republican leadership to take up immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/nancy-pelosi-immigration-reform-bill-97223.html#ixzz2flN1CmKE

idiotic

09-24-2013, 06:34 PM

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2013/09/24-immigration-reform-svajlenka?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=BrookingsInst&utm_content=BrookingsInst

Nice summarization of facts happened last week

idiotic

09-25-2013, 01:29 PM

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_10012013.html

Another hearing.. Hopefully we will have markups on actual bills soon

GCSeekerIndia

09-30-2013, 03:04 PM

gcseeker

09-30-2013, 03:16 PM

If I am Obama, I would take this Shutdown discussion and bargain with GOP on Immigration in House... I will give a 6 months to 1 year time delayfor ObamaCare to take effect, but will bargain for Senate Immigration bill to be introduce in House, which will then pass as is with the 20 or so republican support. Won't this be a great win for both Dems and GOP?

Wishful thinking though... :)

Obamacare is far more important for Obama's legacy than Immigration reform. I mean Obama would love to get Immi reform passed as well but if it comes down to protecting his legacy ...Obama care by far will outweigh anything else. Also it is a big deal for the Democractic party.

I personally do not beleive CIR in any form or piecemeal bills being touted by the Repubs have any chance of passing in late October. Rep Goodlatte and Rep Mike Mccaul head the House Judiciary and Homeland security committes respectively. However rest of the Repub party is in no mood to compromise on the heart of Immigration reform which is border security ( according to them )

http://www.latintimes.com/articles/8806/20130930/immigration-reform-2013-house-republicans-bills-october.htm#.UknadT_-vIg

A spokesman for Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader and Republican from Virginia, told the AP that moving forward on immigration reform "remains a priority" but added that "right now there's no firm timetable". And the bills which Goodlatte seeks to bring up first don't address the question which Democrats consider to be at the heart of immigration reform: what sort of legal status to extend to the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Cantor and Goodlatte are planning to sponsor a bill which would partially address the question by making some undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children eligible for citizenship.

There is still the shutdown...Many thought even the shutdown would not come to pass.This is the first shutdown in 17 yrs and the Repubs are not conceding anything ..The debt ceiling fight is upcoming on Oct 17th and there is no reason to think at this point that it will be any easier......

Pedro Gonzales

09-30-2013, 05:48 PM

The GOP has long forecast that Obamacare will fail when it is implemented, and that it will result in a landslide victory for the GOP in the 2014 elections. Now that initial data indicates that the trainwreck don't seem to be coming to bear (regardless of hitches with the websites) and prices are actually coming out to be quite reasonable, some in the GOP are worried that the law might actually become popular. When half of the country realize they like this thing they've been told was going to be awful, they might sour on the senators and congressmen that have been leading a crusade against it thusfar, and hand the GOP an electoral defeat in 2014. That may be the onus for the 1 year delay strategy the GOP is orchestrating in the House.

Anyway if Obamacare endures, and is successful, this will be one of the biggest political ironies ever. Obama and the Dems getting credit for bringing healthcare costs under control using a plan written by conservatives and first implemented by a GOP Governor, that leads to Democrat control over both houses of government, thereby permitting Obama to pass immigration reform, gay right laws, gun control and every other liberal fantasy legislation in his final 2 years in power. How's that for wishful thinking!

Anyway, I agree with gcseeker. Obamacare is far more important to the democrats right now than immigration overhaul. They won't trade one for the other.

idiotic

09-30-2013, 06:36 PM

GOP are worried that the law might actually become popular.

Exactly right.. If what they say(Obama care will fail on its own weight) is true, they can just let it fall and reap the benifits of it in next election..

Tying immigration reform or other things to this debate is day dream.. I am not sure even Mr. Amnesty will think about it as an option :)

geterdone

09-30-2013, 09:52 PM

idiotic

10-01-2013, 08:44 AM

I just signed the @FWD_us petition telling the House to pass #immigration reform. Add your name today: http://bit.ly/16Dj0uV

idiotic

10-01-2013, 09:23 AM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/84-house-republicans-support-legalizing-undocumented-workers_757359.html?page=3

hopefully it is changing ---also saw in the news that some repubs are working in the background

4 partisan bills(not so much except bits and pieces) from house judiciary committee are already passed and placed on house calender..
Also bipartisan border security bill(HR 1417) from homeland security committee is also in house calender..
KIDS act is the main bill which is remaining along with few others.. House judiciary committee is holding a hearing on entry exit system today.. Homeland security committee already held a similar hearing few days back.. Once actual bills are ready they will be marked up and will be placed on house calender in no time..

Things will turn to immigration once appropriations and debt ceiling fights are over..

Sit back and enjoy the political drama while doing the action items recommended by the lobbyist of your choice..

idiotic

10-01-2013, 02:51 PM

4 partisan bills(not so much except bits and pieces) from house judiciary committee are already passed and placed on house calender..
Also bipartisan border security bill(HR 1417) from homeland security committee is also in house calender..
KIDS act is the main bill which is remaining along with few others.. House judiciary committee is holding a hearing on entry exit system today.. Homeland security committee already held a similar hearing few days back.. Once actual bills are ready they will be marked up and will be placed on house calender in no time..

Things will turn to immigration once appropriations and debt ceiling fights are over..

Sit back and enjoy the political drama while doing the action items recommended by the lobbyist of your choice..

House Judiciary Cmte ‏@HouseJudiciary

Today's scheduled markup and hearing have been postponed.

psychedelicNerd

10-02-2013, 05:33 AM

gcseeker

10-02-2013, 09:55 AM

House Democrats, frustrated by the lack of action by House leadership and fearing all hope of a bi-partisan comprehensive immigration reform bill is lost, are expected to introduce an immigration bill of their own today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-democrats-introduce-immigration-reform-bill/story?id=20440034

Just an eyewash measure as the article itself states this

Sources say the bill's supporters realize that it has little chance of passing because there is still no indication that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, would allow it to come to a vote.

Boehner has said repeatedly he has no plans to bring the bi-partisan Senate bill to the house floor.

Instead, sources acknowledge, the bill will receive predominantly Democratic support and languish in the House without ever coming to a vote.

idiotic

10-04-2013, 08:41 AM

House Judiciary Cmte ‏@HouseJudiciary

Today's scheduled markup and hearing have been postponed.

Rescheduled on 10/09 .. Is it an indication that House republicans are expecting the shutdown drama to be over before 10/09 internally? Good news!!
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_10092013.html

seahawks2012

10-08-2013, 01:56 PM

Rescheduled on 10/09 .. Is it an indication that House republicans are expecting the shutdown drama to be over before 10/09 internally? Good news!!
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_10092013.html

This is showing as cancelled now...

idiotic

10-08-2013, 02:20 PM

This is showing as cancelled now...

Yes.. started showing as cancelled again from today morning..

It seems to be caught in the hostages list for Obamacare ransom right now..

idiotic

10-11-2013, 01:48 PM

Yes.. started showing as cancelled again from today morning..

It seems to be caught in the hostages list for Obamacare ransom right now..

http://homeland.house.gov/markup/full-committee-markup-hr-3141-and-hr-3202

Here is the actual bipartisan bill on the same topic.. This bill just requires some plan to be submitted by Napalitano's replacement..

So, totally house bills now total to 4 from House judiciary committee and 2 from House homeland security committee. I guess just amnesty piece(KIDS Act) is missing..
5 of them already in house calender ready to vote..

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3141
98% chance of getting past committee :)
27% chance of being enacted..

seahawks2012

10-16-2013, 11:04 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/us-usa-obama-immigration-idUSBRE99F01Q20131016

idiotic

10-16-2013, 01:30 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/us-usa-obama-immigration-idUSBRE99F01Q20131016

Goodlatte is busy with Tea Party for an hearing on to impeach Obama instead of the immigration hearings :) http://www.codewit.com/north-america/13034-house-republicans-schedule-obama-impeachment-hearings

IQ factor of Tea Party astounds me.. How much time is wasted on not doing real things and doing things like impeaching Obama / defunding Obamacare / repealing Obamacare 50+ times.. No wonder they are making into all the Late night comedy shows unedited..

As usual some sense prevails by Boehner doing the right thing at the end of every game .. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/328803-boehner-to-allow-vote-on-senate-deal Immigration game will be no different..

Ramsen

10-16-2013, 03:46 PM

Goodlatte is busy with Tea Party for an hearing on to impeach Obama instead of the immigration hearings :) http://www.codewit.com/north-america/13034-house-republicans-schedule-obama-impeachment-hearings

IQ factor of Tea Party astounds me.. How much time is wasted on not doing real things and doing things like impeaching Obama / defunding Obamacare / repealing Obamacare 50+ times.. No wonder they are making into all the Late night comedy shows unedited..

As usual some sense prevails by Boehner doing the right thing at the end of every game .. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/328803-boehner-to-allow-vote-on-senate-deal Immigration game will be no different..

Tea party has the best IQ. They knew it is difficult to defund obama care. But by trying this they can block Obama's other legislative agendas including immigration. They successfully delayed many other items and also constantly weakened the presidency. For past 2 weeks they made Obama to sit just in WH and talk just about shut down. Also they successfully killed immigration reform by delaying it. Do you think tea party is that much stupid to add 30 million democrat votes in next 20 years? Now at most they will pass some piecemeal bills which will not be accepted by Senate.

idiotic

10-16-2013, 04:53 PM

Tea party has the best IQ. They knew it is difficult to defund obama care. But by trying this they can block Obama's other legislative agendas including immigration. They successfully delayed many other items and also constantly weakened the presidency. For past 2 weeks they made Obama to sit just in WH and talk just about shut down. Also they successfully killed immigration reform by delaying it. Do you think tea party is that much stupid to add 30 million democrat votes in next 20 years? Now at most they will pass some piecemeal bills which will not be accepted by Senate.

Wild imagination.. They have given popularity to Obamacare among americans to know about their new entitlement..
Also, Farm bill conference was setup amid all this Chaos.. Immigration debate is upcoming..

They have hurt the republican party so much now that even some republicans are trying to disassociate themselves from the movement. Pro business groups vs Tea party groups fight will define the republican party in future.. For example, on today's vote, business is saying vote yes and tea party groups are saying vote no.. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/328873-club-for-growth-opposes-senate-deal

leadership is urging yes.. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328913-speaker-urges-party-to-back-senate-deal

gten20

10-16-2013, 06:52 PM

Wild imagination.. They have given popularity to Obamacare among americans to know about their new entitlement..
Also, Farm bill conference was setup amid all this Chaos.. Immigration debate is upcoming..

They have hurt the republican party so much now that even some republicans are trying to disassociate themselves from the movement. Pro business groups vs Tea party groups fight will define the republican party in future.. For example, on today's vote, business is saying vote yes and tea party groups are saying vote no.. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/328873-club-for-growth-opposes-senate-deal

leadership is urging yes.. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328913-speaker-urges-party-to-back-senate-deal

With the republicans party's rating drop and internal rifts, my personal opinion is that if the Democrats and/or President Obama play the cards right, they can get Boehner to put the Senate CIR bill on floor for voting. If I remember correctly, I think I read an article sometime in Aug. that there are just enough republicans votes in House to clear senate version of CIR.

Obama did say he will focus on immigration reform right after a deal is reached on the current Govt. shutdown. Maybe this shutdown will be a blessing for Immigration Reform? Only time will tell...

idiotic

10-16-2013, 07:11 PM

With the republicans party's rating drop and internal rifts, my personal opinion is that if the Democrats and/or President Obama play the cards right, they can get Boehner to put the Senate CIR bill on floor for voting. If I remember correctly, I think I read an article sometime in Aug. that there are just enough republicans votes in House to clear senate version of CIR.

Obama did say he will focus on immigration reform right after a deal is reached on the current Govt. shutdown. Maybe this shutdown will be a blessing for Immigration Reform? Only time will tell...

The way it will play out is house will pass piecemeal bills and then go into conference with senate.. boehner has to break the so called unconstitutional "hastert rule" to bring the compromised bill to the floor for a vote and it will pass with support of democrats and moderate republicans just like it did in senate.. there are approximately 18 odd republican senators and 80 odd house republicans (our high IQ tea party team) who will vote no for just about anything constructive including something like clean CR or debt ceiling or immigration reform.. they will hold 2 weeks of hearings to impeach obama and the same dead on arrival repeal obamacare bill 40+ times wasting everyone's time.. the only good thing they did was the "sequestration" in 2011.

Ramsen

10-16-2013, 07:24 PM

Wild imagination.. They have given popularity to Obamacare among americans to know about their new entitlement..
Also, Farm bill conference was setup amid all this Chaos.. Immigration debate is upcoming..

They have hurt the republican party so much now that even some republicans are trying to disassociate themselves from the movement. Pro business groups vs Tea party groups fight will define the republican party in future.. For example, on today's vote, business is saying vote yes and tea party groups are saying vote no.. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/328873-club-for-growth-opposes-senate-deal

leadership is urging yes.. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328913-speaker-urges-party-to-back-senate-deal

Though they are losing the people support Tea party was standing up for their policy. America will live with many issues due to Obama care. Each and every person in republican is opposing Obama Care. It was highly unusual that such a big socialism bill passed without a single republican vote. They disassociated with tea party not because of the policy of tea party but because they cannot win in this fight. Democrats played for their advantage than concentrating on resolving the issue. Immigration debate will come and go but no bill will go to President office after this big bitter fight.

For now they might hurt Republican party. Still this fight will be helpful for some especially Mcconnell to win the 2014 election. I still strongly believe GOP will take over the house again though with slim margin. Yes America is divided by policy. American rarely give all the powers to one party(read the history). Of course any party will attempt to have permanent President,house and Senate but rarely happens.

qesehmk

10-16-2013, 07:29 PM

American rarely give all the powers to one party(read the history).This is so true and is a good thing.

gten20

10-16-2013, 08:01 PM

Interesting read.

"I think what he has done over the past two and a half weeks -- he's trying to destroy the Republican party," Labrador said of Obama. "I think that anything we do right now with this president on immigration will be with that same goal in mind, which is to destroy the Republican party and not to get good policies."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/raul-labrador-immigration-reform_n_4109716.html

idiotic

10-17-2013, 08:13 AM

Though they are losing the people support Tea party was standing up for their policy.

They have no policy on Obamacare. Their policy is to just to repeal it without any constructive alternatives. They are not party of ideas anymore (like the initial Heritage foundation). I did post many links in this forum before how Obamacare stemmed from original republican ideas(Heritage foundation initial volumes).

The whole battle is a last ditch **whatever it takes** to stop Obamacare before people realize it is actually good. Truth is they are afraid it will succeed.

America will live with many issues due to Obama care.

Look at history.. It is otherwise.. Romneycare rolled out in 2005 and is very successful. Nothing will be different for Obamacare.

Each and every person in republican is opposing Obama Care.

Its ok to disagree on policy but there has to be some sense on how to disagree. Even republicans agree that tea party just lacks the sense completely.

It was highly unusual that such a big socialism bill passed without a single republican vote.

Group insurance is not socialism.. Again it is a republican idea(original hertigage foundation)..

They disassociated with tea party not because of the policy of tea party but because they cannot win in this fight.

The grown up repulicans disassociated because they wanted not to be seen as high school bullies.

Democrats played for their advantage than concentrating on resolving the issue.

Again, telling Democrats their biggest ever legislative achivement is an **issue** itself is debatable. No wonder they wont get solution.

Immigration debate will come and go but no bill will go to President office after this big bitter fight.

No one knows.. Let us wait and see.. Main thing is debate will happen regardless of the fight.. you originally mentioned the whole fight is to avoid the debate.. On Immigration both moderate republicans(pro business) and democrats agree.. only the tea party republicans disagree.. It is the tail of the party not the head.. The head is the business..

For now they might hurt Republican party.

Like John McCain said, it is one of the worst chapters in american political history..

Still this fight will be helpful for some especially Mcconnell to win the 2014 election.

If anyone used the whole thing for their personal gain, it is "Ted Cruz".. Atleast McConnell got "Kentucky kickback" for his constituents. What did Ted Cruz bring for this constituents apart from publicilty(both bad and good) for himself..

I still strongly believe GOP will take over the house again though with slim margin.

