Discussion of Bills that remove the Per Country Limits - H.R.3012, H,R. 213

[suninphx]

Sportsfan, Pedro and all others...great job guys to keep the tempo and awareness up...keep going

[kd2008]

There might be need for folks to travel to Washington D.C. when this bill comes for vote in House.. and later in Senate...to drum up support and create media flurry. So please keep a day or two of vacation ready. We have this one chance to pass HR 3012. Lets give it all.

[qesehmk]

i started following during last 10-15 minutes. King proposed an amendment to restrict brothers and sisters.
Q
there were few amendments crazy amendments proposed..as i mentioned in my post earlier,,,removing EB3 category (40,000 visas) and making total limit of EB category to 100,000.
Recapture was proposed by Zoe but didn't make it to even vote, "W" visa didnt make it to vote:..i think there was one amendment by Zoe passed, i had to leave my desk when it was being proposed, so i didn't see that amendment,,did Pedro see that amendment?

[geterdone]

jackbrown/pedro/sportsfan- good to see people following this.

i read in this forum that if this bil passes (i know everyone saying the chance is only 0.1%), yet if it passes then eb2 will jump to oct 2009 or may even become current. since eb1 is not going to be affected by this bill will that change the prediction?

how long before this bill will be in house/senate? what is the biggest hurdle from now?

keep faith - persistence pays

[kd2008]

Possible action items:

1) Schedule a meeting to speak with your Congressperson and obtain support for HR 3012.
2) There might be need for folks to travel to Washington D.C. when this bill comes for vote in House.. and later in Senate...to drum up support and create media flurry. So please keep a day or two of vacation ready. We have this one chance to pass HR 3012. Lets give it all.

Other advocacy items will show up as things progress. Use your current energy and excitement to schedule an appointment with Congressperson's office..if with Congress person then even better.

[jackbrown_890]

i started following during last 10-15 minutes. King proposed an amendment to restrict brothers and sisters.

I think KD2008 watched the part I missed and as s/he said,, it was "Eb1 excluded from this bill" amendment, which passed. It doesn't affect too many people since Eb1 is always or has been always Current in the past anyways.

[skpanda]

I missed the Judiciary markup...does anybody has a link to the video recording please?

[self.coach]

Response from congressperson in my area regarding my email supporting HR 3012:

Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Like you, I believe our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. That's why I voted to have a full debate and up-or-down vote on an immigration plan in the Senate during the 111th Congress. While the plan was not perfect, it would have been a first step toward securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. Still, I remain committed to reforming our nation's immigration laws in a comprehensive fashion. I will keep your thoughts in mind if the Senate considers comprehensive immigration reform in this session of Congress. Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future, as your communication helps me better serve you in the Senate.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Wow. I got out of a meeting and rushed back to watch the footage and it's done. Step 1 of 4 in my opinion. I believe step 2 (passing the house) will now happen unless the opposition organizes itself better and generates significant noise, so make those calls / schedule those meetings with YOUR congressman / senator as sportsfan33 has done. I'll keep you guys posted if I hear anything else.

Odd, that amendment from Zoe, if it means 7% country caps will remain on EB1s. I think that's the area if any where country caps make the least sense. Would you ask a CV Raman to wait a year or two if 2,800 EB1I visas have already been given out? Anyway, I'll read the amendment when it's out and see if it is what we think it is. Maybe it just excludes EB1s from the calculation of the reserved visas (the 6,006 in FY2012 and 4,004 in FY2013 & FY2014) because otherwise, EB1ROW would have taken up the entire allocation of reserved visas and EB2 & EB3 ROW would have got nothing until the retrogressed countries caught up.

Great work all. I don't believe this is the work of one organization's efforts. They may have led the charge, but jamming the phones required a groundswell of support. I think the debates on trackitt, murthy's bulletin and the info spread on this site all got folks to pick their phones up. We need more, though. I spoke with my cousin who is in business school about this and he had no idea what the bill was about, but also at how long of a wait he was looking at. Most people assume the recession will mean the wait time's are going to drop or go away altogether. Those are the people you need to make aware of this. If you know any Indian or Chinese student in grad school or someone recently out of gradschool that's just started or not yet started the process, call him / her up and ask them to research the subject, and start making calls. Many of us here are likely to get our GCs in the next 12 months regardless, it's those guys that are affected, and they should be doing their fare share towards it.

