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

[Pedro Gonzales]

It looks like immigration reform (comprehensive or otherwise) will become a big item of debate in the coming days. I think it's time we start looking out for information on two issues. a) Is elimination of country quota on the agenda, b) What is the likely timing?

I haven't heard anything on 'a', but given overwhelming House support the last time around I expect that it will be a part of the agenda (along with some kind of a STEM quota), and on 'b', I'm not going to add any sources yet, but I've read/heard/seen from multiple reports its something that will get in front of Congress as early as March for a potential August signing by the President. The key hurdle seems to have been overcome with important members of the GOP now reconciled to a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

[pakkpk]

Senator Rubio and Senator Hatch are going to propose a bill for high skilled immigrants to remove per country limits, visa recapture, not counting dependents in visa etc. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) will introduce Start-up Act. Some other will introduce STEM. All will happen before the CIR is introduced. (Before March 2013) But I am very doubtful how far all these bills will go. With both parties are talking about CIR, it is very unlikely to get the piecemeal bill passed. Ideally, Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Grassley introduce the bill to remove per country limits with H1B labor audits (H.R.3012 compromised version). But Senator Schumer will not work on any bill without CIR. CIR has very bleak chance to pass the house.

[abcx13]

Senator Rubio and Senator Hatch are going to propose a bill for high skilled immigrants to remove per country limits, visa recapture, not counting dependents in visa etc. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) will introduce Start-up Act. Some other will introduce STEM. All will happen before the CIR is introduced. (Before March 2013) But I am very doubtful how far all these bills will go. With both parties are talking about CIR, it is very unlikely to get the piecemeal bill passed. Ideally, Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Grassley introduce the bill to remove per country limits with H1B labor audits (H.R.3012 compromised version). But Senator Schumer will not work on any bill without CIR. CIR has very bleak chance to pass the house.
Not sure whether this is fact or opinion. I don't know why anyone would introduce piecemeal legislation now when it's clear the President isn't going to sign it. And I would think the Republicans in the House have realized after this election that they can't keep alienating the Hispanics with their stupid immigration agenda...

[Jonty Rhodes]

Not sure whether this is fact or opinion. I don't know why anyone would introduce piecemeal legislation now when it's clear the President isn't going to sign it. And I would think the Republicans in the House have realized after this election that they can't keep alienating the Hispanics with their stupid immigration agenda...

I agree. Democrats won't go for piecemeal legislation on Immigration. The only option is CIR. I hope that Republicans stop introducing smaller immigration bills when it has been made amply clear that CIR is the only way to take Democrats on board as well. I have been keeping an eye on this and it seems that if everything goes smooth, than the CIR will pass in Early Fall this year.

[Still_Waiting]

I'm another long time reader of this blog and really appreciate all the contributions from everyone here.
Came across this interesting article about CIR on Bloomberg yesterday.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-21/the-hard-line-on-immigration-hidden-in-obamas-inaugural-speech

If anything, we're the pawns (Obama's bargaining chip) in the upcoming debate about immigration!

[just_curious]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d113:FLD010:+@eq+20130122

Item : 34

[girish989]

:( ... no usual suspects from republican party ...



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d113:FLD010:+@eq+20130122

Item : 34

[rupen86]

Good to see this post being started..I was thinking of starting one myself.
From Oh Law firm today,

http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/leahy-to-obama-write-immigration-bill-20130121

[seahawks2012]

My 2c:

I hope at least some of the provisions include:
1) H1-B Visa Stamping within United States
2) Allow counting EB wait time towards US Citizenship (instead of waiting another 5 years after waiting forever in the EB queue)

[gs1968]

Saw this on The Hill this evening.Again a lot of noise and may be difficult to get through the House even if it passes the Senate by a miracle

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/279227-bipartisan-group-of-senators-to-introduce-high-skilled-immigration-bill

[Jonty Rhodes]

Saw this on The Hill this evening.Again a lot of noise and may be difficult to get through the House even if it passes the Senate by a miracle

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/279227-bipartisan-group-of-senators-to-introduce-high-skilled-immigration-bill

This is just an exercise in futility. I agree that even if it passes the Senate by miracle, it will die in House. Further, I don't see any point in raising the number of H1B visas only if Congress is not going to raise the number of Green Cards given each yer in EB system.

[gcq]

Looks like this latest bill from Marco Rubio is the one that will be part of CIR 2013. CIR is gaining steam after the elections.

[rupen86]

Saw this on The Hill this evening.Again a lot of noise and may be difficult to get through the House even if it passes the Senate by a miracle

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/279227-bipartisan-group-of-senators-to-introduce-high-skilled-immigration-bill

It addresses some points what people on this forum care about like eliminating per country caps, not counting dependents and STEM. I do not see recapturing as the point here. Though, it could be there in the bill text. Increasing number of h1s without increasing number of green cards is going to worsen the existing backlog situation. I do not feel this bill has chance of passing since white house and democrats want CIR and not piecemeal approach but provisions here can be added to CIR S1 introduced in the senate. Regardless, it is nice to see that there are some people out there who care about EB immigration and not just undocumented people.

[bvsamrat]

One thing does not make sense! on one hand tech industry saying that it is finding difficult to fill positions. On the other hand they want more H1B visas.

If the cap is getting filled up before time- it is makes sense for policy makers suggestions to increase the cap numbers.



It addresses some points what people on this forum care about like eliminating per country caps, not counting dependents and STEM. I do not see recapturing as the point here. Though, it could be there in the bill text. Increasing number of h1s without increasing number of green cards is going to worsen the existing backlog situation. I do not feel this bill has chance of passing since white house and democrats want CIR and not piecemeal approach but provisions here can be added to CIR S1 introduced in the senate. Regardless, it is nice to see that there are some people out there who care about EB immigration and not just undocumented people.

[bvsamrat]

For us it is rather warm today 10 deg F compared to deep freeze of -10deg F yesterday and day before.
Strict control on H1B would reduce the demand and then stabilise the quota numbers.
Also H1B main purpose is to meet skill shortage and not direct source to GC as it has dual intent - IMHO

/Sorry for my morning rant. Just having a bad day due to terrible cold out.[/QUOTE]

[rupen86]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-nearing-agreement-on-broad-immigration-reform-proposal/2013/01/25/950fb78a-6642-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html

Seems there is a broad agreement and details could come by end of next week. Main contrasting points I see are
1) Comprehensive (WH and Democrats) vs piecemeal (Republicans)
2) illegals to get in existing line (Republicans) vs New Line (Democrats)

[qesehmk]

bvsamrat - I was in midtown NY today and the water fountain in bryant park is frozen !! One of my friends quipped - it looked like Amarnathji in Himalaya!
For us it is rather warm today 10 deg F compared to deep freeze of -10deg F yesterday and day before.
Strict control on H1B would reduce the demand and then stabilise the quota numbers.
Also H1B main purpose is to meet skill shortage and not direct source to GC as it has dual intent - IMHO

/Sorry for my morning rant. Just having a bad day due to terrible cold out.[/QUOTE]

[bvsamrat]

Please also see the other side of the picture. H1B is also applicable to Non IT people, who are really getting affected by all of this.
I know quite a few from Europe and other countries who would like to work for while in USA on H1B for getting good exposure and spreading their experience (not for GC) - like an Indian working in Dubai only for a time but not to settle).But local companies are scared of the waiting rules
as they are caught up in this supply/demand/caps and not able to start till october etc.
----------------




Agree to your point in theory, but we are talking in practical terms.

[seahawks2012]

Saw this on The Hill this evening.Again a lot of noise and may be difficult to get through the House even if it passes the Senate by a miracle

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/279227-bipartisan-group-of-senators-to-introduce-high-skilled-immigration-bill

Shouldn't it be renamed to "...non-immigration bill.."? All the article is talking about is H1-Bs. Basically, creating more alien legal workforce who are only allowed in with extremely limited path to citizenship.

If they really want to introduce something related to H1-B, then they should ideally introduce a new "consultant companies' temporary visa category" that would stop the abuse of H1-B visas.

[bvsamrat]

We are arguing about the same but through different route. What is required is strict H1B controls and hence stop abuse. No doubt, this would be the part of CIR. Frankly bench is not concept in H1B. If one does not work, he is out of status. No grace time. Period. H1B is for a skilled labor to work here and not sit on benches.


I don't deny this, but this is the tail of the distribution. The bulk of the distribution of the H1B is a feeder for the GC queue tomorrow whether we like it or not. The primary issue is more in-line availability of the GC.

Also, the primary problem with the H1B is its blatant misuse. I still know many people from direct acquaintances where getting benched and working in locations such as LA/NYC while getting the labor from the midwest is very common. In fact during my recent job search, I was flabbergasted to find the kind of jobs that were shipped to vendors and sub-vendors (seriously, what is a "sub-vendor"!). The mushrooming vendors create an extracting and nonproductive tier who use their size and resources to easily circumvent the H1B regulations. And I won't lie - *ALL* of them are desis. No exception.

This bill is simply adding fuel to the fire instead of putting it off with water. Stop the H1B misuse, so small local companies can easily use it when needed, which was the original intention. I was really hoping that a bill like HR 3012 would stop us making the slaves of these vendors and consultants and bring the abuse directly on everyone's radar. When the Koreans and the Europeans start feeling the pain from these abusive vendors, I am sure they will be stopped. I continue to maintain that we need GCs. As many as we can get. With a GC, you can negotiate your own terms, and if more of us have GCs, that changes the whole labor market.

[rupen86]

seems, there is action in the house as well.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/279445-boehner-confidence-bipartisan-immigration-bill-will-be-approved-this-congress

[rupen86]

deal to be announced today. It is just going to be outline and not detailed. Did not see much on legal immigration except so called STEM visas.

http://world.time.com/2013/01/28/senators-reach-deal-on-immigration-changes/

[pakkpk]

Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform by Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin, Graham, Menendez, Rubio, Bennet, and Flake
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/562548/bipartisan-framework-for-immigration-reform.pdf
I like following framework:
Individuals who are present without lawful status - not including people within the two categories identified below - will only receive a green card after every individual who is already waiting in line for a green card, at the time this legislation is enacted, has received their green card. Our purpose is to ensure that no one who has violated America’s immigration laws will receive preferential treatment as they relate to those individuals who have complied with the law.

II. Improving our Legal Immigration System and Attracting the World’s Best and Brightest (All three subsections will cover EB community interests)

[qbloguser]

Immigration reform discussions are going to start in D.C. Any idea when will we see its effect (if any?) on visa bulletin? If sources of my conspiracy theory are correct :-), in 2007 dates became current because there was bill in congress for solving immigration issue.

[rupen86]

Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform by Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin, Graham, Menendez, Rubio, Bennet, and Flake
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/562548/bipartisan-framework-for-immigration-reform.pdf
I like following framework:
Individuals who are present without lawful status - not including people within the two categories identified below - will only receive a green card after every individual who is already waiting in line for a green card, at the time this legislation is enacted, has received their green card. Our purpose is to ensure that no one who has violated America’s immigration laws will receive preferential treatment as they relate to those individuals who have complied with the law.

II. Improving our Legal Immigration System and Attracting the World’s Best and Brightest (All three subsections will cover EB community interests)


Good find. The outline seems to be on the expected line though much work is left for future negotiations. They will have to do serious work in reforming current immigration system especially EB immigration where backlog stretches already to a decade. If they are going to add millions in existing line, without extraordinary reforms in the current system, people can not get green card in their lifetime.

[rupen86]

seems, house will also unveil its proposal this or next week.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/28/us-usa-immigration-congress-idUSBRE90Q0EV20130128

[pakkpk]

Sen. Schumer provides timeline (Spring or Summer) on the CIR. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/28/senators-hold-news-conference-on-immigration-video/

[abcx13]

Good find. The outline seems to be on the expected line though much work is left for future negotiations. They will have to do serious work in reforming current immigration system especially EB immigration where backlog stretches already to a decade. If they are going to add millions in existing line, without extraordinary reforms in the current system, people can not get green card in their lifetime.

I read somewhere that they were pretty explicit that all illegals will be behind the legals in line.

[rupen86]

I read somewhere that they were pretty explicit that all illegals will be behind the legals in line.

yes, it was specified. By that token, we can hope that they are planning to reform EB immigration in real way apart from talking point of STEM.

[rupen86]

good article on STEM green cards.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/01/immigration-deal-could-turn-into-bonanza-for-universities.html

[pakkpk]

A good article on NPR about the challanges for CIR. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/29/170504454/immigration-opponents-remain-adamant-despite-political-risk

[rupen86]

A good article on NPR about the challanges for CIR. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/29/170504454/immigration-opponents-remain-adamant-despite-political-risk

Rather than conservative Republicans, I think liberal democrats and Obama might put the deal in jeopardy. People will be closely watching on Obama's speech today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-announce-his-immigration-reform-plan-said-to-lean-left-of-senate-effort/2013/01/28/8bda04ce-6974-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story.html

[bvsamrat]

If we add 11 m in the GC Q, does this mean any fresh Legal GC applicants will be behind the just applied Illegals. IMHO-Unless they increase the annual quota, nothing may improve. On the otherhand by increasing annual quota all problems may disappear for legal GC applicants


yes, it was specified. By that token, we can hope that they are planning to reform EB immigration in real way apart from talking point of STEM.

[skpanda]

The pessimist in me does not have any hopes on CIR. Also as we have see last year piecemeal legislations (like HR3012) for EB category is out of question.

I will just wait 2/3 year for my turn to get green card and get out of this mess. If it is beyond that time frame it would be a good idea to ignore green card and just focus on ones career (in US or wherever).

Note: Personally I am against a CIR that gives 'amnesty' to 11 million illegal immigrations. This will only encourage more illegal immigration. It is human pshycology. I agree with an article (and Mitt Romney in primaries) that said, by making it difficult for illegal immigrants to get job here will help and they will self deport. You can call me a heartless person without sympathy. I do not want to get into the arguments of why i am like this. This is my personal opinion.




Rather than conservative Republicans, I think liberal democrats and Obama might put the deal in jeopardy. People will be closely watching on Obama's speech today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-announce-his-immigration-reform-plan-said-to-lean-left-of-senate-effort/2013/01/28/8bda04ce-6974-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story.html

[skpanda]

If we add 11 m in the GC Q, does this mean any fresh Legal GC applicants will be behind the just applied Illegals. IMHO-Unless they increase the annual quota, nothing may improve. On the otherhand by increasing annual quota all problems may disappear for legal GC applicants

Although I am against CIR that gives amnesty to these 11 m illegal immigrants, if it were to pass, it would be best to have 2 separate Qs. One for existing and future Legal Immigrants. Other for Illegal Immigrants (existing 11m). This 2nd Q will start getting Green cards only after the existing Q in the 1st. After that point both Q's go their own ways.

[rupen86]

Although I am against CIR that gives amnesty to these 11 m illegal immigrants, if it were to pass, it would be best to have 2 separate Qs. One for existing and future Legal Immigrants. Other for Illegal Immigrants (existing 11m). This 2nd Q will start getting Green cards only after the existing Q in the 1st. After that point both Q's go their own ways.


illegal agenda has more political power. If both queues are separate, changes will be made in such a way that illegal queue will move faster and legal immigration problems will remain as they are currently. By making illegals part of the existing queue, there would be focus on clearing existing people from the queue. This is about politics and no one cares what is right thing to do. But in whatever is happening, we should look out for our interests.

[qbloguser]

I mean it is all politics. Period. This whole discussion is happening because one group got more votes and another one didn't get any from this group in last election.

I am a legal immigrant here.

Legal immigrants started what 10 million different petitions? Did you see any result? No? What about HR3012? Another legal group fought hard against it. At least they (illegals) are united for this and speaking in one language and not trying to undermine each other. We legals should learn something from them, at least.

Ok, so if this is happening because of illegal immigrants (remember they are also immigrants), I would personally send 10 thank you card to them because I got my green card because of the efforts by them.

P.S.: Legals will get GCs because if govt does not do that it will be a kind of "moral-hazard".




Although I am against CIR that gives amnesty to these 11 m illegal immigrants, if it were to pass, it would be best to have 2 separate Qs. One for existing and future Legal Immigrants. Other for Illegal Immigrants (existing 11m). This 2nd Q will start getting Green cards only after the existing Q in the 1st. After that point both Q's go their own ways.

[sreddy]

Not sure it this is going to have anything for us, but i feel worh watching to see what he as to say.

WHAT: President Obama on Immigration (You can watch the remarks live, starting at 2:55 PM EST.)

WHEN: January 29, 2:55 PM EST

WHERE: WhiteHouse.gov/Live

[mailmvr]

Any idea/comments from Gurus if CIR is implemented, how is it going to impact EB2 movement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/politics/science-workers-focus-of-second-bipartisan-immigration-plan.html?hpw&_r=1&

[qesehmk]

In reality illegal Q will be part of family Q --- only with a backseat preference.

EB based Q never had any illegals anyway... If they do - it is immediately called out as fraud and removed from Q.


illegal agenda has more political power. If both queues are separate, changes will be made in such a way that illegal queue will move faster and legal immigration problems will remain as they are currently. By making illegals part of the existing queue, there would be focus on clearing existing people from the queue. This is about politics and no one cares what is right thing to do. But in whatever is happening, we should look out for our interests.

[bvsamrat]

Let us wait for the blue print and see. In any case combining 11m with legals applicants would only be eye wash without increasing quota. But who knows, an alternmate definion of GC may happen, where who ever eligible will become GC holder. No quota limit at all? But a job/tax status for a minimum duration(2-3 years)


illegal agenda has more political power. If both queues are separate, changes will be made in such a way that illegal queue will move faster and legal immigration problems will remain as they are currently. By making illegals part of the existing queue, there would be focus on clearing existing people from the queue. This is about politics and no one cares what is right thing to do. But in whatever is happening, we should look out for our interests.

[rupen86]

In reality illegal Q will be part of family Q --- only with a backseat preference.

EB based Q never had any illegals anyway... If they do - it is immediately called out as fraud and removed from Q.