It would be a good thing actually to keep the policies in check.. because right now America is divided country on policy and so should be the government too..

Yes America is divided by policy. American rarely give all the powers to one party(read the history). Of course any party will attempt to have permanent President,house and Senate but rarely happens.

Agreed. No one wants one rule monopoly.. there has to be healthy debate between moderate republicans and moderate democrats on policy.. the extermism should be punished and put on its place duly just like what will happen to Tea Party folks..

gcseeker

10-17-2013, 05:01 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/17/government-shutdown-shift-immigration-reform/3000575/

Unlike shutdown, GOP says Democrats must bend on immigration

"I look forward to the next venture, which is making sure we do immigration reform," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said late Wednesday.

"Good luck," said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who chairs the House immigration committee.

Also Businessweek has a fantastic article on Tea party's Pyrrhic victory

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-17/tea-partys-victory-against-government-spending-comes-at-high-price#r=most popular

yes this hurts the repubs big time ..they will lose the house in 2014 ....but make no mistake they will not give an inch on CIR .Also the Debt ceiling fight is just postponed not finished....Dec Jan we will see a repeat of this

It is purely my opinion that CIR will have a chance only in late 2014 after repubs lose significant number of seats.....

gcseeker

10-17-2013, 05:11 PM

Lost in the afterglow of the victory is this fact..

http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/17/interactive-which-republicans-vote-for-default/

144 House Republicans voted against the bill last night to raise the debt ceiling and reopen the government.

144 members of the house were ready to take Usa to the brink of economic recession just because they beleive in something else...

This is the kind of crazy lunatics ....and Boehner hides behind the Hastert rule...It took a crisis as large as default to get him to compromise at the 11th minute...

Also debt celing is not yet resolved....so rinse/repeat/rinse...

I am of the firm opinion only after the house is lost to the repubs in 2014 CIR has a chance....

qesehmk

10-17-2013, 05:13 PM

You're so right !

144 members of the house were ready to take Usa to the brink of economic recession just because they beleive in something else...

idiotic

10-17-2013, 06:39 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-jeh-johnson-homeland-security-secretary/story?id=20603324

Obama picks an attorney to DHS job as replacement for Napalitano.. Doesn't it forebode some message to Republicans :)

seattlet

10-17-2013, 11:59 PM

Anyone who thinks that republicans will lose in in midterm 2014 elections is drinking Kool-Aid.

here are the reasons

1) young folks mostly never vote in mid term elections. They dont care much if there isnt a presidential race involved. only old folks and conservative folks care about mid term elections.

2) with the current district draw up, most republican congressmen are never under threat from democrats, only fellow republicans. Hence they try to be more conservative so that
they dont get piped by other republicans in primary.

3) Dont trust CNN, MSNBC etc. they take pulse of citizens residing in urban areas but not rural areas. So the rage against republicans for shutting down government would just be limited to the liberal pockets

4) citizens support immigration but would not consider it a priority. Even debt ceiling would not rank high on the list. The folks who mostly vote in the mid term elections
are ideologists who can be made to vote against their interests (like a homeless guy who badly needs health insurance, but would oppose affordable care act because someone said it is bad for him )

qesehmk

10-18-2013, 01:02 AM

2) with the current district draw up, most republican congressmen are never under threat from democrats, only fellow republicans. Hence they try to be more conservative so that
they dont get piped by other republicans in primary.

seattlet - of all the reasons you listed - this one is the most potent one and that itself is the reason why GOP is losing the voters in the middle. So yes most of the folks you mention above will easily retain their seats. But gerrymandering with the districts is not yet perfected to the level where all republican seats are safe. So it is possible that dems might win over the house. I do not know if they will but I am just saying they just might given the whole fiasco.

PD2008AUG25

10-18-2013, 06:59 AM

I am of the firm opinion only after the house is lost to the repubs in 2014 CIR has a chance....

I feel the same way. Any CIR will only pass if both houses and President are democratic. Any Legal-only or piecemeal reform will only pass if both houses and President are republican. Unfortunately for us, neither of these are predicted in near future.

druvraj

10-18-2013, 07:24 AM

qesehmk

10-18-2013, 07:39 AM

After healthcare, CIR is Obama's priority, but without a dem congress CIR seems difficult. I don't even know if a bill such as CIR that has passed senate but not house dies if not taken up for a vote in a certain time frame or whether it continues to exist for eternity in a limbo.
If Immigration reform has to pass it has to pass before the next election. If they do do not tackle it Immigration reform has very small chance of gaining traction since campaign for presidential primaries would start. If at all anything has to be done it has to be now.

idiotic

10-18-2013, 07:57 AM

Looking at the way, republicans sneaked in the farm bill conference in middle of this 17 day fiasco, i would suspect immigration has a good chance to get into conference too. There will be multiple bargains with everything on the table on all 3 major outstanding issues (budget, farm bill and immigration) and they will decide on something productive by year end.

At the end of the day for republicans would like to get push in most of their conservative agenda as much as possible with little leverage they have. Immigration will be in the give list for them to take some back..

I do not buy the fact that most immigrants would be liberal vote banks in future. Thats underestimating the intelligence of immigrants.. they would always vote for whats best for them and the community they live in just like any other voter..

idiotic

10-18-2013, 08:06 AM

seattlet - of all the reasons you listed - this one is the most potent one and that itself is the reason why GOP is losing the voters in the middle. So yes most of the folks you mention above will easily retain their seats. But gerrymandering with the districts is not yet perfected to the level where all republican seats are safe. So it is possible that dems might win over the house. I do not know if they will but I am just saying they just might given the whole fiasco.

Senate elections and house elections are very different ball games.. Senate elections are much tougher to win by gerrymandering.. House elections the margins are very thin.. typically less than a lakh vote because of the district sizes.. its very easy to swing either way due to higher turnout, etc..

Take a look at the actual votes in all the Senate and House elections in 2013 (Interim elections)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2013#Special_Congressiona l_Elections

The good side of the whole fiasco is that more people will be tempted to vote next time around.. We will have to see how it turns out for both parties..

Jagan01

10-18-2013, 01:46 PM

I feel the same way. Any CIR will only pass if both houses and President are democratic. Any Legal-only or piecemeal reform will only pass if both houses and President are republican. Unfortunately for us, neither of these are predicted in near future.

I have been saying that since a long time...

Either house and senate and white house should all be coontrolled by democrats
Or house and senate and white house should all be controlled by republicans (Even this will pass some Immigration reform which would take care of us, not so sure about the undocumented)

idiotic

10-24-2013, 08:34 AM

Darrell Issa to introduce immigration bill

“It’s halfway – and it always has been – halfway between full amnesty and simply rejecting people,” Issa told POLITICO on Wednesday. “I think if we’re going to break this logjam that’s occurred for my whole 13 years I’ve been in Congress, we have to find middle ground.”

“If somebody has a nexus that would reasonably allow them to become permanent residents and American citizen, we should allow them to do that,” Issa said. He added: “Our view is that long before six years, people would be in those categories heading toward some other pathway, in a guest worker program, or of course, have left the country.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/darrell-issa-immigration-reform-bill-98764.html#ixzz2ie7ZHwFi

qesehmk

10-24-2013, 12:33 PM

qriousjunta

10-24-2013, 01:44 PM

Obama tried to put some life into immigration issue once again ..

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/24/21116873-obama-this-is-the-moment-to-get-immigration-reform-done?lite (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/24/21116873-obama-this-is-the-moment-to-get-immigration-reform-done?lite)

Also see the other side , immigration reform is being a joke

WH using immigration reform to distract from ObamaCare?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2766309180001/wh-using-immigration-reform-to-distract-from-obamacare/?playlist_id=928378949001

qesehmk

10-24-2013, 02:44 PM

I didn't watch the video but the headline is understandable and republicans will certainly see it that way.

Now true or not - but that puts CIR in a tough spot. The only good thing I heard today morning on NPR is that GOP is trying to remove the path to citizenship from the bill and have the immigrants follow normal citizenship line (i.e. 5 years post GC). That doesn't sound terribly bad to me. In fact that is quite sensible. What I am not sure if it was just one representative talking that way - or Boehner wants it that way. No idea.

Also see the other side , immigration reform is being a joke

WH using immigration reform to distract from ObamaCare?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2766309180001/wh-using-immigration-reform-to-distract-from-obamacare/?playlist_id=928378949001

Pedro Gonzales

10-25-2013, 01:56 PM

Senate elections are much tougher to win by gerrymandering..
especially since it's difficult to redraw state borders :)

The good side of the whole fiasco is that more people will be tempted to vote next time around.. We will have to see how it turns out for both parties..
This article agrees with you. Makes a few other good points about why CIR has a better chance now than a month ago. I still think he's underestimating House Republicans' fear of a primary challenger.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/four-reasons-why-shutdown_b_4162829.html

Pedro Gonzales

10-25-2013, 02:03 PM

The only good thing I heard today morning on NPR is that GOP is trying to remove the path to citizenship from the bill and have the immigrants follow normal citizenship line (i.e. 5 years post GC). That doesn't sound terribly bad to me. In fact that is quite sensible.

That's been my stance since the beginning. If the Republicans passed a bill or a series of bills through the house that matched everything in the Senate bill except for a guaranteed pathway to citizenship, they could rightly claim they've done their bit for all immigrants and the Democrats are the unreasonable party holding up immigration reform by insisting on that one extra safeguard. I think the Democrats would huff and puff for a few months but would eventually cave.

I think the vast majority of undocumented immigrants would be ecstatic if they have legal status here, and have to wait a little longer for citizenship (or even if they don't have a chance to ever get it).

seahawks2012

11-01-2013, 01:01 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-01/republicans-will-pass-immigration-reform-soon-.html

idiotic

11-08-2013, 11:10 PM

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_11132013.html

Finally the long multiple postponed hearing.. Sign of at least things moving slowly..

http://homeland.house.gov/markup/full-committee-markup-hr-3141-and-hr-3202

This one is still showing as postponed.. Hopefully this will be scheduled soon..

imdeng

11-08-2013, 11:32 PM

I believe all bills live for the duration of a particular congress - which is 2 years. The new congress will come in after the 2014 mid term elections - so the Senate bill will be alive until the new session starts in 2015. If the house does not take any action by then, then Senate will need to pass something again. This is the same situation as HR-3012 - just the reverse between House and the Senate.

After healthcare, CIR is Obama's priority, but without a dem congress CIR seems difficult. I don't even know if a bill such as CIR that has passed senate but not house dies if not taken up for a vote in a certain time frame or whether it continues to exist for eternity in a limbo.

gten20

11-13-2013, 02:00 PM

Mr. John "Saddest Tangerine" Boehner killed CIR.. I will remember him for that!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/13/john-boehner-just-put-immigration-reform-on-life-support/

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2013/11/boehner_no_formal_talks_on_immigration_bill

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/13/boehner-rules-out-immigration-reform-this-year/

idiotic

11-13-2013, 06:08 PM

Ramsen

11-13-2013, 06:30 PM

I see Boehner's comments as nothing but a Political spin.. The conference will happen the other way around.. Below is the link for Sen. Grassley's confirmation..

Ultimately, if the House does pass multiple bills on immigration issues, the matter will end up in House-Senate conference committee, Grassley said.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20131113/NEWS09/311130090/1056/news05

Anti immigrants in house were lobbying on effort of opposing everything in the fear to avoid going to conference. This may be a spin just to mute those people.

Boehner's word is final word unfortunately. You need to recall what happened on 2006. House passed an immigration bill and Senate passed CIR. Hastert declined to conference both bills though senate majority leader agreed for that. Boehner clearly told many times that any bill whether is senate bill or compromise bill needs majority of majority support. How on earth it will happen? I strongly beleive Boehner will decline to form conference committee unless majority of majority agrees. Grassley's statement is generic and he is pointing out merely the procedure. Of course pressure will increase for conference if any bill is passed in house. But they will try to make sure that no bill will be passed. They were able to delay the bill 5 months. It is not difficult to delay a few more months to kill the bill

idiotic

11-13-2013, 06:59 PM

I strongly beleive Boehner will decline to form conference committee unless majority of majority agrees.

Forming of conference committee does not need majority of majority. He said bringing up the conference report to the house floor wil require majority of majority support.

Again, there are only 80 odd republicans who are saying no to everything to kill the bill.

Majority of members in congress beleive that something needs to be done than letting the current system to continue. If the conference report takes the country forward, I guess we should have that number.

As of now, it is clear that house has enough pressure to put forward their version of solution. Thats what matters right now. Rest of the game is up for toss.

I do agree with most of your other points and it is increasingly diffcult to get something done as time gets delayed. On the other hand, they may also want the final vote on this to be after the primaries.

Ramsen

11-13-2013, 07:41 PM

Forming of conference committee does not need majority of majority. He said bringing up the conference report to the house floor wil require majority of majority support.

Again, there are only 80 odd republicans who are saying no to everything to kill the bill.

Majority of members in congress beleive that something needs to be done than letting the current system to continue. If the conference report takes the country forward, I guess we should have that number.

As of now, it is clear that house has enough pressure to put forward their version of solution. Thats what matters right now. Rest of the game is up for toss.

I do agree with most of your other points and it is increasingly diffcult to get something done as time gets delayed. On the other hand, they may also want the final vote on this to be after the primaries.

Majority of majority is no needed for conference. But I think Boehner will decline similar to Hastert did on 2006 if he thinks that pathway to citizenship will be there in the final bill. It is open secret that if conference means most part of Senate bill will be there in final bill. Still do you think they will allow for conference?

qesehmk

11-13-2013, 08:14 PM

Ramsen

11-13-2013, 08:39 PM

I may be wrong but if my understanding is correct - majority of majority (aka Hastert rule) is applied to tabling a bill. e.g. Boehner invoked that rule to say he can't bring CIR for a vote in congress.

Now he is (at his discretion) extending the same rule to conference. In other words - he says he won't even allow negotiations unless majority of majority wants it.

I think this whole Hastert rule is an shameful rule that allows a minority to hold majority hostage.

We cannot say it is completely wrong because it is their immigration policy that 1 They do not want to give pathway to citizenship to illegal immigrants 2. They do not want to increase current immigration level but they want more guest workers. With this policy can they negotiate with senate bill? Problem lies there. Either they need to change their policy or reach compromise

qesehmk

11-13-2013, 09:04 PM

Ramsen - I was no commenting on immigration policy. I was talking about how hastert rule in general is hurting democratic process.
We cannot say it is completely wrong because it is their immigration policy that 1 They do not want to give pathway to citizenship to illegal immigrants 2. They do not want to increase current immigration level but they want more guest workers. With this policy can they negotiate with senate bill? Problem lies there. Either they need to change their policy or reach compromise

idiotic

11-14-2013, 09:32 AM

Majority of majority is no needed for conference. But I think Boehner will decline similar to Hastert did on 2006 if he thinks that pathway to citizenship will be there in the final bill. It is open secret that if conference means most part of Senate bill will be there in final bill. Still do you think they will allow for conference?

Fair point. I would like to be little bit more optimistic though :)

What turns out in the final conference report depends on what the republican solution looks like.

Republican solutions seems to be putting bandaids to where it is currently bleeding. Senate solution is a complete switch to new system. Both are very difficult to conference anyway except for portions like E-Verify, Border Security, etc.

If republican solution is too far right, it would be difficult to get the bill passed through both chambers. Far Left and Far Right elements will not vote for the final centrist solution. Any CIR bill in current climate can only pass with help of centrist people on both parties.

As long as the process is moving forward in the house, there should be a window(may be after the primaries if that makes the final vote easier) where this can be pushed in. We have to wait for the Markups of the actual bills for the republican solution to see if they are keen on moving the process forward at all.

Ramsen

11-14-2013, 11:03 AM

Fair point. I would like to be little bit more optimistic though :)

What turns out in the final conference report depends on what the republican solution looks like.

Republican solutions seems to be putting bandaids to where it is currently bleeding. Senate solution is a complete switch to new system. Both are very difficult to conference anyway except for portions like E-Verify, Border Security, etc.

If republican solution is too far right, it would be difficult to get the bill passed through both chambers. Far Left and Far Right elements will not vote for the final centrist solution. Any CIR bill in current climate can only pass with help of centrist people on both parties.