[Pedro Gonzales]

We can't attribute an arbitrary probability number for the passage of the without having any basis.

However it is true that there are many hurdles in *any* bill becoming a law. Mostly, democratic processes are reactionary and unless the problem has become extremely bad and is affecting a large number of people (or a small number of influential people), nothing ever changes from the status quo.

Now the question we should be asking is if the immigration problem has become bad (duh!), and if it is affecting a large number of people (or a small number of influential people). I don't have any comment. I will like to believe that it is important, but it may very well turn out to be a big disappointment.

From what I have read around, passage of this bill in the House is extremely likely. However I don't know how likely it is to be introduced, and who is going to do it. The passage of the bill in the Senate is unknown, and in my view, the biggest hurdle is introducing this bill in the Senate.

So the probability of becoming a law =

introducing in house: p1 *
passing the house vote: p2 *
introducing in Senate: p3 *
passing the Senate vote: p4 *
Signature by the president: p5

In my view, p2 and p5 are very high, p1 and p4 are unknown, and p3 is low.

Well articulated. I think p1 is high too. With Smith backing the bill and knowing how many calls his office has received, he isn't going to let Boehner sideline this.

I also believe there is a senate judiciary committee that it needs to be introduced to and pass, between p2 and p3 (let's call it p2.5, unless you meant to include that as a part of p3). I think that unless the bill gets the attention of a big senate Dem, neither p2.5, p3 or p4 will happen.

[qesehmk]

It sure is odd. Fortunately it will not hurt EB1IC since EB1 usually is always current.

On the other point also i agree w you pedro- I think everybody should do what s/he can. This has very far reaching consequences for EB category. Instead of touting horns for an organization or trying to control EB people;s actions, I would trust an EB person's intelligence in taking action on his own and reach out to lawmakers to positively influence them.



Odd, that amendment from Zoe, if it means 7% country caps will remain on EB1s....


Great work all. I don't believe this is the work of one organization's efforts. They may have led the charge, but jamming the phones required a groundswell of support. I think the debates on trackitt, murthy's bulletin and the info spread on this site all got folks to pick their phones up. We need more, though.

[immitime]

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_10252011.html

House Judiciary committe website updated with passing of H.R.3012

[kd2008]

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php?4-EB2-Predictions-%28Rather-Calculations%29-2011&p=9544#post9544


Pedro,

Just to add to your post.

For Unreserved visas (those for IC initially), no Country may use more than 70% of that total.

For Reserved visas (to be split between Mexico, Philippines & ROW), no Country may use more than 25% of that total.

The limits would be:

-------------- FY2012 -- FY2013 -- FY2014 -- FY2015 on
Reserved ------ 15% ----- 10% ---- 10% ---------- 0%
Total Visas -- 40,040 -- 40,040 -- 40,040 -- 40,040

Reserved ------ 6,006 --- 4,004 --- 4,004 ------- 0
25% ----------- 1,502 --- 1,001 --- 1,001 ------- 0

Unreserved --- 34,034 -- 36,036 -- 36,036 -- 40,040
70% ---------- 23,824 -- 25,225 -- 25,225 -- 28,028

Effectively, for FY2012 that would initially be :

China ------- 10,210 (34,034 minus 23,824)
India ------- 23,824 (70% limit)
Mexico ------- 1,502 (25% limit)
Philippines -- 1,502 (25% limit)
ROW ---------- 3,002 (Remainder)
Total ------- 40,040

In reality, for EB2, Mexico doesn't use 1,502 visas, so some would be shared between Philippines and ROW.

The same Reserved/Unreserved splits and maximums of 70%/25% also seems to be applied to Spillover, although the language is not entirely clear.

The EB2-C Cut Off Date would accelerate rapidly, probably catching EB2-ROW-MP in FY2013.

Assuming continued high demand from EB2-I beyond FY2010 PDs and the 70% limit, the Cut Off Dates for EB2-I would not equal EB2-C-MP-ROW until around FY2019/FY2020.

At this point, all Countries would be retrogressed by around 2.5 years by my rough calculation.