They can become part of family Q if they have any family to sponsor. If they are working and not having family here to sponsor, they would have to be added to EB Q

[rupen86]

From Oh Law firm

Mccain says so called "hi-tech" bill can be included in CIR

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/279735-mccain-open-to-wrapping-high-skilled-immigration-bill-into-comprehensive-plan

[rupen86]

Obama's proposal on CIR. His version is somewhat more liberal that it is not contingent on border security, but his plan also includes illegals to go at the back of the line and no separate line except for 'DREAMERS'.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-unveils-his-own-proposal-for-immigration-reform/2013/01/29/b27dcb78-6a47-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html

Obama's plan has drawn criticism from Rubio. Rubio won't support the bill if border security is removed from the bill and if he does not support the bill, that might be the end of it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/obama-presses-immigration-agenda-as-senators-draft-new-overhaul/

[pakkpk]

I am not sure but in 2000-2001 period, illegals were allowed to file in EB3 (Those who were working in small businesses like stores etc.) That was the reason of the backlog in labor certification. In those days LC was paper based and at state level.


In reality illegal Q will be part of family Q --- only with a backseat preference.

EB based Q never had any illegals anyway... If they do - it is immediately called out as fraud and removed from Q.

[rupen86]

The Rubio/Hatch bill is introduced. This bill actually does not seem as bad as we were discussing. It seems to have many good things.


From oh law firm,

01/29/2013: Summary of Senate Bi-Partisan Bill of "Immigration Innovation Act of 2013" with Nick Name of "I-Squared Act of 2013"

The bill which is introduced in the Senate today will be made available soon but here is the sponsor's summary of the bill:
Employment-Based Nonimmigrant H-1B Visas
Increase H-1B cap from 65,000 to 115,000
Establish a market-based H-1B escalator, so that the cap can adjust ¡V up or down ¡V to the demands of the economy (includes a 300,000 ceiling on the ability of the escalator to move)
o If the cap is hit in the first 45 days when petitions may be filed, an additional 20,000 H-1B visas will be made available immediately.
o If the cap is hit in the first 60 days when petitions may be filed, an additional 15,000 H-1B visas will be made available immediately.
o If the cap is hit in the first 90 days when petitions may be filed, an additional 10,000 H-1B visas will be made available immediately.
o If the cap is hit during the 185-day period ending on the 275th day on which petitions may be filed, and additional 5,000 H-1B will be made available immediately.
Uncap the existing U.S. advanced degree exemption (currently limited to 20,000 per year)
Authorize employment for dependent spouses of H-1B visa holder
Increase portability of high skilled foreign workers by:
o Removing impediments and costs of changing employers;
o Establishing a clear transition period for foreign workers as they change jobs; and,
o Restoring visa revalidation for E, H, L, O, and P nonimmigrant visa categories
Student Visas
Allow dual intent for foreign students at U.S. colleges and universities to provide the certainty they need to ensure their future in the United States
Immigrant Visas and Green Cards
Enable the recapture of green card numbers that were approved by Congress in previous years but were not used
Exempt certain categories of persons from the employment-based green card cap:
o Dependents of employment-based immigrant visa recipients
o U.S. STEM advance degree holders
o Persons with extraordinary ability
o Outstanding professors and researchers
Provide for the roll-over of unused employment-based immigrant visa numbers to the following fiscal year so future visas are not lost due to bureaucratic delays
Eliminate annual per-country limits for employment based visa petitioners
U.S. STEM Education & Worker Retraining Initiative
Reform fees on H-1B visas and employment-based green cards; use money from these fees to fund a grant program to promote STEM education and worker retraining to be administered by the states
Please stay tuned for the full text of the bill.

[seahawks2012]

Summary of Immigration Innovation (I-Squared) Act of 2013:

http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_22473314/high-tech-immigrant-reform-bill-would-bring-more?source=pkg

[seahawks2012]

More on Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/usa-immigration-senate-idUSL1N0AY7NZ20130129

[mailmvr]

Red the below section which will impact EB2/EB3 visas
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/transcript-president-obamas-immigration-reform-outline/story?id=18347611&singlePage=true


-Cut Red Tape for Employers.

The proposal also eliminates the backlog for employment-sponsored immigration by eliminating annual country caps and adding additional visas to the system. Outdated legal immigration programs are reformed to meet current and future demands by exempting certain categories from annual visa limitations.

[rupen86]

Will Obama kill or save immigration reform ?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/will-obama-save-immigration-reform-or-kill-it.html

[Caramail]

Since they are sincerely considering CIR, will that have an immediate impact on the upcoming visa bulletins? Meaniing will they try to clear as much backlog as possible like for EB3 ROW before September?

[Spectator]

Since they are sincerely considering CIR, will that have an immediate impact on the upcoming visa bulletins? Meaniing will they try to clear as much backlog as possible like for EB3 ROW before September?No, because the discussions do not alter the number of visas currently available.

Only when something is passed and if it includes extra visas and if it became effective immediately would there be any effect.

[rupen86]

Durbin expressing concerns about H1b component. It is very hypocritical that person who supports making 11m people legal is concerned about few thousand h1bs.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9236287/Sen._Durbin_plans_to_press_for_H_1B_restrictions?t axonomyId=70

[Spectator]

I haven't seen anyone highlight the fact that the proposed i-squared Act also alters the % of EB visas given to EB1-EB3.

Under the proposal, the current 28.6%, 28.6%, 28.6% would change to :

EB1 - 12.0%
EB2 - 36.9%
EB3 - 36.9%

If we just take the effect of Dependents being excluded from Numerical Limits, that has the following effect.

EB1

16,800 visas. However, EB1A & EB1B are no longer counted within Numerical Limits. Using the historical ratio for dependents, that is the equivalent of 39,800 visas for EB1C.

EB2

51,660 visas. Using the historical ratio for dependents, that is the equivalent of 103,300 visas for EB2.

EB3

51,660 visas. Using the historical ratio for dependents, that is the equivalent of 118,800 visas for EB3.

Effectively, it raises the number of visas available to EB1-EB3 from 120,000 to 262,000 and increases the numbers available to EB2 & EB3 by between 2.5-3 times.

[pakkpk]

Politico reports - I-squared sponsors ready to wrap the bill in CIR.
I-SQUARED TO GET WRAPPED IN, SPONSORS SAY http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0113/morningtech9931.html — While neither the Gang of Eight’s proposal nor the White House’s desires are in legislative form yet, co-sponsors of the I-Squared Act say they expect the measure to get folded in when the time comes. “My view is that we can only make progress on immigration through a comprehensive approach that addresses the whole range of issues from path to citizenship, to family reunification, to agricultural workers, to due process concerns, to skill gap and high-skilled immigration concerns,” Sen. Chris Coons says. And the proposal “is not in competition with any effort,” Sen. Marco Rubio says.

[pakkpk]

Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, gave the following statement regarding the immigration proposal put forth by Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin and Michael Bennet.

“We’ve seen efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform come and go with little success. And, while efforts in the past have not been successful, most of us can agree that a long-term solution is needed. Another Congress shouldn’t be faced with this problem again. So, there’s a lot to be said for these members working together and moving the issue forward. And, while I especially appreciate the group’s focus on legal avenues of immigration, there are a lot of questions to be answered on even the most mundane of topics. The proposal also lacks specificity on a number of big, difficult issues such as preventing illegal hiring through E-Verify and reducing chain migration so there’s more focus on merit.

“In order for legislation of this magnitude to get the buy-in and support from the American people and their Senators, regular order must be restored in the Senate. Chairman Leahy and I have spoken, and the Judiciary Committee is ready for hearings to consider legislation and move the process along.”

[Caramail]

No, because the discussions do not alter the number of visas currently available.

Only when something is passed and if it includes extra visas and if it became effective immediately would there be any effect.
Thanks Spectatator. However, a huge bill like CIR could be potentially effective immediately? Wouldn t they give an adjustement period to USCIS like 6 months to implement?

[Spectator]

Thanks Spectator. However, a huge bill like CIR could be potentially effective immediately? Wouldn t they give an adjustement period to USCIS like 6 months to implement?Personally, I don't think all provisions would come into effect immediately - probably from the next FY if enacted late in the year (although if it passed in August, that is going to be pretty much immediately).

The only measure likely to have immediate effect would be setting the date for existing applications which the undocumented would have to wait to be cleared before they could become a full PR.

Currently, there are at least 5 million legal people waiting in the queue (of which around 90% are FB). Unless FB4 (which accounts for over 50% of the backlog) gets scrapped, I don't see how it will be cleared very quickly.

I also can't see how either DOS or USCIS can possibly handle the workload in the short term, so I suspect the average processing time to get a CP interview or to process an AOS case to completion is going to increase fairly dramatically. No proposal to date has suggested allocating any extra resources to DOS/USCIS.

[seahawks2012]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/29/fact-sheet-fixing-our-broken-immigration-system-so-everyone-plays-rules?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

[kuku82]

C-Span is running Schumer and McCain interview from today morning....

[kuku82]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/mccain-schumer-happy-to-work-together-on-immigration-86922.html?hp=f3

[seahawks2012]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/mccain-schumer-happy-to-work-together-on-immigration-86922.html?hp=f3

Interesting points:

"The men said they wanted the legislation to go through regular committee order."

“The hope is late spring, early summer,” for the bill to go to the floor, Schumer said."

[gs1968]

I came across this interesting counterpoint on my twitter feed-just some food for thought. Might explain the reluctance of whole-hearted GOP support so far.
Maybe as the process moves along these extreme viewpoints might change-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/29/immigration-reform-republicans-latino-voters

PS-The comments section is interesting also

[rupen86]

I came across this interesting counterpoint on my twitter feed-just some food for thought. Might explain the reluctance of whole-hearted GOP support so far.
Maybe as the process moves along these extreme viewpoints might change-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/29/immigration-reform-republicans-latino-voters

PS-The comments section is interesting also

I do not agree with the analysis that immigration issue did not alienate Hispanic voters. There is tons of other analysis which say that that was the reason and I believe GOP has already done the analysis and come to this conclusion.

[gcq]

I came across this interesting counterpoint on my twitter feed-just some food for thought. Might explain the reluctance of whole-hearted GOP support so far.
Maybe as the process moves along these extreme viewpoints might change-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/29/immigration-reform-republicans-latino-voters

PS-The comments section is interesting also
This article is flawed. This just another proof that GOP is not ready to embrace the reality yet.
GOP has always been an anti-immigrant party except for a few lawmakers.

1. ¡es la economía, estúpido!
What would you expect of a "Fox"-latino poll !

2. Latinos are liberal
Fact is GOP is too "conservative" and right wing fanatics that they consider Fox news as the nuetral channel.
It is not latinos that need to change their mentaility, it is the GOP.

3. Even "Latino-friendly" GOP politicians never did that well
This doesn't mention who that latino-friendly politician is if at all there is one.

4. Demographics don't swing elections
GOP decides to turn their face away from reality.


5. Most Latino voters don't live in swing states
Florida is a swing state and a deciding one. Author doesn't want to acknowledge that.

[gs1968]

To gcq & rupen

I agree with both of you in terms of flaws in the article. The question this article raises is what the tangible benefit is going to be for the GOP if this passes. The credit will be shared by both parties and if the President steps in at the right moment this would be clearly become a Democratic success. Of the various senators involved in this-only Schumer & Graham are on the Judiciary Committee. The conservative opposition is already starting in the Senate as the following article suggests

http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2013/01/vitter_rubio_amazingly_nave.html

[rupen86]

To gcq & rupen

I agree with both of you in terms of flaws in the article. The question this article raises is what the tangible benefit is going to be for the GOP if this passes. The credit will be shared by both parties and if the President steps in at the right moment this would be clearly become a Democratic success. Of the various senators involved in this-only Schumer & Graham are on the Judiciary Committee. The conservative opposition is already starting in the Senate as the following article suggests

http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2013/01/vitter_rubio_amazingly_nave.html

There is going to be opposition which is expected and no one expects smoother ride for it. It only needs 60 votes in senate to pass filibuster and I think it is going to get that. Schumer has predicted as high as 80 votes for it. In the house, it will have tougher situation but I think there also it is going to end up having similar situation as fiscal cliff deal where majority of democrats supported it and few republicans joined. Senators like Vitter are going to oppose anything and everything. He was the one who had problems with HR 3012 also. There are also senators like Durbin who do not have problems adding 11m illegal but have problems with adding few thousand h1bs.

Even though President and Democrats end up receiving the credit, the problem would be solved for once and all and Hispanics would look for other issues during voting rather than immigration. Then republicans would be back in the game and can hope to reduce democrats' lead.

[qesehmk]

I agree with the top para ... but the second para is difficult to agree with. Here is why - (and this goes beyond immigration so perhaps lets not beat this to death) - any president in his second term hardly has 8-9 months MAX during which he can pursue his own agenda. So Obama MUST clear this before September. After that he can't even control his own party because of the mid term election and after mid term he is quite a sitting duck. So Obama in his 6-8 months he has - has chosen to use immigration as his agenda (Legacy if you will !!). And why is this important to him? It's because he expects this to be a lasting legacy with hispanics who he certainly don't want to flock to republican side like they did for GW Bush. That's why this is critical to him and his party.

It just beats me - how he has been able to divide the republican side - and quite a few republicans are following him on his agenda. I actually agree with the article above that talked about how latino vote is less consequential than it is made out.

I do believe that if this gets passed (and of course the chances look 80%+) that Obama will have built solid foundation within Latino base which will last democrats for a couple of decades.

I also do not believe that this solves the immigration problem once and for all. The world is getting more and more chaotic and America is the first choice for immigration and will remain so for a loooooong time - legal and illegal. So what Vitter and others say is actually true... but hey I am not on Vitter's side ... and I believe diversity is good for America and a diverse America is good for the world.

Now coming back to what republicans would get out of this... the answer is zero. Had they opposed this - they would be punished again. But if they support - this would still be seen as democratic victory. So perhaps that's their logic.... to blunt the latino wrath by being supporting of this. But republicans are going to have different winning strategy such as - allow rich to pay more taxes - oppose stupid wars - support obamacare in some form - stop beating on gay lesbians and women. That's the ONLY way they are going to win. They have divided america into too many slices already and have cornered themselves as the party of white middle aged disgruntled men. If Paul Ryan is their 2016 nominee then god bless their ambitions to catpture white house. I will bet my money on Hillary.


There is going to be opposition which is expected and no one expects smoother ride for it. It only needs 60 votes in senate to pass filibuster and I think it is going to get that. Schumer has predicted as high as 80 votes for it. In the house, it will have tougher situation but I think there also it is going to end up having similar situation as fiscal cliff deal where majority of democrats supported it and few republicans joined. Senators like Vitter are going to oppose anything and everything. He was the one who had problems with HR 3012 also. There are also senators like Durbin who do not have problems adding 11m illegal but have problems with adding few thousand h1bs.

Even though President and Democrats end up receiving the credit, the problem would be solved for once and all and Hispanics would look for other issues during voting rather than immigration. Then republicans would be back in the game and can hope to reduce democrats' lead.

[ontheedge]

White House is participating in a Google Hangout on the immigration reform efforts -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration?sid=24774966

[rupen86]

I agree with the top para ... but the second para is difficult to agree with. Here is why - (and this goes beyond immigration so perhaps lets not beat this to death) - any president in his second term hardly has 8-9 months MAX during which he can pursue his own agenda. So Obama MUST clear this before September. After that he can't even control his own party because of the mid term election and after mid term he is quite a sitting duck. So Obama in his 6-8 months he has - has chosen to use immigration as his agenda (Legacy if you will !!). And why is this important to him? It's because he expects this to be a lasting legacy with hispanics who he certainly don't want to flock to republican side like they did for GW Bush. That's why this is critical to him and his party.

It just beats me - how he has been able to divide the republican side - and quite a few republicans are following him on his agenda. I actually agree with the article above that talked about how latino vote is less consequential than it is made out.

I do believe that if this gets passed (and of course the chances look 80%+) that Obama will have built solid foundation within Latino base which will last democrats for a couple of decades.

I also do not believe that this solves the immigration problem once and for all. The world is getting more and more chaotic and America is the first choice for immigration and will remain so for a loooooong time - legal and illegal. So what Vitter and others say is actually true... but hey I am not on Vitter's side ... and I believe diversity is good for America and a diverse America is good for the world.

Now coming back to what republicans would get out of this... the answer is zero. Had they opposed this - they would be punished again. But if they support - this would still be seen as democratic victory. So perhaps that's their logic.... to blunt the latino wrath by being supporting of this. But republicans are going to have different winning strategy such as - allow rich to pay more taxes - oppose stupid wars - support obamacare in some form - stop beating on gay lesbians and women. That's the ONLY way they are going to win. They have divided america into too many slices already and have cornered themselves as the party of white middle aged disgruntled men. If Paul Ryan is their 2016 nominee then god bless their ambitions to catpture white house. I will bet my money on Hillary.

Even though Republicans may not end up receiving support from Hispanics, the fact that they are talking about it and participating in the reform process suggests that they have taken calculated decision at high level that doing this might be one way of getting out of the pain caused by presidential election. They would not have come this far if they thought it is going to cost them more.

[idiotic]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/29/senate-judiciary-committee-to-hold-first-hearing-on-immigration-feb-13/

[idiotic]

House hearing on 2/5

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_02052013.html

Senate's hearing is scheduled on 2/13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/29/senate-judiciary-committee-to-hold-first-hearing-on-immigration-feb-13/

Fun starts now !!!

[mailmvr]

Why Silicon Valley needs immigration reform

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/30/3932056/obama-startup-visa-immigration-reform-congress

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-silicon-valley-needs-immigration-reform-2013-01-31

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2013/01/28/high-skill-workers-a-focal-point-of.html

[gcq]

Today saw an ad on CNN by anti-immigrant group FAIR targeting H1B in CIR.

[abcx13]

Today saw an ad on CNN by anti-immigrant group FAIR targeting H1B in CIR.