As long as the process is moving forward in the house, there should be a window(may be after the primaries if that makes the final vote easier) where this can be pushed in. We have to wait for the Markups of the actual bills for the republican solution to see if they are keen on moving the process forward at all.

It makes sense to be optimistic if at least democrats are sincere in passing the immigration reform. Looks like they are not. And another aspect is CIR improves the situation but not resolving the issue. CBO report says it will cut illegal immigration 30 to 50% that too after a few years. What is the use for average American citizen due to this? Wage depression for 10 years and improvement after 10 years(That time they will ask for another CIR to give citizenship as 50% illegal immigration will continue). Significant Deficit reduction after 20 years. So this generation will not benefit. The benefit will be for the persons who are immigrants who are suffering due to backlogs and also illegal immigrants. So middle class American will not care much. This drama also to get maximum vote out of 5 to 10% of Latino votes(they are decisive in some places due to narrow win) not for the welfare of USA. If they are reasonable everyone will accept piecemeal immigration bills that will have a clear visibility. Comprehensive means there will be good and bad equally and not giving enough time to remove the bad items

gten20

11-14-2013, 06:54 PM

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) performing CPR on CIR. :) Some hope... doobte ko tinke ka sahara...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/house-republican-immigration_n_4276748.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp000000 03&ir=Latino%20Voices

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-congressman-jeff-denham-will-join-democrats-in-immigration-overhaul-push/2013/10/26/02a7f530-3e21-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html

But despite a rush to write the obituary for an overhaul of immigration, Boehner has not closed the door on the issue entirely. The latest lifeline came when Boehner asked Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., to gauge the interest of House Republicans on taking up the contentious issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/14/immigration-reform-house-republicans/3533455/

iamdeb

11-19-2013, 12:35 PM

PD2008AUG25

11-19-2013, 12:54 PM

now that it seems the CIR dream is over...is there any hope for executive decision by Obama to solve individual action items like EAD for H4 spouse etc?
There is also a rules making process initiated for it. How long does that process take? Also, what is the expected time frame of implementation if the President uses his veto power.

Obama is planning some executive action. Here is the leaked memo. As for EAD for H4, it is at least a year away according to this memo and only for people who invoked AC21.

There are some other things that affect H1Bs like more grace period, No need for AP if AOS is pending.

http://immigrationlegalblog.com/2013/11/uscis-memo-leaked-might-show-obama-using-executive-powers-to-change-h4-to-ead/

http://immigrationlegalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/leakedmemo.pdf

iamdeb

11-20-2013, 04:37 PM

I guess "it is at least a year away according to this memo" if they follow the rule making process for the item EAD for H4. If the President intervenes and issues executive order then it is implemented immediately. That's my 2 cents.

smithsingh

11-21-2013, 02:31 PM

Dear Friends,

There is a lot of misuse of EB1C category going on these days. Below are two examples.

1. People create small companies of 5-6 people sitting in remote villages in India. They have a so called multinational manager heading them who can create fake papers in India. They then come to USA and apply for EB1C as multinational managers. Once they get their green card in 6 months, they move aside and let another multinational manager take the spot. And the cycle continues giving EB1C green card to illiterate people.

2. Software giants like TCS, CTS, are misusing it big time to get EB1C visa for their employees and therefore avoiding the H1B route of paying fees every 3 years. These employees as just BE + 3 years experience and they have one person reporting to them and then they claim to be multinational managers.

Please follow the following steps to stop this abuse
1. Please sign this petition: http://www.petition2congress.com/6398/stop-eb1-...
2. Please contact your Senators and Congressmen personally and make them aware of the misuse. Remember that sending emails personally to Senators and congressmen will stop this misuse.

Stopping abuse of EB1C will give EB2 their rightful spillover.... Please spread the word !!! Try and mobilize the fight against misuse...

axecapone

11-25-2013, 02:47 PM

Obama is planning some executive action. Here is the leaked memo. As for EAD for H4, it is at least a year away according to this memo and only for people who invoked AC21.

There are some other things that affect H1Bs like more grace period, No need for AP if AOS is pending.

http://immigrationlegalblog.com/2013/11/uscis-memo-leaked-might-show-obama-using-executive-powers-to-change-h4-to-ead/

http://immigrationlegalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/leakedmemo.pdf

I am a bit confused here. I thought that AC21 comes into picture only AFTER 485 and getting the EAD. Getting EAD means that the spouse is already eligible to work. So how is this executive order making a difference? (I know I am wrong somewhere)

Is there a summary of all the proposed changes in the executive order in this forum?

qesehmk

11-25-2013, 03:14 PM

axe - AC21 has 2 key benefits.
1) Ability to change jobs after filing 485 (post 180 days with an approved 140)
2) Ability to extend H1 indefinitely based on a GC application active at least since 1 year.

It is the second condition that Obama order will help. These people typically have just begun their GC and their spouses can start working. Hope this helps.

I am a bit confused here. I thought that AC21 comes into picture only AFTER 485 and getting the EAD. Getting EAD means that the spouse is already eligible to work. So how is this executive order making a difference? (I know I am wrong somewhere)

Is there a summary of all the proposed changes in the executive order in this forum?

Jagan01

11-25-2013, 03:15 PM

I am a bit confused here. I thought that AC21 comes into picture only AFTER 485 and getting the EAD. Getting EAD means that the spouse is already eligible to work. So how is this executive order making a difference? (I know I am wrong somewhere)

Is there a summary of all the proposed changes in the executive order in this forum?

H1 is for 6 years. To extend H1 beyond 6 years, you need the I-140 to be approved and you can use AC21 to get 3 year extension.

So this rule applies to the candidates who meet the below requirements:
1. H1 holding primary had got I-140 approved
2. H1 holding primary uses the approved I-140 to extend beyond the normal 6 years
3. Spouse is on H4

qesehmk

11-25-2013, 03:18 PM

Jagan - my understanding is that you also extend H1 in 1 year increment with even PERM filed since 1 year. That also is covered under AC21.

H1 is for 6 years. To extend H1 beyond 6 years, you need the I-140 to be approved and you can use AC21 to get 3 year extension.

iamdeb

11-25-2013, 03:38 PM

Q, do you think Obama will pass order for the item EAD for H4?
If Yes, around what time frame do you expect that to be implemented?

Jagan01

11-25-2013, 03:39 PM

Jagan - my understanding is that you also extend H1 in 1 year increment with even PERM filed since 1 year. That also is covered under AC21.

Q,

I agree with you. But most likely people who have PERM filed since 1 year have PERM approved. Also those people would file I-140 in premium and get it approved in 15 days as that gives 3 year extension.

As always, you correctly pointed out the minimum requirement is that PERM should have been pending for at least one year OR PERM should have been approved.

qesehmk

11-25-2013, 03:44 PM

iamdeb - i really don't know the answer to that neither I can think of anything that would allow me to make an intelligent guess !! Sorry.
Q, do you think Obama will pass order for the item EAD for H4?
If Yes, around what time frame do you expect that to be implemented?

you correctly pointed out the minimum requirement is that PERM should have been pending for at least one year OR PERM should have been approved.
Yes Jagan. I only pointed out the minimum requirement.

Kanmani

11-26-2013, 08:02 AM

H1 is for 6 years. To extend H1 beyond 6 years, you need the I-140 to be approved and you can use AC21 to get 3 year extension.

So this rule applies to the candidates who meet the below requirements:
1. H1 holding primary had got I-140 approved
2. H1 holding primary uses the approved I-140 to extend beyond the normal 6 years
3. Spouse is on H4

Jagan,

There is no such requirement as mentioned in point No.3 in implementing Ac21 rule to extend H1b beyond 6 years. The spouse can hold a valid H1b while the primary is intend to use Ac21- H1b rule, but only thing is he/she cannot extend his/her H1b against the primary's labor/I-140.

H1b can also be extended in 1 year increment in a situation when 365 days have been passed since the filing of I-140 application.

Jagan01

11-26-2013, 11:54 AM

Jagan,

There is no such requirement as mentioned in point No.3 in implementing Ac21 rule to extend H1b beyond 6 years. The spouse can hold a valid H1b while the primary is intend to use Ac21- H1b rule, but only thing is he/she cannot extend his/her H1b against the primary's labor/I-140.

H1b can also be extended in 1 year increment in a situation when 365 days have been passed since the filing of I-140 application.

Kanmani,

The criteria that I specified was for people to take advantage of EAD for H4 rule. It was not for AC21 only.

I was trying to explain the gist about AC21. The main thing I wanted to point out was that even having I140 approved is not enough if the candidate is in 3 year (any number less than 6).AC21 will only come in picture for 7th year extension.

Kanmani

11-26-2013, 11:33 PM

Kanmani,

The criteria that I specified was for people to take advantage of EAD for H4 rule. It was not for AC21 only.

I was trying to explain the gist about AC21. The main thing I wanted to point out was that even having I140 approved is not enough if the candidate is in 3 year (any number less than 6).AC21 will only come in picture for 7th year extension.

Now I understand.

idiotic

12-14-2013, 01:21 PM

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/193166-business-to-boehner-hit-em-hard

Finally the dog is looking to control its tail.. Lets hope it translates to action on immigration

gten20

12-31-2013, 04:16 PM

http://rt.com/in-motion/peru-shamans-2014-predictions-014/

2014 is the year. Happy New Year!

qesehmk

01-02-2014, 06:45 AM

In another twist - Indian IT companies it appears may be lobbying against CIR.

http://www.samachar.com/I-would-still-lose-sleep-on-US-Immigration-Bill-Nasscom-chief-Som-Mittal-obcpMwaeegc.html (http://www.samachar.com/I-would-still-lose-sleep-on-US-Immigration-Bill-Nasscom-chief-Som-Mittal-obcpMwaeegc.html)

Regardless ---- happy new year everybody!

idiotic

01-06-2014, 04:58 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/JanAgenda.pdf

The floor schedule will include additional items as they are resolved throughout the month. Lookingforward,several outstanding issues may be brought to the floor over the next few months, including:

the Intelligence authorization,flood insurance,as well as legislation related to trade and immigration

idiotic

01-06-2014, 05:08 PM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/03/john-boehner-s-immigration-cojones.html

“If what we hear is as good as it sounds, it’s the makings of a deal,” says Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigration group.

“The big question is the 11 million and whether a framework like that will get a majority of the Republicans and enough Democrats,” says Sharry. “If they can’t come up with that, the rest is chit-chat. It’s not going anywhere.”

Sharry, a long-time activist on immigration reform, says, “What’s the difference between 8 bills and a bill with 8 sections as long as they pass at the same time.” What’s more important, he says, is the details of granting legality to the 11 million people here illegally, whether it’s “generous or stingy,” which would influence whether Democrats could accept it and set aside their longstanding demand for a path to citizenship.

There are 234 Republicans, and to adhere to the Hastert Rule, Boehner would need at least 117 Republicans before he could bring immigration reform proposals forward. Sharry calculates there are150 Republican votes in play for something, meaning a significant number of Democrats would still be needed to reach 218. A letter to Boehner urging no action on immigration reform circulated by Texas Rep. Steve Stockman reportedly got fewer than 20 signatures. “The Hell No caucus might not be quite so strong,” says Sharry.

Jagan01

01-07-2014, 02:18 AM

idiotic

01-07-2014, 09:12 AM

idiotic,

Happy New Year to you buddy. Post after a very long time from you. Don't you think CIR is down and out. I personally had a lot of hope for CIR but with the elections coming closer, I have given up hopes.

Happy new year to you Jagan.

The following is my take on CIR at this point:

=> House will definitely bring piecemeal immigration bills to the floor this year. Wheather the bill lands up in President's desk I am not sure. Let us hope for the best as we are seeing increasingly things are getting done and "Hell no" faction is being cornored. Even tea party is now singing the tune that even though legalization is in bad taste we can live with it but not with Citizenship(I think this is a big change in stance).

=> If nothing happens this year, we will start seeing executive actions next year. (Indications are after this year end's house and senate elections, it will still be divided government). Looking at history of what happened in Bush's second term, I am sure administration will definitely do temporary relief to most immigrants when things fail.

idiotic

01-08-2014, 04:16 PM

The per-country numerical limitation is eliminated for employment-based visas, and increased from 7% to 15% for family-based immigrants.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/january-8-2014/sen-jerry-moran-introduces-amendment-increase-legal-immigration-numbers.html

Wouldn't this be great if this amendment passes through (literally next few days) :)

Actual amendment is here

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r113:FLD001:S50078

Only 15 amendments in pipeline..

gten20

01-08-2014, 04:29 PM

idiotic

01-08-2014, 05:12 PM

Yep, but I won't bet on it. :)

I think it has fair chance..

http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-unemployment-bill-includes-major.html

The fate of the Moran Amendment is surely being monitored by the well-funded advocates of higher immigration such as Mark Zuckerberg's FWD.us and others who have just this week essentially said they are no longer pushing for a comprehensive immigration bill and instead focusing on pushing any and every piecemeal increase they can.

geterdone

01-08-2014, 06:17 PM

idiotic

01-08-2014, 06:44 PM

I am wondering why there is no much talk about this?

Amendment is introduced only yesterday..

I think if he had put the elimination of per country limit as a separate amendment it would have had better chances.

I am not sure if this alone will qualify as an idea for increasing jobs.. Primary reason for this amendment is it is an idea to increase jobs to offset unemployment benefits..(to be germane to the topic)

It may be worthwhile to follow these battles in the war.. Immigration is a symbolic battle in this war for this year..
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-08/u-s-chamber-ceo-vows-to-preserve-pro-business-majority-.html

idiotic

01-09-2014, 09:44 AM

girish989

01-09-2014, 06:39 PM

Democratis Senator Warner, Mark R. [VA] - 1/8/2014 Joins as cosponsor

What happened to this ?

idiotic

01-09-2014, 07:45 PM

What happened to this ?

Unemployment extension bill negotiations is not going in right way..

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/harry-reid-just-made-a-whole-bunch-of-republicans-angry-over

qesehmk

01-09-2014, 08:12 PM

In my opinion - the republican amendment was just another seasoning on top of an already explosive bill from GOP point of view. It is an attempt to kill the unemployment extension bill rather than address immigration.

Unemployment extension bill negotiations is not going in right way..

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/harry-reid-just-made-a-whole-bunch-of-republicans-angry-over

idiotic

01-09-2014, 08:39 PM

In my opinion - the republican amendment was just another seasoning on top of an already explosive bill from GOP point of view. It is an attempt to kill the unemployment extension bill rather than address immigration.

Agreed from a purely political prespective.

What's encouraging and heartening is at least there is an amendment (bringing relief to us and making the system more fair) written and proposed amid all these negotiatons.

Once this starts happening, it is just a matter of time before it becomes the law of the land.

qesehmk

01-09-2014, 08:46 PM

Agreed from a purely political prespective.

What's encouraging and heartening is at least there is an amendment (bringing relief to us and making the system more fair) written and proposed amid all these negotiatons.

Once this starts happening, it is just a matter of time before it becomes the law of the land.
Hope so. But unfortunately for various reasons all stakeholders' interests align against EB immigrants. As I have always maintained there is virtually nobody powerful enough who can influence EB problems other than Mark Zuckerberg funded organization. That's why I so strongly feel that EB must be hitched to FB in any immigration reform - comprehensive or otherwise. Anyway ... we have talked about it many times by now! Lets hope this amendment or similar one is passed this year.

idiotic

01-14-2014, 10:55 PM

http://www.nfap.com/pdf/NFAP%20Policy%20Brief.Analyzing%20House%20and%20Se nate%20Plans%20for%20Legalization.January%202014.p df

Signs of progress..

Ramsen

01-15-2014, 09:35 AM

Hope so. But unfortunately for various reasons all stakeholders' interests align against EB immigrants. As I have always maintained there is virtually nobody powerful enough who can influence EB problems other than Mark Zuckerberg funded organization. That's why I so strongly feel that EB must be hitched to FB in any immigration reform - comprehensive or otherwise. Anyway ... we have talked about it many times by now! Lets hope this amendment or similar one is passed this year.