EB3 is much more difficult to calculate. China doesn't have the demand, but Philippines does for the period CY2006 onwards and Mexico demand is always a mystery.

EB3-I might catch up to ROW Cut Off date fairly quickly, but all Countries would end up around 8 years retrogressed and increasing.

Lofgren amendment that passed now say 85% of the unreserved visa to single country up from 70% before - page 3 line 2
EB1 excluded - page 2 line 24

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/10272011%20Lofgren%20Amdt3%20-%20PASSED%20by%20voice.pdf

The EB1 exclusion is only for transition phase. After that it is strictly first-come-first-serve.

[kd2008]

Lofgren amendment that passed now say 85% of the unreserved visa to single country up from 70% before - page 3 line 2
EB1 excluded - page 2 line 24

The EB1 exclusion is only for transition phase. After that it is strictly first-come-first-serve.

[gcq]

Lofgren amendment that passed now say 85% of the unreserved visa to single country up from 70% before - page 3 line 2
EB1 excluded - page 2 line 24

The EB1 exclusion is only for transition phase. After that it is strictly first-come-first-serve.
Does Lofgren's amendment covers all transition years ? From what I read EB1 exclusion is applicable for year 2012 only.

[kd2008]

Does Lofgren's amendment covers all transition years ? From what I read EB1 exclusion is applicable for year 2012 only.

As I read it and understand it, it applies to 2012, 2013, 2014 ...page 3 line 2 of http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/10272011%20Lofgren%20Amdt3%20-%20PASSED%20by%20voice.pdf

[gcq]

As I read it and understand it, it applies to 2012, 2013, 2014 ...page 3 line 2 of http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/10272011%20Lofgren%20Amdt3%20-%20PASSED%20by%20voice.pdf
From what I read the location where this exclusion is made is Page1, Line 7 where it refers to "paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 203(b)".

This explicit reference to "paragraphs (2) and (3)" is missing from year 2013 and 2014.

203(b)- Employment based green card category
paragraph 1 of 203(b) -- EB1
paragraph 2 of 203(b) -- EB2
paragraph 3 of 203(b) -- EB3

[qesehmk]

That's terrific. Thanks Nishant for posting.

I continue to be amazed with how much certainty CO Murthy and other lawyers have been talking about forward movement.

I do not think anything fundamental has changed in terms of policy. I think this has all do with replenishment of pipeline. I also think that this is closely tied to 3012 which would indicate that 3012 doesn't have as slim chance as we may think.


Murthy puts newflash:


NewsFlash! EB2 Cutoff of March 1, 2008 Expected in December!
Posted 27.Oct.2011
The cutoff date for the employment-based, second preference (EB2) category for India and China is expected to advance to at least March 1, 2008 in the December 2011 Visa Bulletin. This prediction is reliable, as we received it directly from Mr. Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Visa and Control Division, U.S. Department of State. The continued forward movement will allow for many additional individuals to pursue the final stage of their permanent residence (green card) cases in December 2011. More details and predictions for the future will be provided for MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers.

[nishant2200]

Teddy, Q,Nishanth,Veni,

I have not seen CO make such gutsy vb movements and statements like these before. I'm thinking that there is certainly a policy change or pressure from above to keep the line moving or in anticipation of some policy change to be revealed. It's definitely welcome news news for all our EBIC community.

That said, we all know for fact there's only 'n' number of toffees for EB2IC like each year and people would storm CIS with SR and congressional requests starting January 1st. So, IMHO, CO is betting with enough information and we must all celebrate if dates move forward for next 2 vbs.

something does seem afoot. (3012...?) It is very uncharacteristic. I will again maintain, this is it, this might be the last golden opportunity for Mr. CO before various factors like visibility into demand function, hammering of service requests, pre-adjudication being fast by USCIS, etc catches up.

I will also say that keep emotions in check, until the event happens, it's all just probability, high or low. I know it's difficult, but I would like to repeat, we should not take it for granted.

[leo07]

Q, exactly. I'm sure as much as they want to replenish the inventory, they are still highly visible government agencies during an election year. Definitely they don't want their backs against wall during May-October 2012. I'm sure they are working on credible information that 3012 or something similar will get through by march-April-May time frame.

That's terrific. Thanks Nishant for posting.