Yes, don't go after the other 11 million uneducated and underskilled illegals who will suck at the taxpayers' teat. :rolleyes:

It's disgraceful that we're the bargaining chip for 11 million illegals. We who obeyed the law, we who are usually highly qualified (yes, even the IT bodyshoppers - at least relative to the strawberry pickers), we who are net contributors to the economy, we... - we are the same as the illegals.

Good job, Mr. President and Democrats. If I ever do become a citizen of this fine country, I will surely reconsider my allegiance to the Democratic party.

[rupen86]

Today saw an ad on CNN by anti-immigrant group FAIR targeting H1B in CIR.

Dick Durbin and Chuck Grassley are surely going to put amendment on H1B but I hope provisions related to EB are not touched.

[bvsamrat]

Whether it is good or bad these 11m are a factor in economy, low paying jobs in shops/hotels/restaurants. I was surprised to see mexican cooks and waiters in many Indian restaurants. USA wage rates for these jobs for these are the lowest in developing countries. In Aus/NZ/UK these rates are almost double.





Yes, don't go after the other 11 million uneducated and underskilled illegals who will suck at the taxpayers' teat. :rolleyes:

It's disgraceful that we're the bargaining chip for 11 million illegals. We who obeyed the law, we who are usually highly qualified (yes, even the IT bodyshoppers - at least relative to the strawberry pickers), we who are net contributors to the economy, we... - we are the same as the illegals.

Good job, Mr. President and Democrats. If I ever do become a citizen of this fine country, I will surely reconsider my allegiance to the Democratic party.

[qesehmk]

I echo that samrat.

Another point is - who is to call them illegal? Arizona Texas California were all part of mexico and US took them all by force i.e. illegally from Mexico! How about the rest of the US (except Louisiana) which was taken from various different Indian Americans - again through wars - i.e. illegally. Same with Hawaii .... just one fine day US felt like having Hawaii and made it part of their territory.

The funny thing is - even white people show the decency and honesty to admit this and stand by all immigrants. Heck - if that was not true - Obama would never be the president. But it's a pity that some Indians coming from India remain coward and narrow minded when it comes to self-interest.


Whether it is good or bad these 11m are a factor in economy, low paying jobs in shops/hotels/restaurants. I was surprised to see mexican cooks and waiters in many Indian restaurants. USA wage rates for these jobs for these are the lowest in developing countries. In Aus/NZ/UK these rates are almost double.

[rupen86]

I agree with the broad picture.

abcx --> I don't deny parts of your argument; especially the one about "relative merit". However, the illegal immigration problem is a problem of the *Americans*. Until we get the citizenship, we are not stakeholders. Hence, we cannot pass judgment or criticism to our host country regarding the specific policy choices they make. If the relief to our plight is depending upon letting 11M+ people in the queue, so be it. We should do anything and everything in our power to push the CIR.

The CIR also stands to have a good outcome if it is a one time amnesty coupled with tighter border security and prevention of future illegal immigration. I do agree with the *moral hazard* argument, but I also think it is stretched to a point of being racist. The *moral hazard* argument is employed very typically by tea-partiers, who conveniently ignore the trillions of dollars bailouts to *mostly white* Wall Street. At least these 11M+ people took risks, live in constant danger of deportation and have lived in life long humiliation of *having no papers*. If we really think from their perspective, we would empathize better. Legalizing these people will make them stakeholders to preventing future illegal immigration and bring them in the mainstream US economy, reduce the remuneration they send to their parent countries and keep the money in the US, and improve their living conditions and push the wages at the lowest rung higher causing a *trickle up* effect. This is the exact same argument I had used for HR 3012. We Indians are in a way similar in our situation (not the actual intensity of plight, but in concept) to our illegal brothers and sisters. We don't have *options* and we are exploited in various H1B scams. If we had the same options as everyone else, our H1B transgressions would disappear and the vicious circle would be broken. That would be the way to fix it unless one happened to believe that Indians are inherently dishonest (similar to believing all illegal immigrants are inherently law breakers and are bad for the US). We all know in today's enlightened times, these arguments hold no water. Everything is a function of opportunities, and we have to open opportunities for 11M+ illegals and *ourselves* in the process.

Let's stop cribbing now. The CIR is a golden opportunity and it will happen only with Obama. No other president will ever care or push hard, so let's hope for the best.

If we do not deserve to discuss what is going on in politics, we have no business in opening this forum. On the same ground, Piers Morgan can not discuss gun-control whether it is good or bad. The reason that we discuss about this is that we are living here and what is going on affects us as well as this country. Freedom of speech gives this right. It does not give this right to only citizens.

You are right that our fate is linked with CIR, so crying about "illegal" or "undocumented" people does not help our cause. But it is just logical to think that way. That's what even politicians including President is suggesting when he says they will have to go at the back of the line so that people who played by the rules are not punished. When you see that politicians do not have problem with 11m "illegal" people but problem with few thousand h1bs, it raises logical questions.

[skpanda]

Could not agree more!!

My biggest problem is why is Legal Immigration held hostage for 11 million+ undocumented immigrants?

People talk about America being a land of immigrants - yes that is correct. before 1950 it was easier to move around to different countries (legal/illegal) and the host countries did not care much since that was not huge number. But after 1950s most countries put controls. if that did not happen then whole of India/China/Mexico/Easter europe would have flooded US/Propsoerous countries.

There is a legal immigration process. Everybody needs to follow that. period.

Even if US prefers to give Amnest to there 11m undocumented people on humanitarion grounds, that is ok. But why do I (who followed the rules) need to held hostage for those who did not follow the rules?

Even Bill Gates says the same thing.
http://earlystart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/31/myb-bill-gates-on-immigration-high-talent-immigration-has-kind-of-been-held-hostage/





If we do not deserve to discuss what is going on in politics, we have no business in opening this forum. On the same ground, Piers Morgan can not discuss gun-control whether it is good or bad. The reason that we discuss about this is that we are living here and what is going on affects us as well as this country. Freedom of speech gives this right. It does not give this right to only citizens.

You are right that our fate is linked with CIR, so crying about "illegal" or "undocumented" people does not help our cause. But it is just logical to think that way. That's what even politicians including President is suggesting when he says they will have to go at the back of the line so that people who played by the rules are not punished. When you see that politicians do not have problem with 11m "illegal" people but problem with few thousand h1bs, it raises logical questions.

[rupen86]

Could not agree more!!

My biggest problem is why is Legal Immigration held hostage for 11 million+ undocumented immigrants?

People talk about America being a land of immigrants - yes that is correct. before 1950 it was easier to move around to different countries (legal/illegal) and the host countries did not care much since that was not huge number. But after 1950s most countries put controls. if that did not happen then whole of India/China/Mexico/Easter europe would have flooded US/Propsoerous countries.

There is a legal immigration process. Everybody needs to follow that. period.

Even if US prefers to give Amnest to there 11m undocumented people on humanitarion grounds, that is ok. But why do I (who followed the rules) need to held hostage for those who did not follow the rules?

Even Bill Gates says the same thing.
http://earlystart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/31/myb-bill-gates-on-immigration-high-talent-immigration-has-kind-of-been-held-hostage/

That is because we have to accept the fact that we do not have political power and in politics, it is rarely about "right" or "wrong". It is always about politics.

[rupen86]

I have no problem discussing it. I am only pointing out that although we feel we deserve to be here more than the illegals, the host country may not feel that way for whatever reasons. I was also talking from the perspective of taking sides. If you went to your senator tomorrow and told him/her how you hated this 11m+ legalization, it will hurt us too! If we hope to accomplish anything, we need to be united in a common cause and convey a consistent message. Other than that, discuss all you want.

Also, a *few thousand* H1Bs is a myth just to be clear. It's a *few thousand new H1Bs per year*, which can quickly escalate into a substantial white collar workforce competing against other white collar Americans.

If you put this in perspective, we are talking about difference between millions and thousands.

By your argument, those millions of illegal workers would mostly take blue collar jobs and blue collar american workers would be competing against blue collar non american workers. So, americans having white collar job deserve better protection ? I do not think so.

[rupen86]

Really? Aren't you aware that until 1965, people of non European origin were barred from immigrating into the US? If anything, controls have been loosened substantially over the period, and no matter how much suffering we tolerate, conditions are too good to be true for immigrants in the US - even the EB-immigrants (case in point: EB2-ROW). EBx-I is disgruntled mainly at the differentiated treatment. Remove this artificial QoS, and we are all happy.

Legal immigration is not a hostage to anything, and I have come to this conclusion after much thought. There is only a problem of EBx-I in the legal immigration (x=2,3). The main problem in this country is illegal immigration and let's be thankful that EBx-I will benefit while the illegals problem gets solved.

We are not talking about sufferings on conditions of legal immigrant people. Legal immigration bill won't pass without combining that with the piece which includes illegal immigration problem which means legal immigration is held hostage to the other problem.

[skpanda]

I respect your opinion. But I do not share it.

The main reason why meaningful bills such as HR3012 have not passed is the illegal problem is not resolved. That to me is hostage. You may or may not agree with it. That is fine.

Good luck!

btw.. 1950 was just a number i threw in. Most countries paid attention to their immigration system only in the 2nd part of 20th century. Before that it was relatively easier to move around for a person who had means (money/skill/information).




Really? Aren't you aware that until 1965, people of non European origin were barred from immigrating into the US? If anything, controls have been loosened substantially over the period, and no matter how much suffering we tolerate, conditions are too good to be true for immigrants in the US - even the EB-immigrants (case in point: EB2-ROW). EBx-I is disgruntled mainly at the differentiated treatment. Remove this artificial QoS, and we are all happy.

Legal immigration is not a hostage to anything, and I have come to this conclusion after much thought. There is only a problem of EBx-I in the legal immigration (x=2,3). The main problem in this country is illegal immigration and let's be thankful that EBx-I will benefit while the illegals problem gets solved.

[bvsamrat]

Let us not flogg the dead horse. It is foregone conclusion that 11m need solution and fast as they are here now.But to deter future problem border security needs tighteting and add new visa catagory(or add more numbers at low wage category).

It also does not not mean that legal immigration should be lax or give more rights than what they have.The name it self suggest that there should be controls and guards for the legals-depending on everchaging economy,diversity and finally the need for it - following supply and demand. Frankly If there is no demand or economically counter productive, it could even stop why not?

It like a comparing a normal skin lesion and cancer. No doubt cancer gets treated on priority and no one argues how it got there. But deal with it on top priority.



I respect your opinion. But I do not share it.

The main reason why meaningful bills such as HR3012 have not passed is the illegal problem is not resolved. That to me is hostage. You may or may not agree with it. That is fine.

Good luck!

btw.. 1950 was just a number i threw in. Most countries paid attention to their immigration system only in the 2nd part of 20th century. Before that it was relatively easier to move around for a person who had means (money/skill/information).

[rupen86]

It's 11M one time versus 50 thousand * 3 (count kids/spouses too) per year indefinitely. Within 10 years, it's 1.5 million. Within 20 years, it's 3 million. Within 40 years, it's 6 million. Yes, it will take a few decades, but the numbers will be up there and they are certainly not a fraction of the numbers represented by the illegal immigrants. And H1Bs taking white collar jobs and driving the wages down is a big deal to Americans, and don't blame them for it. Americans would like to have blue collar services subsidized, but they don't want to see erosion of their paycheck at the same time.

It took 40 years for your math to come to half the number of 11m people we were discussing. Of course, it had inherent assumptions that all 115k people would apply for green card and also 11m people will remain at 11m over 40 years. Nice try.

H1b has wage protection clause which blue collar jobs do not have but still they will drive wages down but 11m people won't. Again, nice try.

[qesehmk]

I didn't mean to turn this into a fight. So I wouldn't comment any further other than just say - this forum of course is and should remain free for ALL ideas and thoughts. So long as we are respectful of each other - the discussion will remain fruitful - so lets keep it that way.

[kiddo9256]

AEI Immigration Reform Discussion - http://www.c-span.org/Events/Conservatives-Weigh-Immigration-Options/10737437723/ (~1hr)

it was interesting to watch conservative viewpoint .. i kinda liked reihan salam's POV .. 11m people will complement the workforce and fill in different job category..

high skilled legal immigrants may impact native born 25 or more with not-so-high-skills but will carry weight for native born seniors ( pay taxes for next 20-30 yrs fiscal impact etc)

[SilverLight]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/01/us/legal-immigration-irpt/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

[rupen86]

H1Bs are high wage earners and have far more staying power than the illegal immigrants. I did concede that it takes decades to come to numbers close to the illegal's present numbers, but I just want to clarify it's not a *few thousand H1Bs* as you were trying to make believe. It's few thousand H1Bs + dependents every year out of which a substantial percentage would opt for a permanent residency. That's the correct picture. Do you really want to explain it as it is to the Americans with a straight face? Do you believe the Americans will be more sympathetic to your cause than the illegal immigrants? If so, I think you need to observe the reality a little more carefully.

Then you should also take into consideration that 11m people do not remain 11m after 40 years. They are going to be married, have kids and sponsor others.

[rupen86]

Your information is factually incorrect. It was NOT easy to move around even if you had money, and US for example specifically forbade it (I assume the same was the case in various other first world countries). Immigration was never an issue before because there was no globalization.

HR 3012 also failed because ROW opposed it and Republicans in the Senate killed it. Its failure had nothing to do with illegal immigration and Democrats. That's another serious factual error. What you meant is various attempts at visa recapture have failed because illegal immigration issue was not solved, and to that, I agree with.

Finally, even suppose legal immigration is held *hostage* to illegal immigration to quote your terminology, I have argued that's absolutely fine and even *fair* if you change your perspective and looked at it from the point of the US. Yes, I also understand it's good to have followed the law, but that alone automatically does not grant us a special privilege in getting our own bill passed.

HR 3012 did not fail because of ROW opposition. If that was the case, it would not have been again included in I-Squared bill. It did not get killed because of republicans in senate. Grassley (Republican) put hold on it and there was no willingness in democratic leadership to put it up for the vote to pass filibuster.

Legal immigration being hostage to the illegal may be fine for you but not for most people who are waiting legally in EB and FB categories. It is other story that it is the political reality.

[gs1968]

To rupen86

"They are going to be married, have kids and sponsor others."

When I read that line of yours-I was reminded of the last serious immigration attempt in 2007. I know members in this forum are at different stages of immigration but in an attempt to stem secondary chain immigration,there was a proposal to limit the Parents of US citizens category to numerical limits of 40000 per year. This category is currently unlimited. This debate must be watched closely because if that is brought up again then undecided people should move quickly to get their applications in for their parents

[gs1968]

A couple of articles to fill everybody with some hope

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/01/house-republicans-prefer-slices-.html

http://www.rollcall.com/news/schumer_predicts_monthlong_senate_immigration_deba te-222015-1.html?pos=adp

[qesehmk]

Its unfortunate politics that both sides are playing. What's happening is - Obama doesn't want to give in even a small victory to republicans. EB immigration is mostly republican sponsored/led. Whereas republicans clearly are not in love with hispanics - certainly not all republicans.

However the fact 4 republican senators joined schumer is a positive sign. Cross the fingers.

A couple of articles to fill everybody with some hope

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/01/house-republicans-prefer-slices-.html

http://www.rollcall.com/news/schumer_predicts_monthlong_senate_immigration_deba te-222015-1.html?pos=adp

[rupen86]

A couple of articles to fill everybody with some hope

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/01/house-republicans-prefer-slices-.html

http://www.rollcall.com/news/schumer_predicts_monthlong_senate_immigration_deba te-222015-1.html?pos=adp


I do not think piecemeal approach would work given the political reality. Senate would pass the bill and then the pressure would be on Boehner to take it to the house floor even though majority of republicans in the house do not support it. Also, passing bills like STEM do not go far away in helping EB backlogs compared to the one introduced in the senate (I-squared).

[pakkpk]

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/budget-background?ID=bd59cc8b-9c00-4b13-a344-d64c557e2a1b

As Ranking Member Sessions has explained, “Encouraging self-sufficiency must be a bedrock for our immigration policy, with the goal of reducing poverty, strengthening the family, and promoting our economic values. But Administration officials and their policies are working actively against this goal.”

When the bill S.1 is drafted, OMB and the Committee on budget will assign a very big cost to it.

[rupen86]

Reality check on immigration reform.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/01/reality-check-on-immigration-reforms-obstacles/

I agree with the viewpoint that timeline is important. It should happen before Congress's summer recess.

[gcq]

Its unfortunate politics that both sides are playing. What's happening is - Obama doesn't want to give in even a small victory to republicans. EB immigration is mostly republican sponsored/led. Whereas republicans clearly are not in love with hispanics - certainly not all republicans.

However the fact 4 republican senators joined schumer is a positive sign. Cross the fingers.
The fundamental issue with Immigration politics is ideological divide. Democrats are socialist leaning. GOP is business leaning. Naturally these interests conflict. We are the victims of this class rivalry. Then vote bank politics comes into play. This is a curse for all democracies. Any smart thinking political party would yearn for this millions of new voters. However GOP with its traditionally anti-immigrant attitude won't allow this political smartness rein over their anti-immigrant views. George Bush though a failure in all other aspects was smart enough to understand that and hence he pushed for CIR in 2007.

[rupen86]

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/budget-background?ID=bd59cc8b-9c00-4b13-a344-d64c557e2a1b

As Ranking Member Sessions has explained, “Encouraging self-sufficiency must be a bedrock for our immigration policy, with the goal of reducing poverty, strengthening the family, and promoting our economic values. But Administration officials and their policies are working actively against this goal.”

When the bill S.1 is drafted, OMB and the Committee on budget will assign a very big cost to it.

That seems right but I do not think it is going to affect the bill. I feel Obama has abandoned fiscal issues in favor of social issues which can be seen in fiscal cliff deal.

[rupen86]

From Oh law firm, from this law firm's point view, there is agreement for the undocumented people but not for EB immigration.