About the amendment with unemployment bill, similar thing happened for past years but at the last minute they were throwing out the amendment to pass the bill. I strongly suspect these amendments are negotiating vehicle and once negotiation is finished the sponsor himself will be ready to throw out the amendment due to lack of support. Harry Reid is very strong in his policy that things should go on his way. So I doubt this amendment will be passed.

gcseeker

01-27-2014, 03:15 PM

Most logical and possible trajectory of things. I said this previously last year that political reality will not allow CIR to pass and even this year the window is almost shut.

Time.com article on Obama and his second term

http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/26/barack-obama-will-try-to-outrun-history-at-2014-state-of-the-union/

Indeed, Obama’s window is arguably nearly shut, at least legislatively speaking. Congress has a few months to pass farm and transportation bills, a debt-ceiling increase and perhaps the Trade Promotion Authority before the campaign season overtakes all else. Chances are slim House Republicans will give the President a victory on immigration reform, tax reform or any other big-ticket items so close to the midterm elections. Still, on the small hope that they might get something done, Obama is reportedly holding his fire on shaming the GOP on immigration. But as the 2014 election approaches, passing bipartisan legislation will only get more difficult, and then the 2016 presidential election will likely overshadow any policy pushes.

Ramsen

01-27-2014, 05:37 PM

qesehmk

01-28-2014, 07:35 AM

This is one of the rare post partisan articles. I liked it a lot for its ability to simply highlight things as they are without passing judgements!

Most logical and possible trajectory of things. I said this previously last year that political reality will not allow CIR to pass and even this year the window is almost shut.

Time.com article on Obama and his second term http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/26/barack-obama-will-try-to-outrun-history-at-2014-state-of-the-union/

Most media is upbeat on immigration reform and only a few of them are skeptical. As early as this week we will get clear idea about what republican principles are. But I think whatever they say will be rejected by most democrats in Senate and congress and end of the immigration reform 2014 before even process starts. The question is Obama will extend DACA for illegals in 2014 or 2015? What will be impact of that?
My sense is that dems and the press gets excited about any small movement GOP makes. But I think the bottomline is they are NOT going to anything on immigration. Even a piecemeal legislation. They will wait until next president. But i hope I am wrong.

idiotic

01-29-2014, 02:37 PM

I am a bit optimistic about the chances this year.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/369781/immigration-dog-didnt-bark-mark-krikorian

Budget passed recently after many years.
Farm bill passed and expected to reach president who will sign it.
Debt ceiling bill also likely to pass.

Tea party is getting its place finally and more things are getting done..

gcseeker

01-29-2014, 02:53 PM

This is one of the rare post partisan articles. I liked it a lot for its ability to simply highlight things as they are without passing judgements!

My sense is that dems and the press gets excited about any small movement GOP makes. But I think the bottomline is they are NOT going to anything on immigration. Even a piecemeal legislation. They will wait until next president. But i hope I am wrong.

Agreed on both counts

I am a bit optimistic about the chances this year.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/369781/immigration-dog-didnt-bark-mark-krikorian

Budget passed recently after many years.
Farm bill passed and expected to reach president who will sign it.
Debt ceiling bill also likely to pass.

Tea party is getting its place finally and more things are getting done..

It is just my two cents that the budget got passed smoothly because both parties have gotten hit hard...

-Dems have lost huge on the Obamacare website debacle and loopholes.
-Repubs have lost huge on the ruckus they caused last year for the debt celing...

Compromise only happens when it is mutually beneficial for both parties. Immigration represents a major victory for the dems and zilch,nada for the Repubs...Also no major legislation ever passes so close to midterm elections.

idiotic

01-29-2014, 03:14 PM

-Dems have lost huge on the Obamacare website debacle and loopholes.
-Repubs have lost huge on the ruckus they caused last year for the debt celing...

Agreed.

Compromise only happens when it is mutually beneficial for both parties. Immigration represents a major victory for the dems and zilch,nada for the Repubs...

I would think republicans have stake in immigration((next presidential elections, business friendly etc)) if it passes on their terms.. It is only the Tea Party that likes do nothing and instead pass repeal obamacare again using the house majority..

Also no major legislation ever passes so close to midterm elections.

Even though too old.. this was the timeline of last CIR

Introduced in the Senate as S. 1200 by Alan K. Simpson on May 23, 1985
Committee consideration by: Senate Judiciary, Senate Budget
Passed the Senate on September 19, 1985 (69–30)
Passed the House on October 9, 1986 (voice vote after incorporating H.R. 3810, passed 230–166)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 14, 1986; agreed to by the House on October 15, 1986 (238–173) and by the Senate on October 17, 1986 (63–24)
Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

1986 was an election year.. 1986 was 6th year of presidency for Reagan..

qesehmk

01-29-2014, 03:31 PM

Even though too old.. this was the timeline of last CIR

Introduced in the Senate as S. 1200 by Alan K. Simpson on May 23, 1985
Committee consideration by: Senate Judiciary, Senate Budget
Passed the Senate on September 19, 1985 (69–30)
Passed the House on October 9, 1986 (voice vote after incorporating H.R. 3810, passed 230–166)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 14, 1986; agreed to by the House on October 15, 1986 (238–173) and by the Senate on October 17, 1986 (63–24)
Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

1986 was an election year.. 1986 was 6th year of presidency for Reagan..
idiotic - 1986 was also the year when the recession had ended and economy was on solid footing. Thus immigration was the right thing for industry.
2014 seems to be a recovery year but the recovery can be called anything but solid yet.
So not only the industrial demand is not quite there yet but also the social mood is not there yet. Thus right now CIR is a zero sum game between Dems and Reps. It will turn into a win win game only after 2-3 years of solid GDP growth. By solid I mean at least 3-4%. Right now it's kind of chugging along.

p.s. - The only thing that will run contrary to this theory is if GOP determines that without latino votes they are doomed. Right now I don't think GOP is there yet. They know they dont have latino vote and they are ok with it.

Jagan01

01-29-2014, 03:31 PM

idiotic

01-29-2014, 03:40 PM

I should learn to be optimistic like you...

Here are the three outcomes different stake holders want :

1) Outcome desired by Tea party and anti immigrants -- "Do nothing".. if anything deport all 11 million people.. reduce the immigrants
2) Outcome desired by moderate republicans ( undocumented democrats / RINOs as called by tea party ) -- just apply band aid to where the system is broken now
3) Outcome desired by Democrats -- Revamp immigrantion system altogether hoping the other side of the grass is green

I like 2 and I think thats what we will end up. In all 3 outcomes, we(legal immgirants) cannot be worse off than our current state.. Thats reason enough to be optimistic ..

axecapone

01-29-2014, 04:36 PM

2013 and 2014 has been very different from any other year for immigration. This attempt at immigration reform got the most attention from everyone in the US than any other attempt I can think of. Just when we all thought that the steam was all gone and it would be one more failed attempt, the debate kept going on. People were still protesting and media was still covering it. There is pressure on GOP to do something because they don't have a chance at White House sooner or later. They will only damage their image further. They definitely have some incentive to pass it. I don't buy Obama's argument about immigration helping the economy. The only argument I will buy for any immigration reform is vote bank.

Do Republicans have an incentive to pass it? Yes.

Do they have an incentive to pass it this year? Probably not but I think this time, people wont keep quiet till something is done about it. CA now allows illegal immigrants to get a law license. That's like a state putting pressure on immigration reform.

I think there is still hope.

idiotic

01-30-2014, 09:34 AM

Becky Tallent tweets confirms the principles doc will be released today :

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304691904579348531764733444

Speaker John Boehner plans to unveil a general set of immigration reform principles when the House GOP holds its annual retreat Thursday.

idiotic

01-30-2014, 04:15 PM

Jagan01

01-30-2014, 04:40 PM

idiotic

01-30-2014, 04:51 PM

Principles leaked 15 minutes before :)

BREAKING: Here are the Republican Principles for #Immigration Reform–to be formally announced by @SpeakerBoehner at 4:30 pm ET

http://davidleopold.net/category/uncategorized/

Legislative language is already done last year for almost all of these sections and is forwarded to house floor either from House Judiciary Committee or House Homeland Security Committee.

The only bill pending is the DREAM act bill / KIDS act bill or whatever which I think will be released just in time before the House takes it up as a bunch in single day and passes all of them at once..

Be optimistic and keep working with orgs like fwd.us

idiotic

01-30-2014, 08:52 PM

mechanical13

01-31-2014, 09:42 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/369987/immigration-house-retreat-rich-lowry

Here’s a quick, early read-out of the immigration discussion at the House retreat, which was still ongoing as of 20 minutes ago, from one source in the room. Boehner made a brief presentation that hewed to the principles that have been released. He gave the impression, at least to the observer, that he’s not committed. He said there’s been no decision to take anything to the floor, but he is absolutely opposed to a conference with the Senate on the Gang of Eight bill. The House members seemed to break down into roughly thirds: those who like the principles and want to move; those who like the principles but think this is the wrong time to do anything; those who opposed the principles and also think the timing is wrong. This source says it was a friendly, “in the family” discussion without a lot of anger or high emotion, at least while this source was in the room.

Other, more detailed accounts should be leaking out soon.

Whats a little encouraging about this, is thats its relatively moderate commentary coming from conservative website. Its likely that the "real" reaction from the GOP was a little more positive than described here. I'm of the opinion that the National Review is likely to portray Boehner's commitment to be weak to appease its base, than claim that the GOP leadership is committed to reform.

But this is Congress we're talking about, so anything is possible. I wouldn't be surprised if immigration reform doesn't pass for another 50 yrs.

idiotic

02-04-2014, 03:34 PM

http://www.speaker.gov/general/qa-draft-standards-step-by-step-immigration-reform#sthash.yWBzIDEM.dpuf

Speaker sets up FAQ page for immigration reform.. Nice..

drop2ocean

02-05-2014, 08:17 PM

EB2I - PD June 15 2010. Predictions on when the PD can be current please.

Considering we aren't hearing any progress on Immigration reform 2014, is there any positive news / developments at all for legal immigration ?

gcq

02-06-2014, 06:58 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/house-conservatives-rule-immigration-191515093--politics.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative Republicans on Wednesday ruled out any immigration legislation in the House this year, insisting that the GOP should wait until next year when the party might also control the Senate.
House GOP leaders unveiled their broad immigration principles last week that gave hope to advocates and the Obama administration that the first changes in the nation's laws in three decades might happen in the coming months. Immigration legislation is one of the top priorities for Obama's second term. But several of the conservatives were adamant that the House should do nothing on the issue this year, a midterm election year when the GOP is angling to gain six seats in the Senate and seize majority control. Democrats currently have a 55-45 advantage but are defending more seats, including ones in Republican-leaning states.

"I think it's a mistake for us to have an internal battle in the Republican Party this year about immigration reform," Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, told reporters at a gathering of conservatives. "I think when we take back the Senate in 2014 one of the first things we should do next year after we do certain economic issues, I think we should address the immigration issue."

Labrador's comments were noteworthy as he was one of eight House members working on bipartisan immigration legislation last year. He later abandoned the negotiations.
"This is not an issue that's ready for prime time to move legislatively," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who said Republicans should use the principles to begin a dialogue with Hispanics.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said the House should focus on the four bills dealing with security that the Judiciary Committee approved last summer. Absent any action on those bills, Jordan said it would be tough to do any immigration legislation this year.
The definitive statements from the conservatives came as Douglas Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, told a House panel that the comprehensive, Senate-passed immigration bill would have a positive impact on the nation's finances.
The Senate last June passed a bipartisan bill that would tighten border security, provide enforcement measures and offer a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.

The measure has stalled in the House where Speaker John Boehner and other leaders have rejected a comprehensive approach in favor of a bill-by-bill process.
Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee that a CBO analysis "found that that legislation would reduce budget deficits and lead to a larger economy and over time lead to higher output per person in this country."
Specifically, he said additional workers, especially high-skilled, highly educated employees, would increase the nation's tax revenues.
The House leaders' broad principles would tighten border and interior security, establish a verification system for employers and legalize some of the 11 million immigrants. It would not provide a special path to citizenship to those living here illegally, though it would give children brought to the country by their parents a shot a citizenship.
Conservatives have said they distrust Obama to enforce any new law, citing his waivers and suspensions of provisions on the health care law.
Boehner said Tuesday that Republicans were discussing "whether we should proceed, if we proceed and how we would proceed. It's also clear from our members that we believe that securing our borders has to be the first step in this process."

But he added that conversations are continuing and "no decision's been made." Further tamping down any optimism for legislation this year was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who told reporters that differences between the Senate's comprehensive approach and the House's piecemeal strategy were an "irresolvable conflict."
"I don't see how you get to an outcome this year with the two bodies in such a different place," McConnell told reporters.

IsItWorthTheTrouble

02-06-2014, 09:15 AM

Considering we aren't hearing any progress on Immigration reform 2014, is there any positive news / developments at all for legal immigration ?

Legal immigration remains - and shall remain for the foreseeable future - hostage or a step child to the illegals. CIR is all about the illegals. With republican primaries for the senate/house having started, I see only a small gap of 5-6mos (May/June - Nov '14) by which time the legal immigration bills 've to pass. Remember its no longer comprehensive but one-step-at-a-time republican approach.

If democrats lose majority in the senate then we can kiss any hopes of a bill for legal immigration passing as the dems - esp obama - would try to use even his veto power to stop the bill from becoming law as they wouldn't want the republicans to gain support among legal immigrants nor lose their support among the hispanics in the national elections.

I for one don't expect anything to happen in this current political climate. Everybody would do their dance..do a sparing 'act'..but ultimately return to their respective tents to cool their heels. Cruelly, the joke certainly is going to be on the legal immigrants, who having followed the law of the land - however insane it's - will continue to be law abiding citizens contributing to the growth of this country.

qesehmk

02-06-2014, 01:29 PM

Immigration reform is going nowhere. In a matter of 2-3 days GOP has changed its tune from principles of immigration reform to trust issues with Obama.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/boehner-immigration-reform-difficult-move-year-n23671

In nutshell the dynamic is this:
1. Labor markets and social mood are not conducinve for any reform - legal or illegal doesn't matter.
2. An economic revival 2-3 years from now will warrant immigration reform and it may happen then.
3. Right now any reform is a win-lose game between Dems and Reps and so it is not going to happen
4. This would mean Obama - if wants to do anything in the short term - will have to resort to executive action and do something on immigration middle of this year before the congressional elections. This will only mean things like allowing spouse to work on H4 etc if that.

p.s. - It would be a mistake to blame lack of progress on illegals. Legal immigration has no takers including the industry. The industry also has vested interest in keeping slaves out of H1. So legals have better chances of any reforms that are tied to illegals. I know that sounds twisted but unfortuately that's the reality.

cbpds1

02-06-2014, 03:55 PM

Agree, wasnt Mark Zuckerberg campaigning for legal immigration incl H1?
Point 3 is right on target.
I think Obama can "not" implement laws but not change them like "allowing" H4 spouse to work.

Immigration reform is going nowhere. In a matter of 2-3 days GOP has changed its tune from principles of immigration reform to trust issues with Obama.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/boehner-immigration-reform-difficult-move-year-n23671

In nutshell the dynamic is this:
1. Labor markets and social mood are not conducinve for any reform - legal or illegal doesn't matter.
2. An economic revival 2-3 years from now will warrant immigration reform and it may happen then.
3. Right now any reform is a win-lose game between Dems and Reps and so it is not going to happen
4. This would mean Obama - if wants to do anything in the short term - will have to resort to executive action and do something on immigration middle of this year before the congressional elections. This will only mean things like allowing spouse to work on H4 etc if that.

p.s. - It would be a mistake to blame lack of progress on illegals. Legal immigration has no takers including the industry. The industry also has vested interest in keeping slaves out of H1. So legals have better chances of any reforms that are tied to illegals. I know that sounds twisted but unfortuately that's the reality.

qesehmk

02-06-2014, 05:38 PM

Yes Indeed Zuckerberg certainly is putting the money where his mouth is.

As per executive action I don't know where and how much they can stretch the existing laws. But basically executive action includes implementing, not implementing, stretching, and bending of existing laws. I have a hunch that there will be more of it just before the elections. Oink oink.

Unfortunately for legal immigrants - they are going to have to wait till the economy makes a strong come back or the dates creep up.

Agree, wasnt Mark Zuckerberg campaigning for legal immigration incl H1?
Point 3 is right on target.
I think Obama can "not" implement laws but not change them like "allowing" H4 spouse to work.

idiotic

02-07-2014, 10:51 AM

From GOP politics point of view, they have excellent chance of taking back the senate and retaining house this year elections.
All (except 2) of the competitive seats up for election are for Democrats to lose..
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Competitive_2014_Senate_seats.png

Since this is the most likely outcome for next congress where both houses are controlled by GOP, they are much better off preparing the piecemeal bills this year with the principles recently outlined but actually pass them piecemeal next year putting inordinate pressure on Obama not to Veto the piecemeal bills.

It is nearly impossible for Obama to veto say EVerify bill alone.. No reason whatsoever..

Jagan01

02-07-2014, 10:56 AM

idiotic

02-07-2014, 01:09 PM

Why would they not wait for 2016 ?

If they get a republican president and repubs in both houses then they can take full credit.

They can never win white house till they get Hispanic votes.

Jagan01

02-07-2014, 07:05 PM

They can never win white house till they get Hispanic votes.

In politics, never say never.

The republicans do not need hispanic votes to win white house. They only need them not to vote for democrats. Not everyone votes. If there is less motivation to vote for democrats that might do the trick for the republicans. With popularity of democrats going down, they might not get as many Hispanic votes (they would feel they did not do much for immigration), lower american votes in general (obamacare failure, economy not completely recovered).

I had posted on this forum the picture of republicans winning the senate long time back. It is very important to understand that immigration decision will be more due to political reasons (it is not economical or social).

I feel below is the strategy by republicans:
1. Get back Senate and hang on to House
2. Completely kill immigration by going slow. Giving offers which Democrats wont accept. They will keep moving the goalpost to something that Obama wont reach for.
3. Have a pro immigration face at the next presidential election. There will be many more pro-immigration candidates for primaries. May be one of the senate gang of eight. OR Paul Ryan OR Jeb bush Or....

Try and convince the Hispanics that Republicans will at least get them legal status if not path to citizenship. their goal will be to convince them that one bird in hand is better than two in the bush.

If dems can win House then it is a completely different ball game. I am just hoping that either of the two gets control of both houses. The one who controls both houses will also get white house.

Ramsen

02-07-2014, 08:14 PM

In politics, never say never.

The republicans do not need hispanic votes to win white house. They only need them not to vote for democrats. Not everyone votes. If there is less motivation to vote for democrats that might do the trick for the republicans. With popularity of democrats going down, they might not get as many Hispanic votes (they would feel they did not do much for immigration), lower american votes in general (obamacare failure, economy not completely recovered).

I had posted on this forum the picture of republicans winning the senate long time back. It is very important to understand that immigration decision will be more due to political reasons (it is not economical or social).

I feel below is the strategy by republicans:
1. Get back Senate and hang on to House
2. Completely kill immigration by going slow. Giving offers which Democrats wont accept. They will keep moving the goalpost to something that Obama wont reach for.
3. Have a pro immigration face at the next presidential election. There will be many more pro-immigration candidates for primaries. May be one of the senate gang of eight. OR Paul Ryan OR Jeb bush Or....

Try and convince the Hispanics that Republicans will at least get them legal status if not path to citizenship. their goal will be to convince them that one bird in hand is better than two in the bush.

If dems can win House then it is a completely different ball game. I am just hoping that either of the two gets control of both houses. The one who controls both houses will also get white house.

GOP has a good chance of taking over Senate in 2014 and if there is a good candidate and Hillary is not standing then they can win Presidency. I think many neutral persons do not like Obama care. GOP uses this properly they can win easily.

idiotic

02-08-2014, 12:30 AM

http://homeland.house.gov/hearing/hearing-secretary-s-vision-future-challenges-and-priorities

This is going to be a good one.. Jeh Johnson will be grilled on various topics including immigration..

Jagan01

02-08-2014, 06:44 PM

Q, Kanmani, and other Gurus:

I had a question regarding the process to be followed once the dates are current. I have never filed EAD in the past and this might be the first time.

1. Do they check the history of dependent ?
2. Do we need to keep track record of the history of the dependent, her employment OPT/CPT, etc.
3. How many years tax returns etc needs to be on file ?
4. When is the interview conducted. Is it even before we get the EAD ?

Thanks,
Jagan

Kanmani

02-08-2014, 07:14 PM

qesehmk

02-08-2014, 08:19 PM

Jagan
#1 & #2 - yes indeed.
#3 - do your best. American government is not inflexible. If they want they can ask alll years you have been present in US. Personally I don't think I gave any tax records at all. But my memory could be wrong.
#4 - I think all AOS folks get interviewed. But not all 485 folks do. Fingerprinting is quick in and out. At least we never had any interview for sure.

Q, Kanmani, and other Gurus:

I had a question regarding the process to be followed once the dates are current. I have never filed EAD in the past and this might be the first time.

1. Do they check the history of dependent ?
2. Do we need to keep track record of the history of the dependent, her employment OPT/CPT, etc.
3. How many years tax returns etc needs to be on file ?
4. When is the interview conducted. Is it even before we get the EAD ?

Thanks,
Jagan

Jagan01

02-08-2014, 08:29 PM

Jagan,

1.Yes. They do check the history of the dependent. Each applicant is verified for maintaining lawful status.
2. Yes.
4. Nowadays, not every applicant is interviewed. If they find any misconduct within the records, that would trigger an interview. Finger printing appointment is not related to EAD processing.

Jagan
#1 & #2 - yes indeed.
#3 - do your best. American government is not inflexible. If they want they can ask alll years you have been present in US. Personally I don't think I gave any tax records at all. But my memory could be wrong.
#4 - I think all AOS folks get interviewed. But not all 485 folks do. Fingerprinting is quick in and out. At least we never had any interview for sure.

Q, Kanmani,

Thanks for your response. When you say they check for dependents immigration history, does it mean visa status or they also check employment history.

If spouse has worked on on campus employment, CPT and OPT at different employers then what kind of letters do I need to get from them. CPT and OPT anyways gets recorded in SEVIS. On campus employment does not get recorded and typically that is an hourly job. IS there anything that I need to have in place and be aware of? What king of documentation is necessary ?

Will tax forms suffice ? I mean w2 or 1099 that is provided by the employer ?

Kanmani

02-08-2014, 08:44 PM

Jagan, Its been 2 years since we filed our I-485.

Unlike I-140, I-485 is individual application which collects information on the individuals independently.

Even though she is a derivative of yours , the application calls for her employment history too. If you fill your employment information in your application, your wife has to fill hers in her application I recommend you to download I-485 form and try filling out manually .

Jagan01

02-08-2014, 09:12 PM

Kanmani,

I had downloaded the I-485 form and it did not ask for any employment history. Hence I needed to confirm if there is any other form that goes along.

Kanmani

02-08-2014, 09:30 PM

Jagan, It is Form G-325 A calls for Biographic information including employment history. http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/g-325a.pdf

List of attachments are noted here http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-485instr.pdf

Jonty Rhodes

02-09-2014, 10:51 AM

The chances of Immigration Reform passing this year is probably zero to very weak. On top of that, President Obama and his administration are not helping it.

Look at this.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/05/obama-admin-changes-immigration-law-allows-immigrants-who-supported-terrorists-into-us/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/09/house-republicans-object-to-obama-easing-immigration-rules-for-terror/

The rules were published in the Federal Register on Wednesday.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/05/2014-02357/exercise-of-authority-under-section-212d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act

While it is understandable that individual situations do need to be taken in to account before approving a refugee or asylum status (e.g., an Iranian man who distributed pamphlets for Khomeini regime when he was a teenager now seeking asylum status which was considered a terrorist organization by US at that time), I still can't understand the pressing need to make these kind of controversial changes unilaterally without Congress approval at this crucial time when Immigration Reform is facing an extremely tough and uncertain future.

I think it will create even more distrust with this administration when they are already being alleged of not following the laws. How is this going to help the Immigration Reform in a positive way? On one side, we constantly hear that President does not want to act alone on Immigration and on the other side, we are seeing these kind of controversial decisions being taken unilaterally.

I don't have any hopes from Republicans but this administration is not helping the Immigration Reform either by taking these kind of steps.

idiotic

02-09-2014, 01:14 PM

A few days back Schumer met with Ted Gowdy(Immigration chair) and Paul Ryan(Conference Lead on this issue).
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/immigration-chuck-schumer-paul-ryan-103057.html

Boehner then does a stunt with vague comments tying Obama administration and CIR..
http://www.speaker.gov/video/speaker-boehner-s-comments-immigration-reform

Schumer says do CIR now and have the law come into effect in 2017.. I think DHS also time to prepare for the law.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/197882-nbc-schumer-suggests-deal-on-immigration

Just wonder if these are orchestrated drama.. As always optimistic :)

qesehmk

02-09-2014, 01:22 PM

Schumer says do CIR now and have the law come into effect in 2017.. I think DHS also time to prepare for the law.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/197882-nbc-schumer-suggests-deal-on-immigration

Unfortunately GOP will not accept this either for the simple reason that regardless of timeline Dems will get entire credit.

idiotic

02-11-2014, 01:45 PM

Another slap to Tea Party groups..

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/198044-house-gop-pulls-debt-plan-move-to-clean-bill

Leaving the press conference, a rueful Boehner softly crooned “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah,” the Disney song with the lyrics “My oh my, what a wonderful day!”

kkruna

02-11-2014, 05:14 PM

The scenario emerging now with good possibility is that the Repubs, forced by their vocal section, would not be able to do anything till next presidential elections. The Dems would then force Obama to use his "pen" for some polarization before the elections.

All maneuvers will be for the undocumented. I wonder if anything will be done for the legal immigration which is held hostage. Repubs may likely visit it sometime during next 2 years to show themselves amenable to reasonable reform but Dems are not likely to go with it. Dems are not likely to take any initiative for legislative reform on legal immigration alone.

Let's hope Boehner becomes adventurous right after coming primaries for 2014 elections. Or that Obama touches the subject with his pen - which is mighty enough to cause demand data morph beyond recognition!

idiotic

02-11-2014, 06:09 PM

The scenario emerging now with good possibility is that the Repubs, forced by their vocal section, would not be able to do anything till next presidential elections.

Vocal section is increasingly getting snubbed by the leadership backed by business groups..

All maneuvers will be for the undocumented.

Agreed.

I wonder if anything will be done for the legal immigration which is held hostage.

Dates can be made current to let people in line file 485 atleast.. Atleast same thing happened in July 2007 after a CIR failure..

Hope for the best.. plan for the worst..

gcq

02-16-2014, 07:13 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/house-dems-try-force-votes-wage-immigration-125725350.html

qesehmk

02-16-2014, 07:27 PM

gcq - that's brilliant. A discharge petition only on immigration would've been very difficult. But a discharge petition on min wage bill would be a good way out for CIR.
http://news.yahoo.com/house-dems-try-force-votes-wage-immigration-125725350.html

idiotic

02-17-2014, 09:24 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/house-dems-try-force-votes-wage-immigration-125725350.html

HR15 -- Nancy Pelosi's version of S.744 (after stripping out the last minute amendment in senate and substituting with bipartisan house border security bill) did not anywhere close to 217 required even after months of launching.. This should be the reality..

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/15/cosponsors

Ramsen

02-17-2014, 10:20 AM

gcq - that's brilliant. A discharge petition only on immigration would've been very difficult. But a discharge petition on min wage bill would be a good way out for CIR.

on the other side if minimum wage bill fails then they will not bring immigration bill. So not easy way out and also these things will increase the distance already bitterly split congress. I think all of these are just PR stunt to get more votes not aimed at passing the bill. If democrats wants to pass any bill they need to do lot of concession from their side which they are not willing. It took years to pass farm bill and lot of compromise needed.

kkruna

02-17-2014, 12:58 PM

They will not get 2 dozen Republicans to "revolt".

Can they agree on clearing the deck by easing on legal immigration now so that they are ready when they deal with avalanche of applications from the "undocumented"? Doesn't look like this either.

We might be trying to impute direction to Brownian motion...

In the end (political) survival will win. And Republicans are not there yet.

geterdone

02-19-2014, 06:00 PM

http://www.ibtimes.com/republican-outlook-immigration-reform-we-have-get-past-primaries-1556446

"Speaking as part of an immigration panel at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois said the House could put out a border security bill followed by legislation on visas for high-skilled workers."

hope it is not just increase in h-1b.....hope they do something on GC

idiotic

02-19-2014, 07:47 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/10/draft-issa-immigraiton-bill-would-provide-legal-status

Issa's Alien Accountability act (House Amnesty bill)
http://susanpaitwitter.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/aaa-5.pdf

axecapone

02-21-2014, 06:35 PM

Here's what concerns me about mid term elections: GOP may hold both the house and the Senate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/20/computing_democrats_risk_of_losing_the_senate_1216 40.html

Historically, the Presidents party always loses seats in mid-term elections. Multiple articles and simulations are pointing towards the same direction (though some might argue that its expected because simulations are based of historical data and Obama's approval rating). If GOP comes to the Senate, its game over. I don't think they will pass any bill on immigration until 2016.

So I think its either before mid term elections or not anytime in the near future.

idiotic

03-03-2014, 10:35 AM

http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=55965D95-7C7C-43E6-B094-C1C718AD5550

Good to see immigration markups again.. minor bills to cut executive branch power..

gten20

03-04-2014, 04:06 PM

An article talking about high skilled immigration
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101460837

GCSeekerIndia

03-05-2014, 01:40 AM

gcq

03-05-2014, 06:57 AM

Is Dems playing a shrewd game here? Sensing GOP might take both Senate and House after the mid term elections and hence no CIR after that... Or is it just posturing????

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/nancy-pelosi-discharge-petition-immigration_n_4898426.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

I would say posturing for election. They want to put republicans in cross hairs as far as latino community is concerned. Result, CIR may pass due to the pressure OR democrats may benefit from the election.

gten20

04-25-2014, 02:04 PM

qesehmk

04-25-2014, 02:16 PM

A positive sign? John Boehner mocks his colleagues. Anyway.. its funny. I think he is trying his best and running out of ideas.. Saam Daam Dand Bhed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-boehner-mocks-house-republicans-for-avoiding-immigration-reform/
Can't believe this gten. A sign that Boehner is not getting reelected. So the least he can do is be on the right side of history! Perhaps saying so is unkind to him. But kudos to him for taking a stand on this.

gten20

04-25-2014, 03:54 PM

I have read some news articles which suggest something could happen in June/July.. either through congress or by some executive action from Obama. Maybe Boehner is warming up his conservative group. I hope congress and Obama find some middle ground and pass some law which will help legal immigrants too.. right now the whole immigration reform talks focus on illegal/undocumented immigrants. I sometimes fear legal immigrants will not get any relief. All we (actually corporations) might get is unlimited H1B's.

YTeleven

04-29-2014, 09:17 PM

Interesting...
http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/archive/2014/04/28/charles-schumer-promises-immigration-reform-this-summer.aspx

idiotic

05-02-2014, 08:00 AM

Tea party hell bent on keeping the current immigration system and milking the illegals..

http://thehill.com/homenews/205013-right-fights-back-on-immigration

idiotic

05-06-2014, 09:44 PM

NDAA markup tomm.. Will ENLIST act get added here or as floor amendment?

http://immigrationreform.com/2014/05/06/house-committee-to-vote-on-military-amnesty-tomorrow/

CleanSock

06-09-2014, 11:07 AM

Looks like anti-immigration stance proved to be unpopular for many Republicans running for primaries.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/immigrations-primary-effect-muted-1402270484?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

idiotic

06-10-2014, 06:53 PM

vizcard

06-10-2014, 07:09 PM

Cantor is losing.. wow.. CIR or any immigration reform is finished now..

Cantor was not pro-immigration

idiotic

06-10-2014, 07:28 PM

Cantor was not pro-immigration

Cantor was for the house Republicans immigration principles which is the best one could expect from republican party. Also Google KIDS act and cosponsor of enlist act..

Primary was centered around amnesty.. Cantor spent 5Million.. opponent spent less than 200k.. big defeat for establishment and defining one for the future.. "about to be speaker" losing his seat to people power against money power..

feedmyback

06-10-2014, 08:56 PM

I do't think it is that black and white. I mean cantor losing cannot signal any doom for immigration. We will have to wait and see....