02/02/2013: CIR Proposals of Three Key CIR Players of President, Senate, and House Approach Overall Similar Approach for Legalization Issues

Various reports indicate that the three players are proposing a conceptual framework for the issue of legalization of undocumented immigrants which is very similar to those which we outlined: Legalization that assures party power balance by asking the legalized undocumented immigrants to seek green card sponsorship and stay at the end of the immigration waiting queue. Again, this proposal is widely accepted at this time as it assures the balance of power between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in the long term, and at the same time assures fairness between legal immigrants and undocumented/legalized immigrants.
Under the cirucmstances, it is upto the Republican leaders and labor unions to accept a proposal to increase the badly needed highly skilled foreign workers immigrant quota without affecting the family-based immigration system. Part of this concept is already presented in the Senate Immigration Innovation bill, but this will present a point of severe fight from the ultra-right wing concervative Republicans as well as ultra left wing labor unions. Accordingly, the forementioned three key CIR players should work hard to negotiate and reach a compromise with two far-right and far-left sectors such that CIR bill be enacted this year. Should the Congress fail to pass the CIR, all the blames are likely to be directted to these far-right and far-left political forces that should pay political liability in the future because reportedly such failure will result in no-CIR until 2016! Will see how it will play out

[qesehmk]

Now that is an intellectual and profound argument heard from GOP side - whether one agrees or not with Senator Sessions.
http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/budget-background?ID=bd59cc8b-9c00-4b13-a344-d64c557e2a1b

As Ranking Member Sessions has explained, “Encouraging self-sufficiency must be a bedrock for our immigration policy, with the goal of reducing poverty, strengthening the family, and promoting our economic values. But Administration officials and their policies are working actively against this goal.”

When the bill S.1 is drafted, OMB and the Committee on budget will assign a very big cost to it.

[abcx13]

I have no problem discussing it. I am only pointing out that although we feel we deserve to be here more than the illegals, the host country may not feel that way for whatever reasons. I was also talking from the perspective of taking sides. If you went to your senator tomorrow and told him/her how you hated this 11m+ legalization, it will hurt us too! If we hope to accomplish anything, we need to be united in a common cause and convey a consistent message. Other than that, discuss all you want.

Also, a *few thousand* H1Bs is a myth just to be clear. It's a *few thousand new H1Bs per year*, which can quickly escalate into a substantial white collar workforce competing against other white collar Americans.


If you actually asked the people of the host country and not the politicians, most of them would support the legal skilled immigrants over the illegals.

[abcx13]

I echo that samrat.

Another point is - who is to call them illegal? Arizona Texas California were all part of mexico and US took them all by force i.e. illegally from Mexico! How about the rest of the US (except Louisiana) which was taken from various different Indian Americans - again through wars - i.e. illegally. Same with Hawaii .... just one fine day US felt like having Hawaii and made it part of their territory.

The funny thing is - even white people show the decency and honesty to admit this and stand by all immigrants. Heck - if that was not true - Obama would never be the president. But it's a pity that some Indians coming from India remain coward and narrow minded when it comes to self-interest.

Call it racist, elitist, call it what you want. I will not be put in the same category as someone who jumped the fence illegally. Not all Mexicans become illegals - a lot of them choose to stay behind. You do a disservice to the ones who chose to follow the law. And you must be joking about white people standing by all immigrants...if that were the case, this bill would have been passed many years ago. This is not about cowardice or narrow-mindedness. The country simply cannot afford to pay for these 11m illegals. And even if they could, the opportunity cost is letting in 11m highly skilled people instead.

Give the 11m illegals temporary working visas, but I don't see why a path to citizenship should be offered to someone who violated one of the most sacrosanct laws.


I agree with the broad picture.

abcx --> I don't deny parts of your argument; especially the one about "relative merit". However, the illegal immigration problem is a problem of the *Americans*. Until we get the citizenship, we are not stakeholders. Hence, we cannot pass judgment or criticism to our host country regarding the specific policy choices they make. If the relief to our plight is depending upon letting 11M+ people in the queue, so be it. We should do anything and everything in our power to push the CIR.

The CIR also stands to have a good outcome if it is a one time amnesty coupled with tighter border security and prevention of future illegal immigration. I do agree with the *moral hazard* argument, but I also think it is stretched to a point of being racist. The *moral hazard* argument is employed very typically by tea-partiers, who conveniently ignore the trillions of dollars bailouts to *mostly white* Wall Street. At least these 11M+ people took risks, live in constant danger of deportation and have lived in life long humiliation of *having no papers*. If we really think from their perspective, we would empathize better. Legalizing these people will make them stakeholders to preventing future illegal immigration and bring them in the mainstream US economy, reduce the remuneration they send to their parent countries and keep the money in the US, and improve their living conditions and push the wages at the lowest rung higher causing a *trickle up* effect. This is the exact same argument I had used for HR 3012. We Indians are in a way similar in our situation (not the actual intensity of plight, but in concept) to our illegal brothers and sisters. We don't have *options* and we are exploited in various H1B scams. If we had the same options as everyone else, our H1B transgressions would disappear and the vicious circle would be broken. That would be the way to fix it unless one happened to believe that Indians are inherently dishonest (similar to believing all illegal immigrants are inherently law breakers and are bad for the US). We all know in today's enlightened times, these arguments hold no water. Everything is a function of opportunities, and we have to open opportunities for 11M+ illegals and *ourselves* in the process.

Let's stop cribbing now. The CIR is a golden opportunity and it will happen only with Obama. No other president will ever care or push hard, so let's hope for the best.

We may not be citizens, but how are we not stakeholders? We meet the very definition of the word.

[seahawks2012]

I understand legalization & official recognition of illegal immigrations as it is important for various reasons. It also recognizes the need by some businesses (farming included) where they need the extra labor force. However, there are few conflicting points that I didn't see a lot of discussion on:

1. Why push for path to citizenship for legalized illegal immigrant? Why not instead give path to a valid (existing) visa that is sponsored by the corresponding businesses? Path to citizenship can be achieved by that valid visa.

2. "Minimum Wage" - The whole reason why some business hire the illegal immigrants is because they are ready to work for low cost. Now after legalizing the labor force, what happens to the "minimum wage" requirement? It is safe to say not all businesses would choose to pay for legalization as well as higher wages. This also means not all businesses are going to retain all the illegal labor force that they hire today.

3. Point 2 leads to the next obvious point: What happens to the legalized illegal immigrant who is not hired by businesses? What prevents the person from staying illegally beyond the valid visa duration? How is that situation different from what we have today?

4. Regarding order of getting green cards, it is certainly good that the CIR is ensuring "currently waiting" legal immigrants get green cards "before" the newly legalized immigrants. However, what happens to the "new" legal immigrants who apply for green card? Now are they going to be stuck behind the legalized illegal immigrants for the green card?

[gs1968]

To Seahawks2012
The previous attempt @ CIR in 2007 contained a separate category of visas called the Z visa and I have a feeling that a similar process may be used

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/visa-z.html

There is no way to find the back of the line as the line never ends!!

[pakkpk]

IEEE was lobbying against HR3012 from backdoor and now S.169!!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/280697-h-1b-visa-cap-battle-on-the-horizon

IEEE commented:“The businesses that will most benefit from an expansion of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies – businesses which exist to replace American workers with lower-cost foreign nationals and move jobs out of the country, and that is not the American way of immigrating citizens,” he continued.

Sen. Grassley:
A spokeswoman for Grassley said the Iowa Republican understands the need for high-skilled workers and noted that he tried to bring up a House-passed high-skilled immigration bill by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in the Senate last year. The move was blocked by Senate Democrats in part because they wanted to push comprehensive immigration reform in 2013.
Still, Grassley has concerns about the H-1B program.
“He has long argued for enhanced and expanded legal avenues for U.S. employers to hire foreign workers. However, he is just as concerned about including protections for American workers and reforms to root out fraud and abuse from the high-skilled visa programs, like the H-1B program,” the senator’s spokeswoman said. “He appreciates the proposals on the different aspects of immigration reform that are being put forward and will evaluate each one as it is introduced.”

[abcx13]

IEEE was lobbying against HR3012 from backdoor and now S.169!!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/280697-h-1b-visa-cap-battle-on-the-horizon

IEEE commented:“The businesses that will most benefit from an expansion of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies – businesses which exist to replace American workers with lower-cost foreign nationals and move jobs out of the country, and that is not the American way of immigrating citizens,” he continued.

Sen. Grassley:
A spokeswoman for Grassley said the Iowa Republican understands the need for high-skilled workers and noted that he tried to bring up a House-passed high-skilled immigration bill by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in the Senate last year. The move was blocked by Senate Democrats in part because they wanted to push comprehensive immigration reform in 2013.
Still, Grassley has concerns about the H-1B program.
“He has long argued for enhanced and expanded legal avenues for U.S. employers to hire foreign workers. However, he is just as concerned about including protections for American workers and reforms to root out fraud and abuse from the high-skilled visa programs, like the H-1B program,” the senator’s spokeswoman said. “He appreciates the proposals on the different aspects of immigration reform that are being put forward and will evaluate each one as it is introduced.”

I don't know...IEEE's and Grassley's stand is reasonable as long as they don't oppose GCs at the same time. IEEE is not -


“Any system for adding skilled workers to our economy should be based on citizenship. IEEE-USA supports provisions in S. 169 to expand green cards for advanced-degree STEM graduates of our higher-education institutions to become citizens. Doing so will strengthen our economy and create American jobs,” said IEEE-USA President Marc Apter in a statement to The Hill.

“The businesses that will most benefit from an expansion of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies – businesses which exist to replace American workers with lower-cost foreign nationals and move jobs out of the country, and that is not the American way of immigrating citizens,” he continued.

That seems fair to me. Desi consulting firms and IT outsourcing firms are clearly abusing the H1B program, and they are almost certainly not bringing in the best and the brightest. I think they should simply have a rule that discrimates against businesses over a certain size (say 50 employees) that have >= 50% H1Bs. That way you still allow the startup with two foreign co-founders, while blocking most Indian IT shops. I'm not necessarily against greater restrictions on H1Bs as long as they are accompanied with a clear path to GC and citizenship (say after a fixed time period as in every other country). That is in everybody's interest - even the H1B holder. Today too many H1Bs are abused as indentured servants - unable to switch jobs, unable to ask for a raise...

Another way for them to fix the 'H1B IT outsourcing hole' would be to exempt any company that simultaneously applies for a GC from the cap.

[abcx13]

BTW, I think the 300k might be a clever gambit. They may eventually decide to drop that and keep it at 65k or agree somewhere in between. Might just be a negotating ploy.

As long as the EB stuff gets through, who cares...seems nobody has complained about those provisions yet. All the noise is about H1B...

[gcq]

IEEE for a long time was an anti-immigrant organization. They used to oppose skilled immigration. It is only recently they changed their stance.

[rupen86]

IEEE was lobbying against HR3012 from backdoor and now S.169!!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/280697-h-1b-visa-cap-battle-on-the-horizon

IEEE commented:“The businesses that will most benefit from an expansion of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies – businesses which exist to replace American workers with lower-cost foreign nationals and move jobs out of the country, and that is not the American way of immigrating citizens,” he continued.

Sen. Grassley:
A spokeswoman for Grassley said the Iowa Republican understands the need for high-skilled workers and noted that he tried to bring up a House-passed high-skilled immigration bill by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in the Senate last year. The move was blocked by Senate Democrats in part because they wanted to push comprehensive immigration reform in 2013.
Still, Grassley has concerns about the H-1B program.
“He has long argued for enhanced and expanded legal avenues for U.S. employers to hire foreign workers. However, he is just as concerned about including protections for American workers and reforms to root out fraud and abuse from the high-skilled visa programs, like the H-1B program,” the senator’s spokeswoman said. “He appreciates the proposals on the different aspects of immigration reform that are being put forward and will evaluate each one as it is introduced.”


As long as Green card provisions are kept, we would be ok. When it comes to high skilled immigration, the only talk that I see is STEM graduates and still when it comes to job, most of the companies ask for experience and still we do not see any talk about experienced people waiting in the green card backlog.

[rupen86]

To Seahawks2012
The previous attempt @ CIR in 2007 contained a separate category of visas called the Z visa and I have a feeling that a similar process may be used

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/visa-z.html

There is no way to find the back of the line as the line never ends!!


If new category is created, it would break one of the principles outlined in the framework that they would go at the end of the line.

[qesehmk]

abcx - I said exactly what I felt and it applies to you without a doubt. You can gloss it with your cries - i could care less.

As per white people supporting immigrants - I can say without a doubt that yes majority actually are NOT racist - because if they were - America wouldn't be what it is today. You really need to read the history and get into American society a bit more before you write such stuff.


Call it racist, elitist, call it what you want. I will not be put in the same category as someone who jumped the fence illegally. Not all Mexicans become illegals - a lot of them choose to stay behind. You do a disservice to the ones who chose to follow the law. And you must be joking about white people standing by all immigrants...if that were the case, this bill would have been passed many years ago. This is not about cowardice or narrow-mindedness. The country simply cannot afford to pay for these 11m illegals. And even if they could, the opportunity cost is letting in 11m highly skilled people instead.

[rupen86]

Call it racist, elitist, call it what you want. I will not be put in the same category as someone who jumped the fence illegally. Not all Mexicans become illegals - a lot of them choose to stay behind. You do a disservice to the ones who chose to follow the law. And you must be joking about white people standing by all immigrants...if that were the case, this bill would have been passed many years ago. This is not about cowardice or narrow-mindedness. The country simply cannot afford to pay for these 11m illegals. And even if they could, the opportunity cost is letting in 11m highly skilled people instead.

Give the 11m illegals temporary working visas, but I don't see why a path to citizenship should be offered to someone who violated one of the most sacrosanct laws.



We may not be citizens, but how are we not stakeholders? We meet the very definition of the word.


Being in the same category would help us if they are at the end of the queue because then politicians would be forced to clear the existing queue. If there is separate queue, they do not have to care about existing queue.

[abcx13]

abcx - I said exactly what I felt and it applies to you without a doubt. You can gloss it with your cries - i could care less.

As per white people supporting immigrants - I can say without a doubt that yes majority actually are NOT racist - because if they were - America wouldn't be what it is today. You really need to read the history and get into American society a bit more before you write such stuff.

The facts belie your position - if the majority of people supported immigrants, we would already have had reform. All immigrants were ostracized at first - where do you think terms like spics, Micks, and pollocks came from? Or the N word for that matter. Did you think they were terms of endearment? Studying history is pointless when you want to ignore the facts.

And what do you propose as compensation for the Americans taking over the lands of the Native Indians and Mexicans? An open border? Free health care and education for all? How do you propose to pay for all/any of this? The fact that their lands were taken is water under the brigde, and you, the student of history, will doubtless know that this has been happening since time immemorial. Borders change. People live with it. People aren't jumping the fence because this is where they think they rightly belong. They are jumping it because they think the economic benefits outweigh the repercussions and consequences of getting caught. Granting amnesty will not change that. It will only make it worse (as Reagan's amnesty has). If the US actually cared about Mexico (which is where the majority of illegals come from) it would be much smarter to put an end to this asinine war on drugs which has ripped the country apart.

I have anything against anyone who migrates legally from Mexico or anywhere else. Yes, I have a problem with the illegals and I don't care where they come from (it so happens that a lot of them come from Mexico, but I think all of them should be treated the same).

P.S. - The expression is actually I couldn't care less. I could care less makes no logical sense if you think about it.

[pakkpk]

Immigration Lawyer's cry even though she is doling out hefty money from the H1B applications: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2013/02/dole_out_work_visas_fairly

[qesehmk]

That's faulty logic you have. According to your logic -
1. Americans are anti immigrant unless they already solved immigration problem.
2. All Americans past present future are racist because of things that happened in the past.

I think that's quite ridiculous.

There are people who were racists and are racists. And you know what those are more likely to oppose immigration - legal or otherwise. And interestingly you are drawing lines between immigrants - legal and illegal and opposing the "illegals". I certainly don't think one immigrant should bad mouth other one.

It's also funny how you used all the facts I talked about - why the case for illegal immigration is weak - upside down; to call all Americans anti-immigration while being an anti-immigrant yourself.

The facts belie your position - if the majority of people supported immigrants, we would already have had reform. All immigrants were ostracized at first - where do you think terms like spics, Micks, and pollocks came from? Or the N word for that matter. Did you think they were terms of endearment? Studying history is pointless when you want to ignore the facts.

And what do you propose as compensation for the Americans taking over the lands of the Native Indians and Mexicans? An open border? Free health care and education for all? How do you propose to pay for all/any of this? The fact that their lands were taken is water under the brigde, and you, the student of history, will doubtless know that this has been happening since time immemorial. Borders change. People live with it. People aren't jumping the fence because this is where they think they rightly belong. They are jumping it because they think the economic benefits outweigh the repercussions and consequences of getting caught. Granting amnesty will not change that. It will only make it worse (as Reagan's amnesty has). If the US actually cared about Mexico (which is where the majority of illegals come from) it would be much smarter to put an end to this asinine war on drugs which has ripped the country apart.

I have anything against anyone who migrates legally from Mexico or anywhere else. Yes, I have a problem with the illegals and I don't care where they come from (it so happens that a lot of them come from Mexico, but I think all of them should be treated the same).

P.S. - The expression is actually I couldn't care less. I could care less makes no logical sense if you think about it.

[pdfeb09]

The facts belie your position - if the majority of people supported immigrants, we would already have had reform. All immigrants were ostracized at first - where do you think terms like spics, Micks, and pollocks came from? Or the N word for that matter. Did you think they were terms of endearment? Studying history is pointless when you want to ignore the facts.

And what do you propose as compensation for the Americans taking over the lands of the Native Indians and Mexicans? An open border? Free health care and education for all? How do you propose to pay for all/any of this? The fact that their lands were taken is water under the brigde, and you, the student of history, will doubtless know that this has been happening since time immemorial. Borders change. People live with it. People aren't jumping the fence because this is where they think they rightly belong. They are jumping it because they think the economic benefits outweigh the repercussions and consequences of getting caught. Granting amnesty will not change that. It will only make it worse (as Reagan's amnesty has). If the US actually cared about Mexico (which is where the majority of illegals come from) it would be much smarter to put an end to this asinine war on drugs which has ripped the country apart.