Cantor was for the house Republicans immigration principles which is the best one could expect from republican party. Also Google KIDS act and cosponsor of enlist act..

Primary was centered around amnesty.. Cantor spent 5Million.. opponent spent less than 200k.. big defeat for establishment and defining one for the future.. "about to be speaker" losing his seat to people power against money power..

vizcard

06-10-2014, 10:33 PM

Cantor was for the house Republicans immigration principles which is the best one could expect from republican party. Also Google KIDS act and cosponsor of enlist act..

Primary was centered around amnesty.. Cantor spent 5Million.. opponent spent less than 200k.. big defeat for establishment and defining one for the future.. "about to be speaker" losing his seat to people power against money power..

Not sure about the "about to be speaker" comment. Boehner is not going anywhere. But definitely a major development given the recent wins for the establishment over the Tea Party nuts.

idiotic

06-11-2014, 08:18 AM

To me, it is the final nail in the coffin for CIR for rest of 2014. Its up to Obama now. He might as well not wait until August for his executive actions..

vizcard

06-11-2014, 09:09 AM

Cantor was for the house Republicans immigration principles which is the best one could expect from republican party. Also Google KIDS act and cosponsor of enlist act..

Primary was centered around amnesty.. Cantor spent 5Million.. opponent spent less than 200k.. big defeat for establishment and defining one for the future.. "about to be speaker" losing his seat to people power against money power..

I wonder who the Democrat nominee is and whether the Dems can steal this one away.

idiotic

06-11-2014, 09:43 AM

I wonder who the Democrat nominee is and whether the Dems can steal this one away.

Total number of voters seems to be in order of 268K with 40%-55% dem-rep split. Cantor's primary loss was 35k to 28k margin.. Surely this is good news for democrats..

http://ballotpedia.org/Virginia's_7th_Congressional_District_elections,_2 012

Describing the district as one that merely "leans Republican" and isn't overwhelmingly conservative, the official also suggested Brat might simply lose to Trammell outright.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-rejoice-cantors-loss-2014-6#ixzz34LFOpxPt

qesehmk

06-11-2014, 09:50 AM

There is nothing for democrats to cheer for in Cantor's loss. Cantor lost at least partly because his opponent attacked Cantor for his "partial" support to CIR.

So now even moderate republicans are going to think twice before they support CIR.

jackbrown_890

06-11-2014, 11:01 AM

Total number of voters seems to be in order of 268K with 40%-55% dem-rep split. Cantor's primary loss was 35k to 28k margin.. Surely this is good news for democrats..

http://ballotpedia.org/Virginia's_7th_Congressional_District_elections,_2 012

Describing the district as one that merely "leans Republican" and isn't overwhelmingly conservative, the official also suggested Brat might simply lose to Trammell outright.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-rejoice-cantors-loss-2014-6#ixzz34LFOpxPt

democrats have little to zero chance of winning this district...they district might be merely leans republican but still have voted for republicans majority of times..and plus a conservative won the primary with tea-party support and someone who beat 2nd ranking republican in the house,,so he now carries a big momentum. The only way Democrat can win this is if they can convince cantor supporters to vote democrat..i think cantor supporters would rather vote for tea-party thn dems.
still nothing to rejoice for dems yet..still doesn't look like they will have majority in the house after this election..actually they are fighting to keep the senate majority after this election....Republicans do have better chance of getting senate majority...

idiotic

06-11-2014, 12:00 PM

democrats have little to zero chance of winning this district...they district might be merely leans republican but still have voted for republicans majority of times..and plus a conservative won the primary with tea-party support and someone who beat 2nd ranking republican in the house,,so he now carries a big momentum. The only way Democrat can win this is if they can convince cantor supporters to vote democrat..i think cantor supporters would rather vote for tea-party thn dems.

Please take into consideration that this was open parimary and look at the number of voters in general election vs number of voters who turned up in primary. Also consider that dems would have also voted in the primary which Brat just won. If you still feel dems have little to zero chance in this district then we have to agree to disagree.

still doesn't look like they will have majority in the house after this election..actually they are fighting to keep the senate majority after this election....Republicans do have better chance of getting senate majority...

Agreed..

Jonty Rhodes

06-30-2014, 01:55 PM

iatiam

06-30-2014, 02:28 PM

As many of us predicted, after Eric Cantor's loss to his Tea Party Rival, prospects of CIR were pretty much dead. This news just confirms that. Obama is going to speak today about it and hopefully, we would see some Executive Actions from Obama that would help legal immigrants this year and not only undocumented immigrants. If Obama can just pass an Executive Action to use the wasted green cards in last 10 years or remove dependents from being counted, that would be enough to make dates advance pretty rapidly. I doubt though Obama would do anything for legal immigrants. Republicans are a lost cause anyways.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/30/us-usa-immigration-idUSKBN0F526420140630

I am going to bet my house that his 'Executive Action" will be only for illegal immigrants. He is least interested in high skilled immigration other than going to Facebook and LinkedIn and paying lip service to their employees majority of whom are foreign-born. Obama is a seasoned politician and knows how to get his votes. End of story.

idiotic

06-30-2014, 02:53 PM

As many of us predicted, after Eric Cantor's loss to his Tea Party Rival, prospects of CIR were pretty much dead. This news just confirms that. Obama is going to speak today about it and hopefully, we would see some Executive Actions from Obama that would help legal immigrants this year and not only undocumented immigrants. If Obama can just pass an Executive Action to use the wasted green cards in last 10 years or remove dependents from being counted, that would be enough to make dates advance pretty rapidly. I doubt though Obama would do anything for legal immigrants. Republicans are a lost cause anyways.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/30/us-usa-immigration-idUSKBN0F526420140630

I was under the impression that recapturing unused visas (H1B and EB) cannot be done by executive branch alone. Please correct me if I am wrong.

There is not much executive branch can do to bring relief to EB (except allowing them to file 485) is my impression.. Am I missing anything?

Spectator

06-30-2014, 02:54 PM

The problem with EA is that while there may be the will (and I am sure there is) there may not be a way to help legal immigration. That's why you don't see measures in the proposals leaked to date.

EA cannot change or go against an existing law and legal immigration is pretty tightly locked down by the law.

IMO (and I know some people disagree), that includes the ability to exclude dependents from the numerical limits and to reclaim visas. Both were part of the Senate CIR Bill and previous proposed Bills, so Congress believes the power lies with them and that it requires the law to be rewritten to accomplish it.

As far a reclaiming "wasted" visa numbers, between the 180k already "recaptured" and those already received back from FB, the difference is only about 20k from FY1992 through FY2014. The law already has a mechanism to deal with "wasted" visas (be they EB or FB) and EB has profited handsomely over the years from that law. That's not to say they won't be "double recaptured", but I think that is outside the scope of EA. The "antis" are equally well aware of the situation regarding visa recapture.

iatiam will win the bet, but not for the reasons stated IMO.

GCSeekerIndia

06-30-2014, 02:56 PM

Stumbled upon this thread and take a look at the below portion in the link... Are they talking about not counting dependents of E3 Visa holders in the numerical limit for GC?

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/05/12/2014-10733/enhancing-opportunities-for-h-1b1-cw-1-and-e-3-nonimmigrants-and-eb-1-immigrants

****************

Principal E-3 aliens are subject to an annual numerical limitation of 10,500 initial E-3 visas per fiscal year (FY). See INA section 214(g)(11), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11). To determine numerical limitation compliance, USCIS counts initial E-3 visa applications submitted abroad, initial petitions for a change of status to E-3, and E-3 applications for an extension of stay requesting a change of employers against the numerical limitation. See INA section 214(g)(11)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11)(A); AFM Chapter 34.6(a)(3) Note 3. USCIS does not count the dependent spouse and children of E-3 principal aliens against the numerical limitation. See INA section 214(g)(11)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11)(C); 22 CFR 41.51(c)(2).

Spectator

06-30-2014, 03:02 PM

I was under the impression that recapturing unused visas (H1B and EB) cannot be done by executive branch alone. Please correct me if I am wrong.

There is not much executive branch can do to bring relief to EB (except allowing them to file 485) is my impression.. Am I missing anything?idiotic,

You were answering at the same time as I was.

The law states that a visa must be immediately available in order to file an I-485, so that change is also outside the scope of EA. The regulations define that as when the VB Cut Off Date shows the PD is current for the PD. I can't imagine any change to the regulations that could redefine "a visa as being immediately available" based solely on an approved I-140.

Possibly something might be possible for Advance Parole based on "humanitarian grounds", but that could be quite problematic regarding maintaining status.

I'm not optimistic.

idiotic

06-30-2014, 03:07 PM

idiotic,

You were answering at the same time as I was.

The law states that a visa must be immediately available in order to file an I-485, so that change is also outside the scope of EA. The regulations define that as when the VB Cut Off Date shows the PD is current for the PD. I can't imagine any change to the regulations that could redefine "a visa as being immediately available" based solely on an approved I-140.

Possibly something might be possible for Advance Parole based on "humanitarian grounds", but that could be quite problematic regarding maintaining status.

I'm not optimistic.

Yes.. I was essentially saying the same thing as you said.. That's all they might have power to do.. So, no point of Obama bashing for doing nothing to legal immigrants..

I think / hope they can repeat Aug 2007 scenario (last time when CIR failed in Bush's Sixth year).. This is completely under executive branch power.. Law was not different in Aug 2007.. Correct me if I am wrong.

Jonty Rhodes

06-30-2014, 03:08 PM

idiotic,

You were answering at the same time as I was.

The law states that a visa must be immediately available in order to file an I-485, so that change is also outside the scope of EA. The regulations define that as when the VB Cut Off Date shows the PD is current for the PD. I can't imagine any change to the regulations that could redefine "a visa as being immediately available".

Possibly something might be possible for Advance Parole based on "humanitarian grounds", but that could be quite problematic regarding maintaining status.

I'm not optimistic.

Spec, I read your post. You have much better knowledge than many of us about what is locked down tightly with law. I understand from your post that Obama can't do much for legal immigrants in a way of EA as things have been very clearly laid down in law and only Congress can change that. So I understand that may be Obama's hands are tied when it comes to helping legal immigrants.

But is there anything that Obama can do to bring some relief to legal immigrants with EA which does not need approval of Congress? There must be some thing which can be done. What do you think? Just asking for curiosity.

Jonty Rhodes

06-30-2014, 03:12 PM

Yes.. I was essentially saying the same thing as you said.. That's all they might have power to do.. So, no point of Obama bashing for doing nothing to legal immigrants..

I think / hope they can repeat Aug 2007 scenario (last time when CIR failed in Bush's Sixth year).. This is completely under executive branch power.. Law was not different in Aug 2007.. Correct me if I am wrong.

I agree idiotic. I am not trying to bash Obama. I don't have much knowledge of the law so I didn't know that there is nothing much Obama can do by EA to help legal immigrants. I am just little frustrated with the status quo. Also, little bit of frustration comes from the fact that I have seen many in last 1 year getting a GC through EB1C in few months after arriving from India. Nothing against those people personally but just a frustration against this system.

qesehmk

06-30-2014, 03:27 PM

My undestanding is that when it comes to power the president pretty much can do anything he/she wants to. Pretty much anything. But of course there are consequences of every action. So in real life a president will only go so far as what it would mean for him, his constituency and his legacy. And to be honest that is a fair game in politics. That's how politics should be.

So can Obama abolish a law. No but he can circumvent it. The whole concept of differed action on "Dreamers" goes to show that a president can go quite far to circumvent a written law. Now in that case the president knew that even his fiercest critics are not going to impeach him because that's not going to work.

So when it comes to EB - recapturing prior wasted visas or providing EADs to spouses or providing conditional GCs (until visa numbers are available) ---- there could be a plethora of options available to him that he can consider and exercise.

But everything boils down to - where is the pressure? In case of EB - there is NO pressure group strong enough to make him do it. Forget Obama -- think about it - businesses have an incentive to have a very intelligent H1 guy as a slave to that business. Why would they do a "Kulhadi pe peir" !!!

Long story short - IMHO EA can be as limitless as the president wants it to be. But the for a president to exercise EA - there needs to be a constituency that wants the president to do that. For illegal - there is a constituency. For EB .... not much.

I was under the impression that recapturing unused visas (H1B and EB) cannot be done by executive branch alone. Please correct me if I am wrong.

There is not much executive branch can do to bring relief to EB (except allowing them to file 485) is my impression.. Am I missing anything?

idiotic

06-30-2014, 03:54 PM

Jonty Rhodes

06-30-2014, 04:03 PM

http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/speaker-boehner-presidents-immigration-announcement?Source=GovD

Boehner's statement.. Looks fishy to me..

" In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. "
- Roosevelt..

As usual, politics played by both sides. Obama blaming Republicans and Boehner blaming Obama. Nothing is going to come out of this quagmire. It is a hopeless situation. I just wish if nothing happens, at least USCIS clamps down on rampant misuse of EB1C. I live in a town where there are lots of Indian engineers/software experts who came to US to work for a known MNC on H1B. Many of them are actually asking the company to send them to India for 1 year and then try to come back on L1A to get GC on EB1C. I personally know at least 5 people who have done that. Sadly, this model is actually becoming very popular among these people and there seems to be no stopping.

Ramsen

06-30-2014, 04:16 PM

idiotic

06-30-2014, 04:23 PM

What you are seeing fishy? I am seeing this is usual statement from him. I am seeing that this time GOP will not take it easy if Obama is taking EO especially when they are gaining in house in Senate

To me moderate republicans are using the southern border crisis as a backdoor for bringing immigration debate to House..

Another press release by top house republican..
http://homeland.house.gov/press-release/mccaul-statement-administrations-request-additional-measures-address-crisis-border

idiotic

07-01-2014, 02:21 PM

Good Article..

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/01/politics/obama-executive-action-immigration/

"2. And no, the President can't increase the number eligible for green cards because their spouses or parents are U.S. citizens. Such matters are set by law. Though some immigration advocates have argued spouses and children shouldn't count toward 140,000 limit on employment-based green cards, whether the President can make that kind of change unilaterally is murky territory."

amulchandra

07-07-2014, 02:14 PM

Thought of sharing this

But with a sweeping overhaul out of reach, lobbyists are turning their attention to moves that Obama could make on his own that could benefit their Silicon Valley clients, including changes to green cards and rules about the way immigrant family members and relatives are counted.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/211282-silicon-valley-pins-hopes-on-obama-for-immigration-win#ixzz36oNf24jP

migo79

07-08-2014, 03:22 AM

Immigo

07-08-2014, 07:05 AM

I think the least thing President can do to legal immigrants is to remove derivatives from from the quota, and many law experts said there is a potential for this.

this is the least thing but IMHO will have a great impact in providing some relief to both EB3 and EB2 category.
imagine how many visas can be saved giving the derivatives accounts for nearly 55%

Hi - Isn't the 140,000 employment based green card a minimum ? Can't an executive order be to actually issue (say) 200,000 employment based green cards for the next 5 years instead of 140,000 ?

Spectator

07-08-2014, 07:41 AM

Hi - Isn't the 140,000 employment based green card a minimum ? Can't an executive order be to actually issue (say) 200,000 employment based green cards for the next 5 years instead of 140,000 ?Not really.

The law sets the number at 140,000 plus the number of unused FB visas the previous FY. (INA 201 (d)). There is also a provision under INA 203(b)(6) where certain approvals in the previous FY under made under INA 101(a)(27)(K) are charged to the total allocation.

An EO cannot modify a preexisting law or make new law.

The FB calculation is more complex and does set a minimum of 226,000 if the calculation results in a figure that is less than that number (which it always does because of the number of IR approvals).

qesehmk

07-08-2014, 08:03 AM

Not really.

The law sets the number at 140,000 plus the number of unused FB visas the previous FY. (INA 201 (d)). There is also a provision under INA 203(b)(6) where certain approvals in the previous FY under made under INA 101(a)(27)(K) are charged to the total allocation.

An EO cannot modify a preexisting law or make new law.

The FB calculation is more complex and does set a minimum of 226,000 if the calculation results in a figure that is less than that number (which it always does because of the number of IR approvals).