I have anything against anyone who migrates legally from Mexico or anywhere else. Yes, I have a problem with the illegals and I don't care where they come from (it so happens that a lot of them come from Mexico, but I think all of them should be treated the same).

P.S. - The expression is actually I couldn't care less. I could care less makes no logical sense if you think about it.

Dude .. first of all, you need to calm down. From a lot of your previous posts, it appears that you are kind of a trigger-happy guy, ready to go off on anyone who thinks differently than you.


Second, when you say "put an end to this asinine war of drugs", what do you really mean and what do you think will the consequences be?

"Yes, I have a problem with the illegals and I don't care where they come from (it so happens that a lot of them come from Mexico, but I think all of them should be treated the same)."

Legal and illegal is defined by the congress. You are here for economic reasons too. Lets face it, you wouldn't be here for any other reason. You are mad because it takes a long time for the system to recognize you as a permenant resident. What if the congress tomorrow decides that anybody in your shoes is considered illegal because you are hurting the job prospects of the current citizens? I guess you would hate yourself too ... yeah, I know rediculous, right?

PS: Please read your own words before pointing out the syntatic or grammatical mistakes in others' posts. Read the line in RED. I make a lot of them so don't go off on me with that .. just try to get the message. In these forums, "you" "could" really "care less" about the propriety of the sentences.

[rupen86]

Immigration Lawyer's cry even though she is doling out hefty money from the H1B applications: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2013/02/dole_out_work_visas_fairly

I agree with the part that just completing degree course should not be enough for getting green card. That being the case, there would be influx of colleges and universities and influx of students whose purpose is to get green card. If it was to be done, it should be limited to top 50 or 100 universities.

[abcx13]

That's faulty logic you have. According to your logic -
1. Americans are anti immigrant unless they already solved immigration problem.
2. All Americans past present future are racist because of things that happened in the past.

I think that's quite ridiculous.

There are people who were racists and are racists. And you know what those are more likely to oppose immigration - legal or otherwise. And interestingly you are drawing lines between immigrants - legal and illegal and opposing the "illegals". I certainly don't think one immigrant should bad mouth other one.

It's also funny how you used all the facts I talked about - why the case for illegal immigration is weak - upside down; to call all Americans anti-immigration while being an anti-immigrant yourself.

Perhaps read your own posts before replying? You made a big deal about how America is a nation of immigrants, yada yada yada. I was just pointing out that it has always also had a racist element to it. There was segregation in this country until the 60s and 70s. Some of those Americans are still alive and still feel the same way. People on this thread have called some Congressmen such as Steve King and Grassley racist. The fact that the birther debate became so big suggests that nationalism still plays a big role in the national identity even though this is supposedly a country of immigrants. Also if the population was so friendly and open to immigration, there would not be annual quotas or country caps (the latter are by definition discriminatory, if not racist).

By the way, I didn't know that I had to support illegal immigration to support immigration. I'm sorry - thanks for setting me straight. I guess I must not support immigration since I'm only in favor of legal immigration and not in favor of giving amnesty and a path to citizenship to people who broke the law. If you break the law today and work without an EAD even for a day, you are in violation of your status, ineligible for reentry, and can get deported. But when 11m people do it for years, they get amnesty and citizenship. See the idiocy?

[abcx13]

Legal and illegal is defined by the congress.

Um yes, as are all laws. Your point is?


You are here for economical reasons too. Lets face it, you wouldn't be here for any other reason. You are mad because it takes a long time for the system to recognize you as a permenant resident. What if the congress tomorrow decides that anybody in your shoes is considered illegal because you are hurting the job prospects of the current citizens? I guess you would hate yourself too ... yeah, I know rediculous, right?

This will probably be my last on the subject. If you guys don't want to draw a line between legals and illegals, that's your prerogative. There's an old saying - people get the government they deserve - so if you want hitch your wagon to the illegals because it is politically expedient, well, you can't expect any less from politicians (and I realize you didn't vote for these guys, but you probably will someday).

My 'madness' has nothing to do with my wait. It has to do with principles. I would feel the same way if I got my GC tomorrow. I am mad because both the letter and the spirit of the law are being cast aside (as they often are these days with Obama), because lawbreakers are being rewarded for breaking the law (just as Wall Street was), because these illegals will be a net drain on the exchequer, i.e. taxpayers like me and you, and because of the opportunity cost of not letting in more qualified people or people who haven't broken the law (yes, that includes low-skilled/low-wage immigrants who would be eligible for the temporary agricultural program, which this country does need).

And yes, if Congress tomorrow decided that H1Bs are illegal, I would go back. You can stay here and hope for amnesty. And since they can't make ex-post facto laws and retroactively change my legal status, I don't know why I would hate myself. While illegals and legals are both here for economic reasons, Congress and the country has decided that legal immigration is a net boost to the economy as opposed to illegal immigration. So there is a nuance there that you are overlooking when you say both come for economic reasons.

I don't see what is wrong with asking for legals to be placed ahead in the queue or not to offer citizenship for illegals. So far I have not seen anyone except you guys say that illegals and legals should be considered alike.


Second, when you say "put an end to this asinine war of drugs", what do you really mean and what do you think will the consequences be?

Look at all the drug violence in Mexico. Why do you think it happens? Where do you think the demand for drugs comes from? What do you think will happen if marijuana, a major source of the cartel's profits, is decriminalized? The consequences will be that the USG will spend less on fighting drugs in the US and overseas, stop running ops like Fast and Furious, drug violence in Mexico will go down, and maybe, just maybe, the USG could take the money they had allocated to fighting drugs and spend a part of it on education in Mexico so there are improved opportunities there and less illegal immigration (migration flows have already reversed given the poor economic climate in the US). Of course, none of this will happen because it makes too much sense.

[abcx13]

I agree with the part that just completing degree course should not be enough for getting green card. That being the case, there would be influx of colleges and universities and influx of students whose purpose is to get green card. If it was to be done, it should be limited to top 50 or 100 universities.

I think what all these lawyers fail to see is that in all likelihood the STEM GC will be linked to the current PERM system that requires an employer to petition for a pre-arranged job. It would be stupid to dole out STEM GCs without restricting it to the top 100 unis. Otherwise everyone will end up at TriValley University...

[GhostWriter]

Reid seems optimistic.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-03/senate-leader-reid-says-immigration-law-to-pass-congress.html

[qesehmk]

My last on this one too. It's ok to draw line between legal - illegal - but not to the extent where one immigrant group starts fighting other one which is exactly what anti-immigrants want.

If we allow legal vs illegal then tomorrow there will be EB2 vs EB3 and India vs ROW and all kinds of differences come up. So - be patient, be respectful and work unitedly towards everybody's well being. That's all I wanted to convey.


This will probably be my last on the subject. If you guys don't want to draw a line between legals and illegals, that's your prerogative. ....

[pdfeb09]

Um yes, as are all laws. Your point is?
Yes, I know that. However, these (laws) keep changing with times as they should.




This will probably be my last on the subject. If you guys don't want to draw a line between legals and illegals, that's your prerogative. There's an old saying - people get the government they deserve - so if you want hitch your wagon to the illegals because it is politically expedient, well, you can't expect any less from politicians (and I realize you didn't vote for these guys, but you probably will someday). My 'madness' has nothing to do with my wait. It has to do with principles. I would feel the same way if I got my GC tomorrow. I am mad because both the letter and the spirit of the law are being cast aside (as they often are these days with Obama), because lawbreakers are being rewarded for breaking the law (just as Wall Street was), because these illegals will be a net drain on the exchequer, i.e. taxpayers like me and you, and because of the opportunity cost of not letting in more qualified people or people who haven't broken the law (yes, that includes low-skilled/low-wage immigrants who would be eligible for the temporary agricultural program, which this country does need).



It is not about drawing a line that I was concerned about. There should be a line drawn between those who follow the current laws and those who decide to flout them. The main thing is to realize what the crime has been, what the intentions, motivations and the context had been before it was comitted. I doubt these guys risked what they did just for the economic reasons (min wage + the sword of persecution hanging over their and their families' heads.. ). The main thing is, let us not go overboard in criticizing these guys just because they do not have the documents. It is an appropriate demand to help the legal community before the undocumented ones, but let us not be a voice that says they should not be helped at all ! Any crimes besides "jumping the fence" should be dealt with in accordance to the laws meant for that crime. No questions about that !




And yes, if Congress tomorrow decided that H1Bs are illegal, I would go back.

So will I. The questions was not about what will you do. The question was would you hate a person just because a law says he is illegal, even though the law could later be rescinded or amended to include that person legally. How has the person, you so hate, changed? It should be the crime and its intensity that should draw a forceful reaction from us (rape, murder, even financial crimes that render hundreds and thousands if not millions of people holding the bag - hang them !). Trying to get a better life for the next generation ... slap-em-on-the-wrist ..

"Congress and the country has decided that legal immigration is a net boost to the economy as opposed to illegal immigration."

I have so many things to say about this statement, however, the most relevant is - illegal immigrants, those who do not involve themselves in other crimes, do end up working really hard and supporting the economy at the lower rungs of the society. Let us not underestimate the impact of the skills they bring to this country however manual and lower level they may be considered to be.




Look at all the drug violence in Mexico. Why do you think it happens? Where do you think the demand for drugs comes from? What do you think will happen if marijuana, a major source of the cartel's profits, is decriminalized? The consequences will be that the USG will spend less on fighting drugs in the US and overseas, stop running ops like Fast and Furious, drug violence in Mexico will go down, and maybe, just maybe, the USG could take the money they had allocated to fighting drugs and spend a part of it on education in Mexico so there are improved opportunities there and less illegal immigration (migration flows have already reversed given the poor economic climate in the US). Of course, none of this will happen because it makes too much sense.



The demand comes from the USA and a significant part of the "War on Drugs" is trying to control that demand. The part which you have not mentioned here is education, rehabilitation and retricting the usage/transportation through the enforcement of the laws within the boundaries of the USA.

If you think that only the parts I mentioned above are enough and the US government does not need to pro-actively go after the source, then we differ !

If marijuana is decriminalized, it will help cut down the income from it for the cartels, however, the other and more harmful drugs will become their main source. Either you have to legalize all the drugs, however harmful they may be, or draw a line somewhere.

I agree with you that the money could be spent on education to get better results in Mexico, but it is the corrupt government officials in Mexico that help this drug business. It is not in their best interest to make the education and other opportunities available to the people. When US is faced with this, it tries to do what it can to go after the cartels while keeping the government there as pliable to their requests as possible. I do not think it is that easy to solve this issue. If it were, it would have been done by now.

My last on all this too ...

[abcx13]

^^Agree with most things including education, rehab, etc. in the US when it comes to drugs. And yes, I do believe illegals ought to be helped (I support the DREAM act and all that) but the path to citizenship rankles me. As does the fact that their interests seem to take priority over those of legals.

Sorry, I know I said it was my last, but there was a relevant piece in today's paper:



Crovitz: The Economics of Immigration
Adding more skilled workers would bring in an estimated $100 billion in federal revenues over a decade, largely from increased income taxes.

by L. GORDON CROVITZ
Feb. 3, 2013

For the first time in a generation, the debate over immigration has turned to the opportunities, not the burdens. Washington might finally deliver immigration reform, especially as politicians realize that adding more skilled workers is the fastest way to boost the economy and avoid a fiscal crisis.

Silicon Valley is the poster child for today's dysfunctional immigration policy. Foreign technologists trained in the U.S. are routinely denied work visas and return home to become successful entrepreneurs in China and India. For many years, half of Silicon Valley startups have had an immigrant founder, but this trend is in decline as fewer foreigners can find a foothold on the path to citizenship.

Steve Jobs famously turned against Barack Obama in 2011 when the president wouldn't sponsor a law to award work visas to foreigners who earn advanced degrees in technology and the sciences, despite the shortage of native-born skilled workers. "The president is very smart, but he kept explaining to us reasons why things can't get done," Jobs told biographer Walter Isaacson. "It infuriates me."

The last time the U.S. reformed immigration policy was in 1986, when President Reagan created a political coalition by focusing on immigrants as assets, not as liabilities, a sharp contrast with Mitt Romney's suggestion last year that they should pursue "self-deportation." President Obama last week embraced postelection bipartisan reform in a speech using the words "economy" or "economic" 10 times. Immigration, he said, "keeps our workforce young; it keeps our country on the cutting edge." Sending skilled graduates back home "is not how you grow new industries in America. That's how you give new industries to our competitors. That's why we need comprehensive immigration reform."

Enlarge Image

We also need a comprehensive rethinking of the purpose of the immigration laws. It's not widely understood that for more than a century the main goal of the immigration laws has been to set racial and ethnic quotas—not to attract the best and brightest from around the world.

Since 1899, immigrants have been designated by "race or people." Until the 1920s, there were few limits aside from the ban on laborers under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. That changed with the Immigration Act of 1924, which created the federal Quota Board to "preserve the ideal of American homogeneity" by setting quotas that favored Protestant Europeans. "The calculus of numerical restriction in the 1920s was aimed at engineering the racial composition of the nation; it had nothing to do with the economics of absorption," wrote historian Mae Ngai in her 2004 book on immigration policy, "Impossible Subjects."

Many parts of the immigration system are still based on quotas. Visas for permanent residency are capped, so that no country can have more than 7% each year. There is an annual limit of 140,000 green cards for employment-based immigrants, so the ceiling means that while immigrants from small countries like Belgium and Guinea have a good chance, the waiting list for citizens of populous countries like China and India can last for decades.

More broadly, of all the developed countries, the U.S. puts the lowest priority on potential economic benefits when reviewing prospective immigrants, according to Pia Orrenius, an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. She estimates that of the 1.1 million green cards issued every year, 85% are to family members or for humanitarian purposes. Only 15% are for highly skilled immigrants based on employment, and half of those go to the workers' spouses and children. Australia, Britain and Canada are outcompeting the U.S. for skilled people by using a point system based on immigrants' education and ability to invest or start companies.

The parts of the U.S. system that are designed to boost the economy need updating. The H-1B visa program, established in 1990, creates 65,000 visas a year for highly skilled workers. But the demand for skilled technologists has grown so much since then that in some years this quota has been filled within hours. No wonder Steve Jobs was impatient.

Smarter immigration policy would give less-skilled immigrants a path to citizenship that could include language and civics requirements. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that legalizing the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. would boost revenues by $48 billion over 10 years while costing $23 billion in increased public services.

Former CBO official Arlene Holen estimates in a Technology Policy Institute paper that adding more skilled workers would bring in $100 billion in over a decade, largely from increased income taxes.

It's time to focus on the economic opportunities that immigrants can bring to the country, regardless of their origin. That would be good both for American economics and for American values.

A version of this article appeared February 4, 2013, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Economics of Immigration.


I guess I was wrong and at least according to the CBO, the illegals will not be a net drain on the taxpayer though it seems a little hard to believe. Perhaps they are factoring in a temporary boost from back taxes?

Also some interesting rebuttals to Q's contention about this being a nation of immigrants and what not. Racism was codified into the laws and still is to this day with country caps...

[rupen86]

My last on this one too. It's ok to draw line between legal - illegal - but not to the extent where one immigrant group starts fighting other one which is exactly what anti-immigrants want.

If we allow legal vs illegal then tomorrow there will be EB2 vs EB3 and India vs ROW and all kinds of differences come up. So - be patient, be respectful and work unitedly towards everybody's well being. That's all I wanted to convey.


I could not resist commenting on this one. Whether we like it or not, there are already divisions like this. With HR 3012, it was ROW vs I/C. There is already EB2 vs EB3. And there is illegal vs legal. When one sees that he/she followed all the rules but is neglected by the system vs the one who did not follow the rule but is getting preferential treatment, it is going to create resentment among those who followed the rule and then there would be incentive to actually break the rule. But for our purpose, it does not help us to bash illegals because we are on their mercy to get this done in current political environment.

[rupen86]

Reid seems optimistic.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-03/senate-leader-reid-says-immigration-law-to-pass-congress.html

Yes, unless the killer amendments are added, this has pretty good chance of passing senate and pressure would be on house to get it done. Time is of essence. It should be done before congress recess.

[rupen86]

Rubio's immigration effort

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/marco-rubio-two-front-battle-immigration-reform-152519098--election.html

[abcx13]

Yes, unless the killer amendments are added, this has pretty good chance of passing senate and pressure would be on house to get it done. Time is of essence. It should be done before congress recess.

I'm kind of assuming it will pass the Senate easily. The House is where it might face issues.

[rupen86]

Reid says same-sex couples should be included in the bill.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/reid-immigration-reform-must-include-prote

I think he is making contentious bill even more contentious. It is hard to know what are people's intentions. May be he wants to make it so hard that republicans are forced to reject it.

[qbloguser]

I agree and in fact when this reform is done I am planning to stand outside home depot and thank first 10 of my (used to be) illegal friends.

P.S.-> I am legal EB2 I.


But for our purpose, it does not help us to bash illegals because we are on their mercy to get this done in current political environment.

[qesehmk]

This will nothing but increase resistance to the bill because then the anti gay marriage folks join anti immigrants.

Makes you wonder if Reid really wants to see this bill succeed?
Reid says same-sex couples should be included in the bill.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/reid-immigration-reform-must-include-prote

I think he is making contentious bill even more contentious. It is hard to know what are people's intentions. May be he wants to make it so hard that republicans are forced to reject it.

[rupen86]

House is in the process of drafting the bill and actually is ahead in the process than senate !!

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/280767-secret-house-group-close-to-immigration-reform-agreement

[rupen86]

More action coming this week on immigration.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE9130V620130204

[kd2008]

Puneet Arora ----- is going to testify tomorrow at the House Judiciary hearing. Here is his statement:
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/02052013/Arora%2002052013.pdf

please see this as an important testimony in our favor.

[Pundit Arjun]

KD, Thanks for the info on the hearing - Hope all goes well.
But surprised to hear your comment regarding the swipes at the I V folks.You know the history :(.


Puneet Arora of I V is going to testify tomorrow at the House Judiciary hearing. Here is his statement:
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/02052013/Arora%2002052013.pdf

In the interest of keeping this discussion moving forward I would kindly request everyone to please refrain from taking swipes at I V or Puneet (It has been done to death on this website) and please see this as an important testimony in our favor.

[pakkpk]

http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressShop.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=a694785e-e68a-879f-711b-456475b7eb44

[gcq]

This will nothing but increase resistance to the bill because then the anti gay marriage folks join anti immigrants.

Makes you wonder if Reid really wants to see this bill succeed?
Gay community has a powerful lobby. That is the reason Obama recently acknowledged the need for same-sex marriage though he is not a fan of it.
It is all about vote bank and lobbying. On a big bill like CIR, senate can always force a cloture.

My only concern is whether we will become the bargaining chip for another powerful lobby.

[tackle]

Live feed here: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/

[qesehmk]

Thanks Tackle. Vivek Wadhwa is Fascinating!


Live feed here: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/

[rupen86]

Gay community has a powerful lobby. That is the reason Obama recently acknowledged the need for same-sex marriage though he is not a fan of it.
It is all about vote bank and lobbying. On a big bill like CIR, senate can always force a cloture.

My only concern is whether we will become the bargaining chip for another powerful lobby.


We are always a bargain chip. That's not much of a concern. Real concern would be whether they would risk the whole bill for this.

[rupen86]

Another contentious point. Family based immigration. Republicans think that family based green cards should be reduced whereas democrats want more of them.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/281133-a-family-based-approach-to-immigration-reform

[rupen86]

Another contentious point. Family based immigration. Republicans think that family based green cards should be reduced whereas democrats want more of them.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/281133-a-family-based-approach-to-immigration-reform

And seems fight has already started on this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/lgbt-immigration-reform_n_2623557.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

[rupen86]

Labrador working as counterpart of Rubio in house and is part of the gang working on legislation in house. Seems like house version would provide legal status to undocumented but not the citizenship. That I feel is going to be deal breaker.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gops-raul-labrador-quietly-emerging-as-middleman-for-immigration-reform/2013/02/05/a6b91fae-6ede-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html

[gs1968]

An update from today's House hearing

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/281229-house-republicans-place-priority-on-immigration-fix-for-high-skilled-workers

[gcq]

Interesting
when Dr Arora was speaking, Steve King from Iowa can be seen playing with his phone !

[pakkpk]

I watched complete hearing. It is going to be a battle for path to citizenship for undocumented on the house side and if there is no common ground, high-skilled immigration have to suffer. Same story is repeating from 112th Congress when H.R. 3012 was stuck in Senate. The same arguments were put forward by dems.
An update from today's House hearing

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/281229-house-republicans-place-priority-on-immigration-fix-for-high-skilled-workers

[rupen86]

I watched complete hearing. It is going to be a battle for path to citizenship for undocumented on the house side and if there is no common ground, high-skilled immigration have to suffer. Same story is repeating from 112th Congress when H.R. 3012 was stuck in Senate. The same arguments were put forward by dems.

Yes, it is coming out now that HR 3012 was not passed by senate because democrats wanted to hold that for CIR and not because Grassley put hold on it. Same thing is going to happen to any EB bill. There is no hope about standalone bill as that has been made clear by the democrats and Obama.

For CIR, path does not look easy. In senate, it may pass but it is going to face tough time in house. It is up to Boehner on what strategy he applies. House might come up with the bill which most likely would not give citizenship and only legal status. That bill will not pass senate. Now, if Boehner allows senate bill for a vote, it may pass with majority of democrats and few republicans but not sure whether he would actually do that when house has its own bill. I feel it would have been better if there was no house bill and instead it was just going to consider senate bill.

[gcq]

Native American Shuts Down Anti-Illegal Immigrant Protest: ‘Y’all Are All Illegal!!!’ (http://newsone.com/2185250/native-american-on-illegal-immigration/)

[rupen86]

I watched complete hearing. It is going to be a battle for path to citizenship for undocumented on the house side and if there is no common ground, high-skilled immigration have to suffer. Same story is repeating from 112th Congress when H.R. 3012 was stuck in Senate. The same arguments were put forward by dems.

I also watched the entire hearing. It does look like, house bill is not going to include citizenship. I do not how this difference between house and senate is going to be resolved.

[rupen86]

From oh law firm,
Reforming primary process would produce more productive congress. I agree with that.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/why-reforming-the-primary-process-would-produce-a-more-productive-congress-20130206

[vizcard]

I also watched the entire hearing. It does look like, house bill is not going to include citizenship. I do not how this difference between house and senate is going to be resolved.

The Republcans want to do high skilled immigration reform separately since both parties agree on what needs to be done. Obama says no piece-meal immigration reform. I just hope it all gets worked out before the summer.

[rupen86]

The Republcans want to do high skilled immigration reform separately since both parties agree on what needs to be done. Obama says no piece-meal immigration reform. I just hope it all gets worked out before the summer.

My optimism has reduced over pass couple of days. I see below main problems and I can't think of way out of it.

1) Democrats want comprehensive immigration reform which includes (clear) pathway to citizenship. Senate republicans will agree to citizenship but not without "trigger".

2) House republicans will introduce a bill without pathway to citizenship and limited to giving legal status which democrats and Obama won't support.

3) Inclusion of same-sex couples won't be acceptable to republicans.

4) Democrats would want more not less family green cards which republicans would not accept.

5) Elimination of diversity visa program may not be acceptable to democrats.

6) Piecemeal approach won't be acceptable to democrats.

Point no 1,2 look most important and contentious to me. Other issues can be worked out with some difficulty.

[rupen86]

How Obama can help in immigration effort.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324590904578287641299090354.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

[rupen86]

Labrador says house republicans won't accept pathway to citizenship clause which means any bill coming out in the house is not going to have that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/raul-labrador-immigration-reform_n_2638484.html

Goodlatte seems less critical of it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/04/house-immigration-hearing/1890171/

So, to me it seems that the passage of the bill would depend on whether senate's bill is going to come up for the vote in house or not. Although it will be rejected by most house republicans, it would need support of only handful on republicans to pass.

[rupen86]

House announcement expected anytime now.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/feb/08/diaz-balart-part-house-immigration-reform-plan/

[seahawks2012]

Seib & Wessel: Immigration Overhaul Showdown:
http://live.wsj.com/video/seib--wessel-immigration-overhaul-showdown/426124CA-C62F-40BE-9937-ED4DA7C54CC4.html#!426124CA-C62F-40BE-9937-ED4DA7C54CC4

[seahawks2012]

Seib & Wessel: Immigration Overhaul Showdown:
http://live.wsj.com/video/seib--wessel-immigration-overhaul-showdown/426124CA-C62F-40BE-9937-ED4DA7C54CC4.html#!426124CA-C62F-40BE-9937-ED4DA7C54CC4

She mentions 4-6 weeks as the time-frame...

[rupen86]

She mentions 4-6 weeks as the time-frame...

yes, in that time, senate draft bill is expected to come.

[abcx13]

You know how I've been ranting that legals deserve better than being lumped with illegals? And y'all don't agree? Vivek Wadhwa puts it more eloquently that I ever did:

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

[qesehmk]

abcx - i think Vadhawa made the case forcefully that day - in fact I posted so on this forum immediately. But as I watched - I thought he was way over the top when he said America is losing edge. All he put forth was emotional commentary. There was NO data to back it up. So to be honest - IMHO - his commentary came across more as political than analytical or expert commentary.

While EB immigration is useful since it gives edge in terms of technology - I do think that illegal immigration - is economically important since it creates instant demand and contributes significantly to the GDP. 13 million people rushing to buy houses and cars and everything they couldn't buy before because of lack of proper identity. Just think about that.

I just don't think America is losing edge. When panic hits the world markets ... the US dollar appreciates rather than depreciate. What does that tell you? Edge is a function of innovation. But innovation is a function of not just intelligence but law and order, equal opportunity AND economic size/might/coverage. A particular country may pull ahead in one industry like mining or telephones or robotics. But US not only has complete coverage of all industries - but they have tremendous law and order and equal opportunities advantage. I cant think of any other country including in Europe that can match US. Euro is one of those attempts to replace US but look where they are. They can't even determine whether they want to stay together. China is the only other alternative - but where is freedom. Equal opportunity is too far away without that. And then our own India scores poorly both on equal opportunity and law and order. So we come back to US.

That's why I say that this whole talk about US losing edge is non-sense. Majority of nobel prize winners were born outside US. What does that tell you? It tells you that the brightest minds on earth think that US is still the destination to do something worthwhile in their lives. The number of students coming from India reduced 4% YoY this year (which by itself is in the margin of error) because of visa rejections as opposed to reductions in applications. The number from China rose 26%. So again - wadhwa really needs to put numbers on the table to make the point.


You know how I've been ranting that legals deserve better than being lumped with illegals? And y'all don't agree? Vivek Wadhwa puts it more eloquently that I ever did:

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

[rupen86]

You know how I've been ranting that legals deserve better than being lumped with illegals? And y'all don't agree? Vivek Wadhwa puts it more eloquently that I ever did:

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


What Vivek Wadhwa is advocating is piecemeal approach rather than comprehensive because one part is being held hostage to the other part. I agree with him. All parts should stand on their own and would pass if they had merit in themselves. But political reality is something different. In current political environment, it is not going to be accomplished. While we can argue what is right/wrong etc, as I have said before, politics is about votes and not about right/wrong most of the time.

[abcx13]

abcx - i think Vadhawa made the case forcefully that day - in fact I posted so on this forum immediately. But as I watched - I thought he was way over the top when he said America is losing edge. All he put forth was emotional commentary. There was NO data to back it up. So to be honest - IMHO - his commentary came across more as political than analytical or expert commentary.

While EB immigration is useful since it gives edge in terms of technology - I do think that illegal immigration - is economically important since it creates instant demand and contributes significantly to the GDP. 13 million people rushing to buy houses and cars and everything they couldn't buy before because of lack of proper identity. Just think about that.

I just don't think America is losing edge. When panic hits the world markets ... the US dollar appreciates rather than depreciate. What does that tell you? Edge is a function of innovation. But innovation is a function of not just intelligence but law and order, equal opportunity AND economic size/might/coverage. A particular country may pull ahead in one industry like mining or telephones or robotics. But US not only has complete coverage of all industries - but they have tremendous law and order and equal opportunities advantage. I cant think of any other country including in Europe that can match US. Euro is one of those attempts to replace US but look where they are. They can't even determine whether they want to stay together. China is the only other alternative - but where is freedom. Equal opportunity is too far away without that. And then our own India scores poorly both on equal opportunity and law and order. So we come back to US.

That's why I say that this whole talk about US losing edge is non-sense. Majority of nobel prize winners were born outside US. What does that tell you? It tells you that the brightest minds on earth think that US is still the destination to do something worthwhile in their lives. The number of students coming from India reduced 4% YoY this year (which by itself is in the margin of error) because of visa rejections as opposed to reductions in applications. The number from China rose 26%. So again - wadhwa really needs to put numbers on the table to make the point.

But Wadhwa has studied this! I think he did a report with the Kaufman foundation which showed that the number of immigrants staying, starting companies, etc. has been lower relative to the past numbers. Looking at Nobel prize winners is not indicative because they will show a lag. Immigration has only gotten harder in the last 5-10 years (and then too for IC only). Most people don't win Nobel prizes at the age of 30 (ten years after college). So the number of immigrant nobel laureates will take longer to go down. And the absolute number is so low anyway, that I suspect it would take a lot to see statistical significance.

In any case, I can anecdotally tell you that most Indian grads from top schools are going back these days. At least that's been my experience. Better opportunities at home, visa/GC too much of a hassle, etc. I have friends at top Silicon Valley companies where the companies want to apply for EB2 GCs but the guys want to go back because it's such a hassle and the wait is long and they can't switch jobs. So I think Wadhwa is spot on that lots of immigrants are going back. TriValley types might be staying but I don't think anyone cares about those...the flood of Indian IT H1Bs also continues unabated, but (on average) they don't seem like the world beating innovators anybody would want to attract.

Your other points about how the US is still the best would take too long to rebut. But given the employment situation, the shoddy infrastructure, the paucity of students going into R&D, etc. other countries will overtake the US soon if they haven't already (and even if the Euro falls apart, which is very unlikely, the average German or Swede will enjoy a higher quality of life than an American). In my view, the US is a country now in decline. And unlike more egalitarian societies such as Japan, this decline will be quite precipitous for all but the 1%. Most Americans and Indians who want to come here (i.e. all of India) are too blind to see this.

[bvsamrat]

I echo this. USA is loosing edge to itslef what It was 20-30 years ago. in olden days most of the Indian college toppers aim for a US college. But now I know that they are not applying or returning back. An IIT grad can not stay for 6 years in limbo and then compete with others on same platform on IT jobs.

Either due to internet or due to emerging Down under countries(AUS-NZ), US is no longer carries same status in research/innovation as it used to be 20-30 years back.

Still it is the leader, but may go down if the same situation continues. I guess this is the main focus of Obama to strengthen excellence in education.




But Wadhwa has studied this! I think he did a report with the Kaufman foundation which showed that the number of immigrants staying, starting companies, etc. has been lower relative to the past numbers. Looking at Nobel prize winners is not indicative because they will show a lag. Immigration has only gotten harder in the last 5-10 years (and then too for IC only). Most people don't win Nobel prizes at the age of 30 (ten years after college). So the number of immigrant nobel laureates will take longer to go down. And the absolute number is so low anyway, that I suspect it would take a lot to see statistical significance.

In any case, I can anecdotally tell you that most Indian grads from top schools are going back these days. At least that's been my experience. Better opportunities at home, visa/GC too much of a hassle, etc. I have friends at top Silicon Valley companies where the companies want to apply for EB2 GCs but the guys want to go back because it's such a hassle and the wait is long and they can't switch jobs. So I think Wadhwa is spot on that lots of immigrants are going back. TriValley types might be staying but I don't think anyone cares about those...the flood of Indian IT H1Bs also continues unabated, but (on average) they don't seem like the world beating innovators anybody would want to attract.

Your other points about how the US is still the best would take too long to rebut. But given the employment situation, the shoddy infrastructure, the paucity of students going into R&D, etc. other countries will overtake the US soon if they haven't already (and even if the Euro falls apart, which is very unlikely, the average German or Swede will enjoy a higher quality of life than an American). In my view, the US is a country now in decline. And unlike more egalitarian societies such as Japan, this decline will be quite precipitous for all but the 1%. Most Americans and Indians who want to come here (i.e. all of India) are too blind to see this.

[qesehmk]

Would be interested in this report - if you can share the link. But even without seeing this report - I would say it is quite possible that indeed people are going back to their countries simply because immigration quota hasn't kept up with the H1B quota. So all those H1Bs that came to US don't necessarily have a way to stay here. Which makes it hardly surprising that a lot of people are going back.

But that is not what I am disputing with Wadhwa. I am disputing the argument that US is in decline. My contention is that this must be proved with numbers. Secondly that must be correlated to exodus of immigrants or lack of immigrants (they are not necessarily teh same thing). Finally - any such decline must be relative since competition between countries is always relative. As an example - if indeed US is in decline and lets say the absolute measure on GDP measured in US dollars is -5% relative to 5 years back then we must see other countries that are on the rise using same measures and same currency.

Granted both China and India would pass this test. So the next question is - how serious a competition they are today and how long before they will become serious competition. And then one needs to finally ask question - is immigration a key determinant that makes India China's rise or contentment thereof a certainty?

So given all these questions - their complexity - I just don't think that there is enough information on the table for lawmakers to actually believe that US is in decline and that the decline is because of US immigration policies. On the contrary - think about it - there is significant data on the table that shows how manufacturing jobs went abroad and how that increase income inequality in the American middleclass and how it suppressed wages for decades and how that is a strategic threat to American dominance.

So - while getting a GC and an opportunity to stay in US is everybody's dream and every body has every right to dream whatever they want - it would be prudent for pro-immigration folks to actually use data to make case.

Now - what sportsfan said above is absolutely true - I agree with him 100% on every word. It would be wise for Indians and Chinese to hitch on CIR and abolish country quota altogether!!!! That would be so much powerful.

p.s. - If i were wadhwa - making a case before congress - I would have used the fact that this country was founded on equal opportunity and immigrants from India China don't get equal opportunity. Period. That in itself would be such a powerful case to be made.

But Wadhwa has studied this! I think he did a report with the Kaufman foundation which showed that the number of immigrants staying, starting companies, etc. has been lower relative to the past numbers.

[abcx13]

Would be interested in this report - if you can share the link. But even without seeing this report - I would say it is quite possible that indeed people are going back to their countries simply because immigration quota hasn't kept up with the H1B quota. So all those H1Bs that came to US don't necessarily have a way to stay here. Which makes it hardly surprising that a lot of people are going back.

But that is not what I am disputing with Wadhwa. I am disputing the argument that US is in decline. My contention is that this must be proved with numbers. Secondly that must be correlated to exodus of immigrants or lack of immigrants (they are not necessarily teh same thing). Finally - any such decline must be relative since competition between countries is always relative. As an example - if indeed US is in decline and lets say the absolute measure on GDP measured in US dollars is -5% relative to 5 years back then we must see other countries that are on the rise using same measures and same currency.

Granted both China and India would pass this test. So the next question is - how serious a competition they are today and how long before they will become serious competition. And then one needs to finally ask question - is immigration a key determinant that makes India China's rise or contentment thereof a certainty?

So given all these questions - their complexity - I just don't think that there is enough information on the table for lawmakers to actually believe that US is in decline and that the decline is because of US immigration policies. On the contrary - think about it - there is significant data on the table that shows how manufacturing jobs went abroad and how that increase income inequality in the American middleclass and how it suppressed wages for decades and how that is a strategic threat to American dominance.

So - while getting a GC and an opportunity to stay in US is everybody's dream and every body has every right to dream whatever they want - it would be prudent for pro-immigration folks to actually use data to make case.

Now - what sportsfan said above is absolutely true - I agree with him 100% on every word. It would be wise for Indians and Chinese to hitch on CIR and abolish country quota altogether!!!! That would be so much powerful.

p.s. - If i were wadhwa - making a case before congress - I would have used the fact that this country was founded on equal opportunity and immigrants from India China don't get equal opportunity. Period. That in itself would be such a powerful case to be made.