Spec - somehow I too think that 140K and 226K are minimum for EB and FB. So if DoS ends up issuing more visas they are not in violation of any law. Last year they indeed ended up more than 140K + FB Spillover.

On another note I think at least charging dependents of EB to FB will also effectively double the EB quota. But that strategy has a serious problem of allocation since primary and dependents will be tied to EB and FB country limits in EB and FB respectively. Which would make CO's life a lot more worse.

Spectator

07-08-2014, 08:17 AM

Spec - somehow I too think that 140K and 226K are minimum for EB and FB. So if DoS ends up issuing more visas they are not in violation of any law. Last year they indeed ended up more than 140K + FB Spillover.

On another note I think at least charging depepends of EB2 to EB will also effectively double the EB quota. But that strategy has a serious problem of allocation since primary and dependents will be tied to EB and FB country limits in EB and FB respectively. Which would make CO's life a lot more worse.Q,

Both FB and EB have calculations that set the MAXIMUM numbers available for the FY (INA 201 (c) and 201 (d)).

(c) Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants. -

(1) (A) The worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is, subject to subparagraph (B), equal to -

(d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants

(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to-

The FB calculation also sets a MINIMUM number that the MAXIMUM may be.

(ii) In no case shall the number computed under subparagraph (A) be less than 226,000.

The numbers can be more than 226,000 and 140,000 respectively, but only due to specific paragraphs in the calculation (basically unused visas by the other Category in the previous year).

Indeed, DOS did break the law last year regarding the EB allocation, but it was well within any margin that would result in Congressional censure.

I think, ultimately, removing the dependents from the numerical limitations count is the simplest way to increase the effective numbers. I don't believe it would cause DOS any problems they couldn't overcome. I don't believe that is within the scope of EO, despite what a couple of lawyers (Endelman and Mehta) may think (even they acknowledge it was not Congress's intent). If it is part of the EO's, it will give a fulcrum point for GOP to sue and overturn every thing that may be announced. For that reason, I do not see it being included.

qesehmk

07-08-2014, 08:33 AM

What is EO by the way?

The numbers can be more than 226,000 and 140,000 respectively, but only due to specific paragraphs in the calculation (basically unused visas by the other Category in the previous year).

Not sure I understand. But I take your word for it.
Thanks!

Spectator

07-08-2014, 08:51 AM

What is EO by the way?Executive Order.

amulchandra

07-08-2014, 09:48 AM

Q,
If it is part of the EO's, it will give a fulcrum point for GOP to sue and overturn every thing that may be announced. For that reason, I do not see it being included.

Traditionally GOP has been pro business and anti illegal immigration. I think they might not pick this up as an issue if it becomes a part of EO. Just my opinion. May be coincidence but I came across a number of other news articles mentioning elimination of dependents from numerical limit. I am guessing that something is definitely going on behind the scenes and I strongly believe there is a possibility for this to happen.

Kanmani

07-08-2014, 09:59 AM

Here are some statutes governing how maximum is set. Dedicated to people who are sitting idle :)

Any unused employment-based visa numbers are incorporated into the formula for determining the limit on the number of family-based visa numbers in the following fiscal year. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(3)(C).

But there are situations in which these unused employment-based visa numbers are not actually used in the following fiscal year due to a Congressionally-created minimum on the number of family-based visa numbers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(1)(B)(ii).

This outcome is the result of the formula created by Congress. Specifically, the limit on family-based visa numbers is calculated by subtracting from 480,000 the number of certain categories of aliens processed in preceding years. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(1)(A).

These categories include immediate relatives issued visas in the preceding year, aliens born to an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence during a temporary visit abroad, and parolees processed in the second preceding year. See id.; see also, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2); 1151(c)(4).

The number of unused employment-based visas from the prior fiscal year is then added to this number to calculate the total number of family-based visa numbers available. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(3)(C).

But another provision establishes 226,000 as the minimum number of family-based visa numbers available in a given year. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1151(c)(1)(B)(ii).

Since in many years the number of family-based visa numbers that would have been available under the calculations set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1151(c)(1)(A) (which includes unused employment-based visa numbers from the prior fiscal year) was less than 226,000, these employment-based visa numbers remain essentially unused.

Page 19 - http://www.eb3chinese.org/resources/11-11-07+BRIEF+FOR+DEFENDANTS.pdf

qesehmk

07-08-2014, 10:06 AM

Kanmani Guru - even I couldn't follow this!! Dumb me :)

But unless you immortalize this into a picture my guess is 90% people reading this are not going to get this.

Here are some statutes governing how maximum is set. Dedicated to people who are sitting idle :)

Any unused employment-based visa numbers are incorporated into the formula for determining the limit on the number of family-based visa numbers in the following fiscal year. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(3)(C).

But there are situations in which these unused employment-based visa numbers are not actually used in the following fiscal year due to a Congressionally-created minimum on the number of family-based visa numbers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(1)(B)(ii).

This outcome is the result of the formula created by Congress. Specifically, the limit on family-based visa numbers is calculated by subtracting from 480,000 the number of certain categories of aliens processed in preceding years. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(1)(A).

These categories include immediate relatives issued visas in the preceding year, aliens born to an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence during a temporary visit abroad, and parolees processed in the second preceding year. See id.; see also, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2); 1151(c)(4).

The number of unused employment-based visas from the prior fiscal year is then added to this number to calculate the total number of family-based visa numbers available. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(3)(C).

But another provision establishes 226,000 as the minimum number of family-based visa numbers available in a given year. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1151(c)(1)(B)(ii).

Since in many years the number of family-based visa numbers that would have been available under the calculations set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1151(c)(1)(A) (which includes unused employment-based visa numbers from the prior fiscal year) was less than 226,000, these employment-based visa numbers remain essentially unused.

Page 19 - http://www.eb3chinese.org/resources/11-11-07+BRIEF+FOR+DEFENDANTS.pdf

GCSeekerIndia

07-08-2014, 10:33 AM

Here is one such article ...

http://blog.fosterquan.com/2014/07/08/two-aces-up-president-obamas-sleeve-to-achieve-immigration-reform-without-congress-not-counting-family-members-and-parole-in-place/

Spectator

07-08-2014, 10:33 AM

Kanmani Guru - even I couldn't follow this!! Dumb me :)

But unless you immortalize this into a picture my guess is 90% people reading this are not going to get this.What Kanmani is saying is, that due to the complexity of the FB calculation, in most years that they receive spare visas from EB, they cannot be used by FB.

The reason:- Even after adding them, the overall calculation results in a figure lower than 226,000, so the minimum 226,000 limit applies.

To illustrate, here is the FY2006 calculation:

Calculation of FY−2006 Family-Sponsored Preference Limitation:

Immediate relative visa issuances during FY−2005: -------------------------- 180,432
(minus net total of "recaptured" FY−2005 IR visas: ---------------------------- ( 13)
Immediate relative adjustments of status by USCIS: ------------------------- 266,851
Children admitted after birth to immediate relative visa holders: ---------------- 7
Children admitted after birth abroad to lawful permanent residents: ------------ 571

Immediate Relative etc. Total: --------------------------------------------- 447,848 <--- to second part of calculation

FY−2006 Worldwide Family-Sponsored Level figure: --------------------------- 480,000
minus IR etc. total calculated above: ------------------------------------- (447,848) <--- from previous calculation
minus aliens paroled into the United States under Section
212(d)(5) in the second preceding fiscal year (FY−2004): ------------------- (10,000)
plus unused FY−2005 employment pref. numbers: ------------------------------------ 0

Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 22,152

Since under the law the family-sponsored preference limitation for any fiscal year may not be less than 226,000, the limit for FY−2006 is fixed at: 226,000

You can see that unless spare visas from EB had been more than 203,848, then FB would only receive 226,000 as the allocation. Even then, only the number of EB visas above 203,848 would have added to the total.

The same is not true for Employment Based. EB always receives the full benefit of any spare FB visas.

Kanmani

07-08-2014, 10:33 AM

idiotic

07-08-2014, 10:42 AM

Traditionally GOP has been pro business and anti illegal immigration.

and also for population control.. Any republican solution for immigration is "always" net green card neutral.. They will say USA is already the most generous country which welcomes more than 1 million new immigrants every year.. so there is no need to increase that number..

Spectator

07-08-2014, 10:57 AM

Q,

Thats why I dedicated my post with a caution message. I have ditto ditto to what Spec said, and wanted to establish that it is much complicated adding numbers to EB, FB minimum, and it is not that easy. They are governed by Formulas spread over those laws.

Without touching the law, how could he sign an EO? Boom!

These statutes in my post may help us while we discuss in a situation if there is unused EB, then it might not be used by FB the following year.I don't see how this would be helpful to EB anyway.

There is perhaps a good argument that the EB visas that FB could not use due to the calculation could be recaptured for use by FB. It would have been better if the FB calculation had added the EB spare visas to the minimum 226k figure.

Since FY1992, EB has received all but 20k of any EB wasted visas back, either through the 180k already "recaptured", or from under use by FB increasing the EB allocation. There are only 20k visas to be recaptured for EB.

Recapture provision are double dipping the number of visas, since they flow back to EB through the existing law.

amulchandra

07-08-2014, 10:59 AM

and also for population control.. Any republican solution for immigration is "always" net green card neutral.. They will say USA is already the most generous country which welcomes more than 1 million new immigrants every year.. so there is no need to increase that number..

Again my opinion -

The EO 'IF AT ALL' happens, the public/GOP attention will be on 11 million illegal aliens who got amnesty than on the legal immigrants who are a drop in the ocean.
If Obama passes EO, the GOP will cry foul and issue a number of statements against it, but they will not dare to really challenge it in a court of law.
If they take it court they will loose the support if any left from the Latino minority which is a major factor in 2016 presidential elections.
I believe even GOP secretly wants to get over with immigration this year, long before presidential elections.
It will not impact their midterms either as they already catered to their own districts by not touching the reform.

Kanmani

07-08-2014, 11:06 AM

I don't see how this would be helpful to EB anyway.

There is perhaps a good argument that the EB visas that FB could not use due to the calculation could be recaptured for use by FB. It would have been better if the FB calculation had added the EB spare visas to the minimum 226k figure.

Since FY1992, EB has received all but 20k of any EB wasted visas back, either through the 180k already "recaptured", or from under use by FB increasing the EB allocation. There are only 20k visas to be recaptured for EB.

Recapture provision are double dipping the number of visas, since they flow back to EB through the existing law.

You are correct. EB has no impact.

qesehmk

07-08-2014, 11:36 AM

Ok Spec / Kanmani!! So let me bring this down to us mortals level and please tell me if I am correct.

Basically the intention of the law is to set FB numbers as 480K - X where X is mostly usage in numerically unlimited categories such as spouse, unmarried children and parents of a US citizen and if that numbers turns out lower than 226K then bump it up to 226K.

Given the backlogs in EB there is zero chance of EB->FB spillover. Thus the only way FB numerical limits can be higher is for immediate relatives to somehow stop coming to US - which pretty much is not going to happen.

What Kanmani is saying is, that due to the complexity of the FB calculation, in most years that they receive spare visas from EB, they cannot be used by FB.

Kanmani

07-08-2014, 12:14 PM

migo79

07-14-2014, 02:10 AM

good one
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9249614/Obama_has_big_options_for_green_card_H_1B_reform_w ithout_Congress_?pageNumber=1

question is can it happen :)))

imdeng

07-30-2014, 04:05 PM

There is some reporting out there that Obama's coming Executive Order on Immigration may include Visa Recapture. See the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/30/sticking-it-to-the-gop-on-deportations/

It would be huge if it does happen. EB backlogs will get wiped out in an instant. EOs can be made to take effect in a short amount of time too - so no delay in implementation as well (which could have happened with a regular CIR or HR-3012).

Update: EAD for H4 is apparently discussed as part of the package as well. Along with less restrictions on F1s working.

seahawks2012

08-14-2014, 02:11 PM

Interesting article that highlights Immigration Bills passed by House during an Election year:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2014/01/09/81849/5-major-immigration-laws-that-the-house-passed-in-an-election-year/

gten20

08-18-2014, 12:29 PM

Some positive news for Legal Immigrants

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/white-house-immigration-110092_Page2.html

kd2008

08-18-2014, 01:09 PM

From Oh law firm:

08/18/2014: President Back in the White House and to Bring Up Employment-Based Immigration Fix as One of the Key Topics

As we reported earlier, the President is back from the vacation for two days and to talk about three key ongoing issues: Iraq, Missouri issues, and Administrative fix of immigration. No executive orders are expected to be released for immigration reforms during this trip, but report indicates that one of the reforms is likely to include fix of broken employment-based immigration system. Reportedly, he is likely to highlight two fixes among others: H-4 spouse employment authorization and recapture of unused employment-based immigrant visa numbers. Exact number of unused EB immigration visa number is not handily available at this time, but the count was more than 200,000 two or three years back. Apparently this recapture has been heavily pushed by the business leaders and we have also advocated in this site as one of the available administrative fixes for employment-based immigration reform without legislation. He may also bring up other minor fixes in employment-based immigration fixes including Outstanding Researcher/Teacher EB-1B fixes, extension of 240-day lawful stay and employment authorization pending extension of E-3, CW and certain other nonimmigrant visas, which is already available to the H-1B nonimmigrants, and a few others, but these minor program changes have already been released by the DHS and have been pushed in the rule-making agenda of the DHS. Accordingly, the big fish on the fray in the President's discussion Today or Tomorrow remains with the recapture of unused immigrant visa numbers. There is already a speculation that the President may even sign such piecemeal executive action program in the middle of September, 2014, even though a full-blown executive action for relief of undocumented immigrants still remains up in the air in terms of timing for the action. Please stay tuned.

I think he exaggerates the scope. It is mostly likely recapture going forward and not the past ones - which kinda already is happening. This White House is utterly lame when it comes to do anything for the legals via executive action. I would love to be proven wrong. What do you folks think?

That organization which shall not be named has already refuted oh's claim. What a pathetic traffic driver of a site is that Oh....just like murthy's.

PD2008AUG25

08-18-2014, 02:26 PM

From Oh law firm:

I think he exaggerates the scope. It is mostly likely recapture going forward and not the past ones - which kinda already is happening. This White House is utterly lame when it comes to do anything for the legals via executive action. I would love to be proven wrong. What do you folks think?

That organization which shall not be named has already refuted oh's claim. What a pathetic traffic driver of a site is that Oh....just like murthy's.

Oh law is simply quoting Politico.

If he can issue work permits for undocumented, I like to think there isn't a thing he cannot do for documented if he wanted. Popular opinion is against EOs for recapture and dependent discounting, but it's just an opinion.

Jonty Rhodes

08-18-2014, 03:27 PM

From Oh law firm:

I think he exaggerates the scope. It is mostly likely recapture going forward and not the past ones - which kinda already is happening. This White House is utterly lame when it comes to do anything for the legals via executive action. I would love to be proven wrong. What do you folks think?

That organization which shall not be named has already refuted oh's claim. What a pathetic traffic driver of a site is that Oh....just like murthy's.

I agree with you kd. I would not be very optimistic. If the EO is going to be about the recapture of unused EB visas going forward, then it is pointless for us. I don't expect a single thing happening in Washington for legals. At the end of the day, we are not a significant vote bank.

kd2008

08-18-2014, 04:10 PM

I agree with you kd. I would not be very optimistic. If the EO is going to be about the recapture of unused EB visas going forward, then it is pointless for us. I don't expect a single thing happening in Washington for legals. At the end of the day, we are not a significant vote bank.