Agree wholeheartedly with your P.S. The per country limits are by definition discriminatory and racist. Heck, I don't even understand how they are constitutional.

The problem with using numbers for a lot of these things is that you can make numbers say what you want. Besides, a lot of indicators such as GDP are have huge inherent flaws (too long to get into now) so sometimes the 'qualitative truth' is more powerful and meaningful.

Here are the studies:

http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/immigrant-entrepreneurship-has-stalled-for-the-first-time-in-decades-kauffman-foundation-study-shows.aspx
http://www.kauffman.org/research-and-policy/the-immigrant-exodus-why-america-is-losing-the-global-race-to-capture-entrepreneurial-talent.aspx

[rupen86]

American constitution applies to American citizens. It tells us nothing about how the immigration policies should be enacted. As recently as 1965, all "non white" countries were barred from participating in immigrating to the US. Yes, it was racist, but it is still the right of the host country to determine how they should conduct their immigration policies. In the same light, they can continue with their trend of 7% country caps.

What I and everyone else have always argued is the practical reality that such caps harm the US more. They create a large disadvantaged labor pool that is easily exploited by the employers and create a similar effect at the "higher end of the food chain" that undocumented workers create at the lower end. Actually, the ROWers that get fast track green cards are screwing over other ROWers who are discriminated against in the job marker because employers find Indian candidates with a potential 5 to 15 year wait too irresistible. We are already seeing Indians consuming more than 50% H1Bs. Why? Because there is a "positive feedback" queue that insists on increasing more and more and taking more and more people "in limbo" who can be paid below market and made to work dog hours.

When this discrimination is removed, everyone is subject to same wait, which is better for everyone in the long run. Also, when this happens, only then the true extent of the backlogs will be seen in 3 simple queues (EB1/EB2/EB3), which will also make it easier for policymakers to increase the numbers. Surely someone eloquent enough out there can offer this argument against the country caps.

Some of the recent proposals that promised to *reform* employment based immigration featured more H1Bs!!! Let's be beware of this trap. I have always maintained we need more GCs, so we can leverage our positions better with the Microsofts of the world, but that's precisely they don't want. I am sensing the tech lobby prefers more H1Bs and even more people in limbo. Their employees getting GCs en-masse is bad for their bottom lines.

With the passage of 1964 civil rights act, discrimination based on nationality is illegal.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/07/22/high-skilled-immigration-restrictions-are-economically-senseless/

[abcx13]

American constitution applies to American citizens. It tells us nothing about how the immigration policies should be enacted. As recently as 1965, all "non white" countries were barred from participating in immigrating to the US. Yes, it was racist, but it is still the right of the host country to determine how they should conduct their immigration policies. In the same light, they can continue with their trend of 7% country caps.

What I and everyone else have always argued is the practical reality that such caps harm the US more. They create a large disadvantaged labor pool that is easily exploited by the employers and create a similar effect at the "higher end of the food chain" that undocumented workers create at the lower end. Actually, the ROWers that get fast track green cards are screwing over other ROWers who are discriminated against in the job marker because employers find Indian candidates with a potential 5 to 15 year wait too irresistible. We are already seeing Indians consuming more than 50% H1Bs. Why? Because there is a "positive feedback" queue that insists on increasing more and more and taking more and more people "in limbo" who can be paid below market and made to work dog hours.

When this discrimination is removed, everyone is subject to same wait, which is better for everyone in the long run. Also, when this happens, only then the true extent of the backlogs will be seen in 3 simple queues (EB1/EB2/EB3), which will also make it easier for policymakers to increase the numbers. Surely someone eloquent enough out there can offer this argument against the country caps.

Some of the recent proposals that promised to *reform* employment based immigration featured more H1Bs!!! Let's be beware of this trap. I have always maintained we need more GCs, so we can leverage our positions better with the Microsofts of the world, but that's precisely they don't want. I am sensing the tech lobby prefers more H1Bs and even more people in limbo. Their employees getting GCs en-masse is bad for their bottom lines.

For anyone but Indians, who seems so desperate to come here, the long queues would act as negative feedback instead of positive feedback! Re the constitutionality of racism, see the post above. Segregation (let alone racism when it comes to immigration) was legal in the period you cite. Even if you think immigration can technically be racist since the subjects are not USCs, do you really think Congress can pass a law saying no black people? Or only 1 black person? Or 100/yr? Yet, that's effectively what the country caps have done for India and China...

[seahawks2012]

Article about Vivek Wadhwa's points:
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/10/dear-congressman-gutierrez-please-lift-your-hold-on-silicon-valley/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29

[rupen86]

When each country has exactly the same share (7%) of the pie, it is not discriminatory. What I am arguing is that it is based upon an outdated model of an arbitrary criterion.

Having same percentage does not mean equal opportunity or fairness. Moreover, the argument that those laws only apply to US citizens is incorrect.

[rupen86]

Not necessary. There are several countries that I can think of for whom the long queues would induce a precise positive feedback effect that plagues us Indians today. Also, today, *racism* is taboo, but *countryism* is not. It is perfectly acceptable socially and politically to speak ill of a country. Not that the Americans speak ill of us, but if you try to equate racism to the long queues faced by Indians, the link is very weak and tenuous. Any argument presented should have a business justification - my 2 cents.

Some questions on this.
1) Are you saying that people from some countries like long queues?
2) About the business justification, I have not seen anyone arguing that reforming highly skilled immigration does not have business justification and instead seen tons of articles that it has many economic advantages.

[vizcard]

When each country has exactly the same share (7%) of the pie, it is not discriminatory. What I am arguing is that it is based upon an outdated model of an arbitrary criterion.

Having any quota based on nationality is not illegal per se but it goes against the principles on which america was founded. Same goes for the constitution applying to US Citizens only. It might not directly apply but believe me the press would create a sh!t storm if there was something that was truly non-constitutional in principle.

Ofcourse in Congress, principles = political rants.

[qesehmk]

sport - agree w attractiveness - which is a nice word for slavery really. I have personally experienced it and I think its an open secret and employers love H1B for that reason.

I also agree about the fact that country quota or not is for Americans to decide. I guess vizcard said the same. So indeed there is no legal basis for opposing country quota.

However I think a strong case for abolishing the country quota exists based on 1) Economic Rationale 2) Civil Rights laws and American principle of equal opportunity.

And I do think that - the best way to accomplish it is by hitchhiking with CIR rather than taking a separate path.

I think that's the best I can say on this topic for now :)

For 1), my argument was that long queues actually make you attractive employees in the job market. This is the dirty open secret. I have seen this happen in my company so often now, that it has stopped to amuse me any longer. Senior developers leave, and those positions are filled with H1B fodder ripe for a decade long wait from that dreaded country west of China, south or Russia and east of Pakistan. As an individual, you will never like the long queue, but collectively, long queues have benefited Indians a lot, which is one reason why > 50% H1Bs are consumed by Indians, > 70% H1Bs are consumed by IT, and > 60% of all IT personnel are Indians. Actually, long queues have disrupted the diversity in the job market worse than what HR3012 was supposed to. There are millions of H1Bs in the US right now. I don't have an exact figure, but I remember reading something like 2 million. That's a huge pool of people with no leveraging power at all.

[gs1968]

To sportsfan
The number of co-sponsors for the I-2 Act has crept up to 16 (including Sen.Hatch) although the precise motivation for this is hard to determine.The H-1B increase could be part of it.At the very least we know that these Senators have no objection to removal of country cap.However the major players in the last debate (Schumer,Durbin,Grassley,Sessions,Vitter) are not to be found on the list and without their involvement I feel it is hard to get into judiciary committee and pass it.Also no corresponding legislation at House level yet.

It is also interesting to note that there is a family provision in the I-squared act to increase per country limits to 15 % (same as in HR 3012 last year) .Also the gradual phase-in language of HR 3012 is missing and we might be able to see the complete benefit starting Oct 2013

[rupen86]

It is true that America was founded on principle of equal opportunity, but then, why not open the door to the entire world, let everyone become a permanent resident, grant everyone an EAD and let the best man/woman win? One question we need to answer is why remove the country cap from EB but preserve it in FB?

The quota applies when America its granting is privileges to people who don't have them. Once you have those, the quota no longer applies. That's the way it is. That's how I see it. In principle, there is nothing wrong with the quota, but it doesn't work well in practice, and it's in the best interests of all parties to remove it. That's how I have argued. Feel free to counteract.


The quota was to preserve the diversity. In employment world, it should not be based on diversity but should be based on merit. That's why it does not make sense in EB but it makes sense in FB. Comparing "opening gate to entire world" to equal opportunity does not make sense. There is limited quota of 140k which is fine but within that limit, some countries are getting preferential treatment because of 7% quota which is a problem.

[rupen86]

Obama's vote on CIR in 2007.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/obama-2007-immigration-reform_n_2653411.html

[rupen86]

I think this is big.

Tea party embraces immigration reform including path to citizenship.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rand-paul-state-of-the-union-20130212,0,387435.story

[SeekingGC2013]

What do you guys think about the State of Union Speech? and Comp Immi Reform for legal immigration being prioritized?
just wanted to hear the thoughts from experts about the possibility of removal of % quota on Countries under EB category.


I think this is big.

Tea party embraces immigration reform including path to citizenship.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rand-paul-state-of-the-union-20130212,0,387435.story

[rupen86]

What do you guys think about the State of Union Speech? and Comp Immi Reform for legal immigration being prioritized?
just wanted to hear the thoughts from experts about the possibility of removal of % quota on Countries under EB category.

While I do not consider myself expert, I will give my opinion regardless. State of union speech on immigration was symbolic and not going to achieve anything more than what is currently going on. In reaction to the speech, republicans seemed to agree only on this topic where they can co-operate. This is going to be in center-stage now for next few months.

[free2talk]

Well now the tea party is officially on board so CIR should be happening soon.
Read the link below :
Quote "In his tea party-sponsored rebuke to President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, Sen. Rand Paul will say Republicans should be the party that embraces immigrants as “assets, not liabilities." End Quote

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rand-paul-state-of-the-union-20130212,0,387435.story

[vizcard]

While I do not consider myself expert, I will give my opinion regardless. State of union speech on immigration was symbolic and not going to achieve anything more than what is currently going on. In reaction to the speech, republicans seemed to agree only on this topic where they can co-operate. This is going to be in center-stage now for next few months.

Completely agree that the immigration coverage on the SOTU was a "check the box" exercise. In all fairness though, the SOTU is a soap box...no policy really comes from it.

[gs1968]

Another fish in the stream not sure of where it is going or if it will ever make it!

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22583832/u-s-senators-introduce-high-skill-immigration-bill

A re-hash of a similar bill by the same group last year (I think it was called Start-up 2.0). The only good thing is the inclusion of similar language to 3012 with elimination of country cap and increase in FB percentage to 15.Another positive is the addition of 2 more senators (Moran & Blunt) to the no-objection to country cap removal group.The enrollment for this group has increased to 18. This does not include the likes of Sens.Schumer,Leahy,Durbin who seemed to be OK with this last year but have not proposed or co-sponsored any legislation in this session

PS-Hopefully immigration is sorted out this year and there is no Start-Up 4.0!!

[rupen86]

Another fish in the stream not sure of where it is going or if it will ever make it!

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22583832/u-s-senators-introduce-high-skill-immigration-bill

A re-hash of a similar bill by the same group last year (I think it was called Start-up 2.0). The only good thing is the inclusion of similar language to 3012 with elimination of country cap and increase in FB percentage to 15.Another positive is the addition of 2 more senators (Moran & Blunt) to the no-objection to country cap removal group.The enrollment for this group has increased to 18. This does not include the likes of Sens.Schumer,Leahy,Durbin who seemed to be OK with this last year but have not proposed or co-sponsored any legislation in this session

PS-Hopefully immigration is sorted out this year and there is no Start-Up 4.0!!


From Oh Law firm,

02/13/2013: Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah Introduces H.R. 633 to Eliminate Per Country Limit in Employment-Based Immigration

The Congressman announced that he introduced this bill today. He introduced the similar bill H.R. 3012 in the 112th Congress which was successfully passed in the Republican House but failed in the Democratic Senate. As soon as the text of this bill is made available, we will post it.
Elimination of per country limit in the employment-based immigration was also introduced by another Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, as part of the Innovation Immigration bill.

[pakkpk]

This bill is not going anywhere unless supported by President Obama and Democrats.
http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2013/02/13/sen-mike-lee-introduces-comprehensive-immigration-reform-bills/


From Oh Law firm,

02/13/2013: Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah Introduces H.R. 633 to Eliminate Per Country Limit in Employment-Based Immigration

The Congressman announced that he introduced this bill today. He introduced the similar bill H.R. 3012 in the 112th Congress which was successfully passed in the Republican House but failed in the Democratic Senate. As soon as the text of this bill is made available, we will post it.
Elimination of per country limit in the employment-based immigration was also introduced by another Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, as part of the Innovation Immigration bill.

[vizcard]

well let them keep trying but the Dems are not going for any piecemeal immigration reform

[rupen86]

From Oh Law firm,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/effort-to-change-immigration-law-sparks-internal-battle-within-gop/2013/02/13/2916d164-740a-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html

[gs1968]

An interesting article from a non-political source

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-08/news/ct-perspec-0208-immigration-20130208_1_illegal-immigrants-legal-status-guest-worker

The article says that close to half of the illegal aliens are overstays. I brought this up only because if the Democrats say the Border is secure then the Republicans will ask for full implementation of a secure exit-entry system before agreeing to reform and the goalposts will keep getting moved

[seahawks2012]

An interesting article from a non-political source

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-08/news/ct-perspec-0208-immigration-20130208_1_illegal-immigrants-legal-status-guest-worker



I tend to agree with most points that guy is making. Except the one where he lumped legal & illegal immigrants together and stated a point of utilizing government resources. I would strongly disagree with any point that would equate legal & illegal immigrants because they are not as far as "immigration" is concerned. In fact, all of H1-B workers have actually "paid" to US government not just appropriate federal/state taxes but also "social security & medicare taxes". Without Green Card or US Citizenship, these "social security & medicare taxes" are essentially a gift to the US government. Thus, there is no evidence of legal immigrants putting burden on government resources.

[gs1968]

To seahawks
I think he is referring to legal immigration in general which is not just H-1B or EB categories but other avenues also including Family based immigrants,refugees,asylum-seekers etc. Some of the legal immigrants in those categories do depend on welfare services to survive.

[abcx13]

Another fish in the stream not sure of where it is going or if it will ever make it!

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22583832/u-s-senators-introduce-high-skill-immigration-bill

A re-hash of a similar bill by the same group last year (I think it was called Start-up 2.0). The only good thing is the inclusion of similar language to 3012 with elimination of country cap and increase in FB percentage to 15.Another positive is the addition of 2 more senators (Moran & Blunt) to the no-objection to country cap removal group.The enrollment for this group has increased to 18. This does not include the likes of Sens.Schumer,Leahy,Durbin who seemed to be OK with this last year but have not proposed or co-sponsored any legislation in this session

PS-Hopefully immigration is sorted out this year and there is no Start-Up 4.0!!

Schumer, Leahy and Durbin are not signing up because they are Dems and they only want CIR not piecemeal. So I won't read anything into that. I don't why some congressmen are introducing piecemeal bills. They aren't going anywhere...

[idiotic]

http://24ahead.com/marco-rubio-leads-smear-campaign-against-anti-amnesty-groups

This is the key to CIR's success. These 3 organizations must be defeated. These are the organizations who brought down Bush administration's CIR proposal.

[gs1968]

More backlog on the way

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9236732/The_data_shows_Top_H_1B_users_are_offshore_outsour cers?taxonomyId=70&pageNumber=1

The numbers seem a little bit suspect and the true number could be lower

[abcx13]

More backlog on the way

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9236732/The_data_shows_Top_H_1B_users_are_offshore_outsour cers?taxonomyId=70&pageNumber=1

The numbers seem a little bit suspect and the true number could be lower

We DO need restrictions on the H1B. A simple filter such as x% of the workforce must be American for any company with a size over y employees should do the trick. I suggest 50% as a baseline for x and maybe 50 or 100 for y. This is nothing but labor arbitrage and wage suppression. Hopefully the Indian IT guys will realize this once they become citizens. Considering that a job at Infy/TCS/etc. requires a lower level of skills than a job at Google/Intel/etc. and those guys don't have such an Indian-dominated employee mix, it starts to become clear that the rise in the use of H1B by Indian outsourcers is not about a lack of domestic talent, or the inability to foster domestic talent. In other words, I find it hard to believe that India has a monopoly on mediocre average skilled programmers.

[abcx13]

http://www.epi.org/blog/top-10-h1b-guestworker-offshore-outsourcing/

[abcx13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/us/politics/white-house-continues-work-on-its-own-immigration-bill.html?pagewanted=all

Read the comments. Click Reader Picks. Unlike the folks here, almost all commenters (mostly Americans by the looks of it, but some H1Bs with long waits) have the common sense and courage to admit that legals deserve better than this. The NYT has a liberal readership, yet the majority of comments are against amnesty for illegals and a 8 year path to perm residency.

This is the most recommended comment by a wide margin:


I am a legal immigrant. I have been in this country 10 years. My husband and I pay taxes, follow the law, pay hundreds in fees to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services department to maintain our visa status, sometimes every year, sometimes every three years. I have filing cabinets full of documents covering every single day of our stay in this country.

And we are STILL in line for our green cards, which could still be years away because the lines for those born in India and China are extremely long. My husband, a physician in a remote northern rural town, is on an H1-B and I am on a dependent H-4. This H-4 visa does NOT allow me to work, despite my being in this country legally and having NO criminal history, unless a parking ticket counts as being criminal.

You're telling me that if I had entered this country ILLEGALLY, I would be able to get a work permit and be welcomed as a prospective citizen?

Well, slap me stupid, because that's what thousands of LEGAL immigrants like us must be.

I am a social liberal. I believe in EVERY human being's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But even my tolerance has limits.

Oh, and while we're reveling in this spirit of forgiveness for people who OPENLY commit felonies (fake SSNs, fake drivers IDs, entering and staying in the country illegally), why not give drunk drivers their licenses back? Gosh, everyone's got a sob story behind the crimes they commit, right?

Personally, I think 8 years is ridiculous for a GC. Many highly qualified people have waited much longer in the EB2/3 backlogs. This is a slap in the face. Illegals should not get a GC until there is no legal backlog in my view - if that means never, so be it - unless that's the policy, you are rewarding people for breaking the law, i.e. it's not just amnesty, you are actually rewarding someone for breaking the law by putting them ahead of someone who didn't break the law.

Again, I would remind that the NYT has one of the most liberal readerships and this is what liberals think. Imagine what conservatives think of this dumb amnesty plan. The leak was really really stupid in my view. BO could have salvaged it by having some meaningful sops in terms of prioritizing legals over illegals, but no siree! This is amateur politics at its finest.

[rupen86]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/us/politics/white-house-continues-work-on-its-own-immigration-bill.html?pagewanted=all

Read the comments. Click Reader Picks. Unlike the folks here, almost all commenters (mostly Americans by the looks of it, but some H1Bs with long waits) have the common sense and courage to admit that legals deserve better than this. The NYT has a liberal readership, yet the majority of comments are against amnesty for illegals and a 8 year path to perm residency.

This is the most recommended comment by a wide margin:



Personally, I think 8 years is ridiculous for a GC. Many highly qualified people have waited much longer in the EB2/3 backlogs. This is a slap in the face. Illegals should not get a GC until there is no legal backlog in my view - if that means never, so be it - unless that's the policy, you are rewarding people for breaking the law, i.e. it's not just amnesty, you are actually rewarding someone for breaking the law by putting them ahead of someone who didn't break the law.

Again, I would remind that the NYT has one of the most liberal readerships and this is what liberals think. Imagine what conservatives think of this dumb amnesty plan. The leak was really really stupid in my view. BO could have salvaged it by having some meaningful sops in terms of prioritizing legals over illegals, but no siree! This is amateur politics at its finest.


Seems legal immigration part also has been discussed in the article. Nothing in detail but it says that plan would not be able to cut time shorter than 8 years for legal immigration which I believe is mostly about FB.

[gs1968]

For the proponents of country cap elimination (both FB & EB) here is an interesting editorial from the Dallas morning news

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130217-editorial-reality-should-trump-equality-in-immigration-reform.ece

Please refer to the last paragraph where it says that the 7% limit was never designed to be etched in stone but over the years has become the standard and almost impossible to abolish

[rupen86]

For the proponents of country cap elimination (both FB & EB) here is an interesting editorial from the Dallas morning news

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130217-editorial-reality-should-trump-equality-in-immigration-reform.ece

Please refer to the last paragraph where it says that the 7% limit was never designed to be etched in stone but over the years has become the standard and almost impossible to abolish

Though not mentioned specifically, article seems to be focusing on FB. The solution in the last para seems to be giving preference to western countries and deciding quota dynamically based on recent trend. In my opinion, it does not seem like good solution.

[Spectator]

Though not mentioned specifically, article seems to be focusing on FB. The solution in the last para seems to be giving preference to western countries and deciding quota dynamically based on recent trend. In my opinion, it does not seem like good solution.rupen,

Let's be clear. The article says exempting Western Hemisphere Countries NOT Western Countries. There is a big difference. Countries that make up the Western Hemisphere in DOS reports are:

Western Hemisphere

Argentina
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Curacao
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Venezuela

[vizcard]

I strongly believe the proposal or guiding principles by the Gang of Eight will be the basis for the CIR bill. All the BS from other constituents including Obama and the extreme right will not really impact it to any significant degree. The other major dynamic here is the issue of the sequesters. I'm sure there will be some give and take between that and CIR in terms of compromises.

[qesehmk]

Friends,

I have moved most of the posts related to leaked memo to a new thread "Immigration Politics" (http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2065-Immigration-Politics).

If we focus on politics of immigration then it dumbs down the debate because that debate is speculative and most of the times non-value-add. It is better to focus on data and policy as opposed to politics.

So everybody (abcx in particular) any critique of politicians should be redirected to that thread and NOT HERE please. Critique the policy on its merits and demerits. Not the politicians.

[rupen86]

Will guest worker program kill immigration ? It was missing from white house draft and that is something republicans want.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/opinion/navarrette-immigration-reform/index.html

[abcx13]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/19/v-print/3241889/immigration-plans-from-obama-and.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/immigration-bill-squabble-are-we-talking-yet/

[rupen86]

some damage control.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/283857-obama-phones-gang-of-eight-republicans

[rupen86]

good thoughts on ongoing immigration effort.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/RepDiaz-Balart-Immigration-Reform-Will-Pass-This-Year-or-Not-at-All/2013/02/19/id/491063

[vizcard]

good thoughts on ongoing immigration effort.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/RepDiaz-Balart-Immigration-Reform-Will-Pass-This-Year-or-Not-at-All/2013/02/19/id/491063

Not sure if this is good news.. IMO its just news.

CIR will be on the back burner for the next 2-3 weeks while they talk about the sequester atleast as part of mainstream press.

[idiotic]

House has another hearing on immigration.. This time H2A..

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_02262013.html

[rupen86]

Not sure if this is good news.. IMO its just news.

CIR will be on the back burner for the next 2-3 weeks while they talk about the sequester atleast as part of mainstream press.

I believe it is good analysis.

[rupen86]

Obama's legacy on immigration tied to Rubio.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/obama-legacy-on-immigration-reform-tied-to-rubio-his-frenemy-20130220

[gs1968]

A couple of news items-one positive and the other not so positive

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/immigration-bill_n_2734016.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/bob-goodlatte-immigration_n_2734024.html

[rupen86]

A couple of news items-one positive and the other not so positive

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/immigration-bill_n_2734016.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/bob-goodlatte-immigration_n_2734024.html

This seems to be 2 big stories. Guest worker program which was important to be part of the immigration reform, it is good that progress has been made there. On the house side, I do not know if Boehner would allow senate bill to be put up for the vote. If he does allow that, it could pass even though majority of republicans oppose that. But reverse argument can also apply that house bill which does not include path to citizenship can pass house with most of the republicans supporting it and then in senate with most republicans supporting it.

[pakkpk]

Interesting deal with AFL-CIO and COC. Republicans praised it but as expected, "The chamber’s primary goal has never been to establish a lawful immigration system and secure our borders, but to get as much cheap labor as possible, regardless of how it impacts American workers, legal immigrants and taxpayers in general,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-business-labor-immigration-reform-20130221,0,6788177.story

[idiotic]

Jeff Sessions is the NumbersUSA guy..

www.numbersusa.com

[qesehmk]

Both are anti-immigrants.
Jeff Sessions is the NumbersUSA guy..

www.numbersusa.com (http://www.numbersusa.com)

[rupen86]

Interesting deal with AFL-CIO and COC. Republicans praised it but as expected, "The chamber’s primary goal has never been to establish a lawful immigration system and secure our borders, but to get as much cheap labor as possible, regardless of how it impacts American workers, legal immigrants and taxpayers in general,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-business-labor-immigration-reform-20130221,0,6788177.story

It will allow some guest worker programs to apply for green card which means more backlog unless green card numbers are increased.

Opposing view.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324590904578292232632998490.html

[gs1968]

It seems that it is not just the Indians from India that the Senator is against!!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/21/1619501/chuck-grassley-native-americans/?mobile=nc

It is precisely for this reason that we should temper our optimism for 3012 type Bills to get through the Senate. It will take a few generations for this country to be truly progressive and race-blind

[abcx13]

It seems that it is not just the Indians from India that the Senator is against!!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/21/1619501/chuck-grassley-native-americans/?mobile=nc

It is precisely for this reason that we should temper our optimism for 3012 type Bills to get through the Senate. It will take a few generations for this country to be truly progressive and race-blind

Umm, this is the same reason that all white juries don't try black people anymore. So in principle, he is right.

[rupen86]

It seems that it is not just the Indians from India that the Senator is against!!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/21/1619501/chuck-grassley-native-americans/?mobile=nc

It is precisely for this reason that we should temper our optimism for 3012 type Bills to get through the Senate. It will take a few generations for this country to be truly progressive and race-blind

I got confused. Is not he talking about Native Americans referred as Indians ?

[qesehmk]

Yes. That's why GS said he is "not just against Indians from India" (... but other people as well). To complete that thought - there are quite a few people who think that immigration will take away their culture and way of life. Consider this Hispanics are white people yet their culture is not accepted quite well among significant sections. Asians (indians or chinese) is quite remote to these people.

However - I still think that fundamentally US is pro-immigrant. What we see with Indians and Asians and Hispanics today .... believe it or not was true about Irish just 5 decades back. Irish were never accepted well and never given good jobs in the society and ended up taking low level jobs until 60s. And then came JFK and it changed.

If we see things in larger perspective - it is easy to understand accept and work towards making things happen in a positive manner.


I got confused. Is not he talking about Native Americans referred as Indians ?

[idiotic]

Keep an eye on this Super PAC..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicans_for_Immigration_Reform

[rupen86]

For the first time, Obama is going to take part in senate negotiation process. This can be both good or bad news. It could be good news that they may be finalizing the details and it could be bad news that they might have hit the road block.

From Oh Law firm,
02/23/2013: President Reportedly Scheduled to Meet with Senators at White House Next Tuesday, 02/26/2013, for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation

Report indicates that the President has invited some Senators to the White House who have been involved in immigration reform negotiations within the Senate, assumedly to discuss their differences and to coordinate the process. This is the first step for such coordination efforts since the Senate started working on the CIR bill. This meeting can be crucial to learn how fast this legislation will be introduced and how quickly it will be passed in the Senate. Lately, there have been some positive developments in favor of the ongoing CIR move, including reported agreement between hightech industry and labor to work within the ongoing CIR efforts and another agreement between the labor and low skilled foreign worker employers to work with the guest work component of the CIR legislation. These developments obviously help to smooth out the negotiation process among the CIR players in the Senate and the White House. The House has yet to settle with their hardline position on border security and immigration enforcement focused agenda, but the Senate action is considered an important step to activate and stimulate negotiation for differences in the Congress with inputs from the public and constituents. After all, they are all politicians and they go by and play within the political game considering political landscape at a given time and to negotiate and compromise towards the goal of each party gaining a maximum power and laying out of a ground work for future national elections ahead "within a tolerable limit" but "realistic solution." It is a time to move ahead. This is a good news to keep CIR alive during the rest of February when the Congress will be obsessed with the sequester legislation.

[gcq]

It seems that it is not just the Indians from India that the Senator is against!!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/21/1619501/chuck-grassley-native-americans/?mobile=nc

It is precisely for this reason that we should temper our optimism for 3012 type Bills to get through the Senate. It will take a few generations for this country to be truly progressive and race-blind

This is his true color. He doesn't care about americans or america, he cares about something else.

[rupen86]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/carlos-gutierrez-resigns-citigroup-head-republican-immigration-reform-153153508--election.html

[rupen86]

new sources of support for immigration reform
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865573957/New-sources-of-support-for-immigration-reform.html

[gs1968]

Some positive news although the debate appears to be only in summer

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE91P16N20130226

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/obama-immigration-meeting-lindsey-graham-john-mccain_n_2768821.html

[seahawks2012]

Some positive news although the debate appears to be only in summer

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE91P16N20130226



"The group hopes to finish writing the details of a bill next month so the full Senate can debate such a measure by June or July."

[rupen86]

I do not know why this is not widely reported but this seems to be big.

Goodlatte envisions (circuitous) path to citizenship.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2013/0227/Immigration-reform-A-GOP-point-man-envisions-circuitous-path-to-citizenship

[rupen86]

How GOP can break unwritten rule and pass immigration reform.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/gop-break-unwritten-rule-pass-immigration-reform/story?id=18622924

[kuku82]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/01/3261108/senate-republicans-sell-immigration.html

[rupen86]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/5-reasons-immigration-reform-looks-like-it-might-actually-pass.php

[rupen86]

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/jeb-bush-path-citizenship-immigration-reform/story?id=18648410

[vizcard]

From immigration voice: house judicial cmte hearing on skilled immigration at 10am live on cspan

[rupen86]

Is Jeb Bush trying to scuttle immigration reform ?

http://theweek.com/article/index/240881/is-jeb-bush-trying-to-scuttle-immigration-reform

[rupen86]

Seems house bill is again in the news.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/bipartisan-house-group-to-roll-out-immigration-reform-plan-this-week-91179/

[rupen86]

H1B called in question in house hearing.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/286283-despite-wide-support-for-high-skilled-immigration-reform-h-1b-visas-called-into-question

[Still_Waiting]

http://forward.com/articles/172333/chuck-schumer-nixes-piecemeal-plan-for-immigration/

Not well written but Schumer seems to indicate that there's no hope for a high-skilled reform only bill

[vizcard]

H1B called in question in house hearing.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/286283-despite-wide-support-for-high-skilled-immigration-reform-h-1b-visas-called-into-question

It was a fair article outlining the issues with H1B. I didn't see it as the program itself was in question.


http://forward.com/articles/172333/chuck-schumer-nixes-piecemeal-plan-for-immigration/

Not well written but Schumer seems to indicate that there's no hope for a high-skilled reform only bill

Schumer is repeating the party line. Everyone knows that no stand-alone immigration bill will pass. So the focus has to be on getting the right clauses included in a comprehensive bill.

[rupen86]

Bill is expected to be in April rather than March. Currently, low skill program seems to be causing difficulties. Look for McCain's comments at the end !

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/senate-stuck-on-lower-skilled-workers-88476.html

[rupen86]

Jeb Bush's reversal clouds immigration effort.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/06/jeb_bushs_reversal_clouds_immigration_reform_effor ts_117299.html

[PD2008AUG25]

Jeb Bush's reversal clouds immigration effort.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/06/jeb_bushs_reversal_clouds_immigration_reform_effor ts_117299.html

He must hate all the limelight being soaked up by Rubio. He must come up with something to draw attention.

[PD2008AUG25]

Schumer is repeating the party line. Everyone knows that no stand-alone immigration bill will pass. So the focus has to be on getting the right clauses included in a comprehensive bill.

Hope they change this tune in case CIR fails. It would be ridiculous to keep skilled reform hostage until after 2016 election.

[rupen86]

Democrats' dilemma on high skilled immigration

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/democrats-dilemma-on-high-skilled-immigration-reform-20130306

[rupen86]

Current hurdles in immigration reform.

http://www.examiner.com/article/talks-on-immigration-reform-progressing-but-major-hurdles-remain

[immitime]

Repeating my last post. Assure you all that waiting for this CIR or any other reforms on immigration is a waster.

All big show offs. next 4 years nothing is going to happen on Legal immigration front. The only thing which is going to happen is if CIR fails.. President will issue an executive order to make 11 million Illegals as Legals and path to the citizen ship.. Finally Legal immigration will continue as of now. After 6 months I will revisit my statemets again.

Remember what democrats said after the elections... as soon as the President second term starts ....and that became as soon as he gives his speech on State of the union and again nothing happened, again they said around 1st week of March. Now they say April ... Friends this is only showing carrots. Never ever believe any Politician's promise. NOTHING is going to happen.

[gs1968]

Another day-Another Indian consulting firm-same BS. This has got to stop and the rules should be enforced.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237303/H_1B_visas_used_by_firm_to_create_low_cost_workfor ce_U.S._alleges

I think that the Unions/Grassley etc will not allow any hike in H-1B visas without tightening regulations significantly and enforcement/audits etc.

Immitime's pessimism appears well-founded considering how complex this issue is

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57572744-38/silicon-valley-stymied-on-immigrant-worker-plan/

[rupen86]

Immitime's pessimism appears well-founded considering how complex this issue is

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57572744-38/silicon-valley-stymied-on-immigrant-worker-plan/[/QUOTE]

This article summarizes current immigration effort and the challenges that remain. Including H1B provisions from I-Square will be difficult but our interests will be served if Green card provisions are included for which there seems to be better support. I think there is more than 50% chance of CIR passing but significant challenges remain ahead including pathway to citizenship, secure border, low skill immigration, LGBT, H1B etc. Legal immigration has been held hostage to comprehensive immigration and that is not going to change in current political environment whether it is right or wrong (the words which have no meaning in politics).

[Jonty Rhodes]

At last finally, someone talking about physicians and immigration reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-j-skorton/doctors-immigration-reform_b_2727971.html

[Jonty Rhodes]

Repeating my last post. Assure you all that waiting for this CIR or any other reforms on immigration is a waster.

All big show offs. next 4 years nothing is going to happen on Legal immigration front. The only thing which is going to happen is if CIR fails.. President will issue an executive order to make 11 million Illegals as Legals and path to the citizen ship.. Finally Legal immigration will continue as of now. After 6 months I will revisit my statemets again.

Remember what democrats said after the elections... as soon as the President second term starts ....and that became as soon as he gives his speech on State of the union and again nothing happened, again they said around 1st week of March. Now they say April ... Friends this is only showing carrots. Never ever believe any Politician's promise. NOTHING is going to happen.

What you said could be very true but I would not give up so easily. The CIR has not even been introduced in Senate yet and there is a lot of activity on the hill. Lets wait and watch. However, having said that, I feel very sad that legal immigration is being held hostage to CIR (read illegal immigration) and it is not going to change soon. I hope I don't sound too optimistic. :)

[kuku82]

Wow, Rand Paul's "traditional" filibuster in the senate is going on for 11+ hrs and no sign of ending. Gives me an eerie feeling about CIR, although am not giving up on it.

[rupen86]

Wow, Rand Paul's "traditional" filibuster in the senate is going on for 11+ hrs and no sign of ending. Gives me an eerie feeling about CIR, although am not giving up on it.

Breaking the filibuster takes 60 votes and they are going to have that many. If they do not, there won't be any hope for passing in the house even if it passes senate.