One of the tragic things about the whole immigration reform thing is how the administration is clueless about timing. Senate took inordinately long to get its bill through (supposedly Senate is designed to be so - but not for slapping $2000 fee on certain H-1B employers - that flew through so quickly and without a hitch.) It gave enough time for House to marshal the antis. Same with EO. What is the point of announcing that there will be one and waiting couple of months to be specific about it? Give time to the opposition to malign the administration and get hold of the news cycle baton and negatively influence public opinion? It just shows how ill prepared is the inner circle of high level decision making. The joke is that it is not Executive action but Executive inaction followed by limpid Executive reaction (that has no material benefit to the legals) to the opposition. LOL. ;)

Jonty Rhodes

08-18-2014, 05:32 PM

One of the tragic things about the whole immigration reform thing is how the administration is clueless about timing. Senate took inordinately long to get its bill through (supposedly Senate is designed to be so - but not for slapping $2000 fee on certain H-1B employers - that flew through so quickly and without a hitch.) It gave enough time for House to marshal the antis. Same with EO. What is the point of announcing that there will be one and waiting couple of months to be specific about it? Give time to the opposition to malign the administration and get hold of the news cycle baton and negatively influence public opinion? It just shows how ill prepared is the inner circle of high level decision making. The joke is that it is not Executive action but Executive inaction followed by limpid Executive reaction (that has no material benefit to the legals) to the opposition. LOL. ;)

To add, I don't even think that recapturing the unused EB visas and exemption of dependents is possible through Executive Order. As far as my knowledge goes, this requires proper legislative process through Congress. The only relief I can currently see is EAD for H4 which is already proposed by DHS/USCIS and may get approved. That doesn't need EO by President anyways. I think the only thing President can do for legals through EO is to allow them to change jobs without filing PERM and I-140 again, if their I-140 is already approved and may be increase the validity time of EAD to, say 3-4 years instead of 1-2 years. In that way, at least people can change jobs, take promotions, do fellowships and travel without hassle. I think even if these things happen, it would bring at least partial relief for legals. I have absolutely zero hopes that lost EB visas will be recaptured.

Also, I agree with the political timing. Many Democrats are predicting a tough time maintaining the party majority in Senate. If that happens, than till 2016 elections, absolutely nothing will happen. GOP will pass bills in Senate and House and President will simply veto them and obviously no Democratic bills will be taken up. I don't see President doing anything significant on immigration before the mid-term elections in November are over, as it may affect the incumbent Democrats adversely. Illegal immigrants obviously have no hope except Democrats when it comes to immigration so for the President, it won't matter if he has to wait till end of November, because even if he does nothing on immigration before that, Latinos will still vote Democrat in hope of getting something done after November.

moon80

08-20-2014, 10:15 AM

Looking at so many reports on recapture of unused visas and not counting dependents, I am sensing that Obama will do something for legals as well come september.He is due for so long and he has to deliver something. With Executive actions for legals , he can get some sympathy from other side of aisle and business.
Being optimistic doesnt hurt!! :)

migo79

08-20-2014, 02:15 PM

Spectator

08-20-2014, 03:06 PM

many suggesting that he can't recapture the visa without congress (please correct me guys if i'm wrong)
howvere many reputable attorneys are saying that he can exclude dependent from the visa count by just reinterpreting existing law

if he at least do this , this will double the visa availableI'll be interested to see what law is going to be reinterpreted.

The discussion (Endelman & Mehta) appears to revolve around INA 203(d)

(d) Treatment of Family Members. - A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c), be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.

but they don't seem to consider 245(b):

(b) Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall record the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the preference visas authorized to be issued under sections 202 and 203 within the class to which the alien is chargeable for the fiscal year then current.

203(d) is saying if the dependent does not have their own basis to adjust status, then they can use the same Category and PD as the primary applicant. That would be as an employment based applicant under INA 203(b).

INA 245(b) then says that when their I-485 is approved, the number of EB visas shall be reduced by one, since they are adjusting in (and on the basis of) a preference based Category [203(b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants].

It's difficult to see how EB dependents can be excluded from numerical limitations unless they are added to INA 201(b) Aliens Not Subject to Direct Numerical Limitations. - Aliens described in this subsection, who are not subject to the worldwide levels or numerical limitations of subsection (a).

Subsection (a) referenced above says:

(a) In general. - Exclusive of aliens described in subsection (b), aliens born in a foreign state or dependent area who may be issued immigrant visas or who may otherwise acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence are limited to-

(1) family-sponsored immigrants described in section 203(a) (or who are admitted under section 211(a) on the basis of a prior issuance of a visa to their accompanying parent under section 203(a)) in a number not to exceed in any fiscal year the number specified in subsection (c) for that year, and not to exceed in any of the first 3 quarters of any fiscal year 27 percent of the worldwide level under such subsection for all of such fiscal year;

(2) employment-based immigrants described in section 203(b) (or who are admitted under section 211(a) on the basis of a prior issuance of a visa to their accompanying parent under section 203(b) ), in a number not to exceed in any fiscal year the number specified in subsection (d) for that year, and not to exceed in any of the first 3 quarters of any fiscal year 27 percent of the worldwide level under such subsection for all of such fiscal year; and

(3) for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1995, diversity immigrants described in section 203(c) (or who are admitted under section 211(a) on the basis of a prior issuance of a visa to their accompanying parent under section 203(c) ) in a number not to exceed in any fiscal year the number specified in subsection (e) for that year, and not to exceed in any of the first 3 quarters of any fiscal year 27 percent of the worldwide level under such subsection for all of such fiscal year.

That makes it pretty clear that if not excluded because of inclusion in INA 201(b), all other approvals must take place and be counted against the numerical limitations established for FB, EB & DV respectively.

An EO cannot make new law, or run contrary to existing law, so it seems difficult to achieve this via EO.

Previous Bills in Congress have sought to exclude EB dependents by adding them to INA 201(b) - Congress clearly believes the law does need to be changed to achieve this aim.

I fear that, if it is included, it will instantly result in a lawsuit to overturn it and that such a lawsuit would have a fair chance of succeeding.

kd2008

08-20-2014, 03:17 PM

Check-in with DOS’s Charlie Oppenheim: August 12, 2014 (Updated 8/20/14) http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=49304
DOS Liaison Committee series of monthly “check-ins” with Charlie Oppenheim, designed to keep members informed of Visa Bulletin progress and to obtain his analysis of current trends and future projections, beyond the basic visa availability updates provided in the monthly Visa Bulletin.
AILA Doc. No. 14071401.

Folks of these forum should check whether they can get access to this document and if they get it then post at least the summary here.

Oh law firm says: 08/20/2014: Impact of Potential OBAMA EB Fix Excluding Dependent Family Members from EB ** Numberical Limit

AILA liaison reportedly asked Mr. Oppenheim of DOS the potential impact of such reform on immigration visa cut-off dates and his answer was that it would accelerate cut-offs but cut-offs would still exist in the family-based peference immigrant visa categories, while such fix would result in all of EB visa categories immediately becoming current and continuously remaining current for the foreseeable future. But within a year of two, filing and approval of new petitions could require cut-off dates for some preferences for some countries. Interesting....................................... ..........

Stupid as usual since Spec's fabulous analysis at http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2033-Discussion-On-The-Politics-of-Immigration-Reform-(Comprehensive-Or-Otherwise)?p=48775#post48775 has clearly shown it is not possible.

kkruna

08-20-2014, 03:55 PM

Could it be that they shift family to FB category? And combine this with H4 EAD?

Spectator

08-20-2014, 04:02 PM

Check-in with DOS’s Charlie Oppenheim: August 12, 2014 (Updated 8/20/14) http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=49304
DOS Liaison Committee series of monthly “check-ins” with Charlie Oppenheim, designed to keep members informed of Visa Bulletin progress and to obtain his analysis of current trends and future projections, beyond the basic visa availability updates provided in the monthly Visa Bulletin.
AILA Doc. No. 14071401.

Folks of these forum should check whether they can get access to this document and if they get it then post at least the summary here.

Stupid as usual since Spec's fabulous analysis at http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2033-Discussion-On-The-Politics-of-Immigration-Reform-(Comprehensive-Or-Otherwise)?p=48775#post48775 has clearly shown it is not possible.kd,

IANAL and we know how inventive they can be!

I was just expressing my thoughts on the subject.

The general problem I see with anything for EB (or FB for that matter) is that precisely because it is LEGAL immigration, the existing law is quite tight.

In contrast, measures for the undocumented are somewhat easier because we are then in the area of prosecutorial discretion. No EO (either DACA or anything further that might be announced) actually makes the people affected legal - it just means they won't be prosecuted and deported.

I think the biggest gripe I would have is that it seems patently unfair to give employment authorization to all those people (who are not legally present in the USA), while denying employment authorization to everybody who is legally in the USA. Even now, EAD is only being discussed for a subset of H4 and not at all for some other dependent visa classes such as O3.

Nor (say compared to DACA) is there any relief being discussed for those unfortunate children who "age out" while waiting for a chance to file an I-485 or undergo CP.

Spectator

08-20-2014, 04:26 PM

Could it be that they shift family to FB category? And combine this with H4 EAD?kkruna,

I'd be hard pressed to think of a worse solution. Off the top of my head:

a) An I-130 under F2A can't be filed until the primary GC is approved, which would mean the primary would have to remain in H1B (or similar status) until they were approved (to keep the dependents in lawful status). That would render EAD and AP essentially useless to the primary applicant. The alternative is that dependents have to remain abroad.

b) All the time the primary is waiting to be approved under EB, any dependent children would be growing older. Such a proposal would greatly add to those that "age out" during the process and/or would only eventually be eligible under F2B. Many would have no way to remain in the USA after age out.

c) NVC alone had 238k+ F2A applicants and 468k F2B applicants as of November 2013. Both are retrogressed already (1.5 & 7 years). I don't want to imagine what would happen to the Cut Off Dates if you start dumping a further 75-85k EB dependents PER YEAR (actually it could be more than double that number, since at least twice as many primary EB applicants could be approved in a year) into the (mainly F2A) FB2 category. Suffice to say they would retrogress quite rapidly and continuously.

You'd be left with the primary as a GC holder under EB for years and dependents who most likely would have no visa enabling them to remain in the USA in legal status. They would have to wait abroad until their PD under FB became current.

The only alternative would be to reduce the EB allocation and transfer it to FB2, which would defeat the purpose of the change you propose.

None of the above could be achieved by EO anyway - it would need a change to the INA.

As I say, I can't think of a worse solution.

krishn

08-20-2014, 06:12 PM

Spec, Can any amount of spin on the words in the 245 or 245(b) , make it look like 1 visa for family for EB allocation.

migo79

08-20-2014, 07:00 PM

Spectator

08-20-2014, 07:15 PM

Spec, Can any amount of spin on the words in the 245 or 245(b) , make it look like 1 visa for family for EB allocation.You tell me.

I can't find a way that satisfies all the essential laws in place (at least as I read them) :

i) You can only apply under FB, EB or DV categories (all with numerical limits), unless you are in a class that is described under INA 201(b) as being specifically exempt from numerical limits. Currently, EB dependents do not fall into a specifically exempted class under INA 201(b).

ii) INA 203(d) says that dependents can claim the same Preference Category and PD as the primary, i.e. Employment Based, and be treated in the same way as the primary applicant is.

ii) Each individual files their own I-485, which is judged entirely on its own merits. There is no single "family" I-485 application.

iii) Each approval of an I-485 shall result in permanent residence being recorded and the number of preference visas (i.e. EB) being reduced by one. i.e. 3 approvals would result in the number of EB visas available being reduced by 3. It does not matter whether the adjustment is for a primary applicant or a dependent - each have separately adjusted status.

De facto, dependents must be adjusting under EB, since they most certainly are not FB or DV. There is no other basis to do so, since they are not in the list outside numerical limitations.

Please find the flaw in the logic.

qesehmk

08-20-2014, 07:27 PM

De facto, dependents must be adjusting under EB, since they most certainly are not FB or DV.
Spec - all agreed except this sentence. I think dependents can be counted towards FB because in FB there is a place for dependents of GC holders.

The problem with that always has been that it typically tends to be quite out of sync with corresponding EB category of the primary.

Spectator

08-20-2014, 07:58 PM

Spec - all agreed except this sentence. I think dependents can be counted towards FB because in FB there is a place for dependents of GC holders.

The problem with that always has been that it typically tends to be quite out of sync with corresponding EB category of the primary.Q,

See this post as to why considering EB dependents against FB would be a VERY bad idea. even if it were possible.

INA 203(d) only allows dependents to claim the same status as the primary (which would be the EB Category and PD), so charging to FB upon the primary's approval would not be possible.

An I-485 approval under FB requires an approved I-130, which can only be submitted once the primary is approved.

The PD for charging to FB is the date the I-130 is received by USCIS. The PD from an EB category cannot be transferred to a FB category. With no increase in the FB allocation, FB2 would quickly become retrogressed by many years.

idiotic

08-20-2014, 08:30 PM

One of the more popular requests among business and family groups is a change in the way green cards are counted that would essentially free up some 800,000 additional visas the first year, advocates say.

The result would be threefold: It would lessen the visa bottleneck for business seeking global talent; shorten the green card line for those being sponsored by relatives, a wait that can stretch nearly 25 years; and potentially reduce the incentive for illegal immigration by creating more legal avenues for those wanting to come, as well as those already here.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-weighs-broader-move-legal-immigration-25058996

Spectator

08-20-2014, 08:35 PM

Spec:
excellent as always but let me disagree with you:

I don't think anywhere in paragraph (245)b anything was explicitly mention to do that for either principals or dependents so this leave the paragraph open for reinterpretation and hence open it for EO.

i think that debate we have over this prove that there could be multiple interpretation of this law.

also Bruce M. who worked on the current bill says this is possible via EO?

"
The decision to count dependents against the caps "is an administrative interpretation" of the law, "and anything that's an administrative interpretation can be changed," said former U.S. Rep. Bruce Morrison (D-Conn.), who chaired the House Immigration subcommittee responsible for drafting the 1990 immigration reform legislation that created the present system.
"
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9249614/Obama_has_big_options_for_green_card_H_1B_reform_w ithout_Congress_

always appreciate your commentsmigo,

INA 245(b) doesn't need to explicitly mention primary applicants or dependents. It mentions a person whose adjustment application is approved. That covers both primary and dependent applicants automatically, since they all have individual applications.

There are only 4 cases where adjustment is allowed.

1) Not numerically limited as specified in INA 201(b).

2) Family Based Preference Category (Numerically limited) INA 203(a)

3) Employment Based Preference Category (Numerically limited) INA 203(b)

4) Diversity Lottery (Numerically limited) INA 203(c)

Which of those four is the EB dependent adjusting under? It has to be one of them. Hint - It cannot be under INA 201(b).

Each applicant (whether primary or dependent) has their own individual adjustment application.

For groups (2) to (4) each adjustment of status approved reduces the relevant number of preference visas available by one (generally that would be FB = 226k, EB = 140k, DV = 50k). 1 EB primary plus 2 dependents equals 3 adjustments equals a reduction of 3 preference visas.

If an EB dependent gains PR at the same time as the primary, it can only be due to the provisions of INA 203(d) giving them the same status as the primary (i.e. same EB Category and PD).

There is no basis to adjust under FB (since they have no approved I-130 petition or PD under FB) or DV (made no application and high use Countries aren't eligible). EB dependents are not included in INA 201(b). That only leaves EB as the basis for adjustment.

Bruce Morrison should therefore also know that, in Conference (to reconcile House and Senate versions), a proposal for 75k EB visas (excluding dependents) was rejected in favour a 140k allocation which included dependents. This is discussed in the Endelman & Mehta article. Mr. Morrison seems to suffering from selective amnesia. That's probably more to do with who his paymasters are now.

I think you would have to somehow remove the need for dependents to file their own application and explicitly make it one "family" application to get around this problem. That isn't going to happen via EO.

I think that should be my last on the subject.

migo79

08-20-2014, 08:40 PM

Spectator

08-20-2014, 08:43 PM

i'm not a lawyer
but i have friends who are lawyers and they said that they make their living by reinterpreting the law and provide the case to the court, unless there are previous ruling by a superior court of the matter.

i still see the argument here is an individual interpretation of the law the all what is being said is an individual interpretation in lieu of what is vague in the law, the current interpretation is the one being used for years, and hence any other discussion seems odd,

I still believe that counting the dependents with pricincipal as one is possible i'm not sure is that because i'm naive or that's something we really hope for to happen :)Then, IMHO, you need one "family unit" application rather than the individual applications we have at present OR EB dependents need to be added to INA 201(b).

Either way, that would be a fundamental change to the INA, outside the scope of an EO.

The thing with the INA (and law in general) is that many laws intertwine with each other and you have to look at the totality of that. Altering one paragraph can make it at odds with what other parts say.