I continue to be amazed with how much certainty CO Murthy and other lawyers have been talking about forward movement.

I do not think anything fundamental has changed in terms of policy. I think this has all do with replenishment of pipeline. I also think that this is closely tied to 3012 which would indicate that 3012 doesn't have as slim chance as we may think.

[Pedro Gonzales]

From what I read the location where this exclusion is made is Page1, Line 7 where it refers to "paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 203(b)".

This explicit reference to "paragraphs (2) and (3)" is missing from year 2013 and 2014.

203(b)- Employment based green card category
paragraph 1 of 203(b) -- EB1
paragraph 2 of 203(b) -- EB2
paragraph 3 of 203(b) -- EB3

"each of such paragraphs" means the paragraphs mentioned earlier in the amendment, or Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Sec 202 mentioned in paragraph 1A of the amendment. So kd is right.

Also, one difference is that India is now looking at 85% of the 85%, whereas we had 70% of the 100% earlier. Still better, but only marginally so.

[grnwtg]

as there are not more than 10 -15 days for next bulletin, hopefully CO will stick to his words, as always I and qbf were telling hopefully it will move atleast till April -2008 in couple more bulletins...
Feel like there is some belief..

NIshant, get ready with your paper work buddy, ours is not sure but looks like yours will be sure shot..


That's terrific. Thanks Nishant for posting.

I continue to be amazed with how much certainty CO Murthy and other lawyers have been talking about forward movement.

I do not think anything fundamental has changed in terms of policy. I think this has all do with replenishment of pipeline. I also think that this is closely tied to 3012 which would indicate that 3012 doesn't have as slim chance as we may think.

[skpanda]

I have been thinking about the connection with HR3012 as well...

What if HR3012 passes, then CO will be forced to make EB2 current for all countries. Best would be for him to advance it to get atleast 35K applications before Feb 2012 and then by that time if HR3012 is passed and signed as law, then he will move further to get another 50K atleast.

Good days are ahead for EB2IC. Hopefully HR3012 is signed into law and EB3IC gets much needed relief.

Good Luck to all!!



That's terrific. Thanks Nishant for posting.

I continue to be amazed with how much certainty CO Murthy and other lawyers have been talking about forward movement.

I do not think anything fundamental has changed in terms of policy. I think this has all do with replenishment of pipeline. I also think that this is closely tied to 3012 which would indicate that 3012 doesn't have as slim chance as we may think.

[venkimakthal]

That's terrific. Thanks Nishant for posting.

I continue to be amazed with how much certainty CO Murthy and other lawyers have been talking about forward movement.

I do not think anything fundamental has changed in terms of policy. I think this has all do with replenishment of pipeline. I also think that this is closely tied to 3012 which would indicate that 3012 doesn't have as slim chance as we may think.

Good hear gurus :)

Edit: Mine is April 8, 2008 very less chances in Dec VB, May be in Jan VB

[qesehmk]

skpanda

another thing that is a serious reason to make believe 3012 is serious is EB3I situation.

Recapture is extremely tough. Any kind of cap increase is extremely tough.

So removal of country cap is the ONLY realistic hope for EB3IC.

Lets all hope that at least for their sake 3012 gets through.


I have been thinking about the connection with HR3012 as well...

What if HR3012 passes, then CO will be forced to make EB2 current for all countries. Best would be for him to advance it to get atleast 35K applications before Feb 2012 and then by that time if HR3012 is passed and signed as law, then he will move further to get another 50K atleast.

Good days are ahead for EB2IC. Hopefully HR3012 is signed into law and EB3India gets much needed relief.

Good Luck to all!!

Leo ... yes i think we are thinking the same. It all is starting to make sense.

[Pedro Gonzales]

I've updated Spec's earlier analysis to show what the numbers are without taking inventory into account. Someone else, please look into it and see if the inventory would mean less demand from some of these categories.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For Unreserved visas (those for IC initially), no Country may use more than 85% of that total.

For Reserved visas (to be split between Mexico, Philippines & ROW), no Country may use more than 25% of that total.

The limits would be:

-------------- FY2012 -- FY2013 -- FY2014 -- FY2015 on
Reserved ------ 15% ----- 10% ---- 10% ---------- 0%
Total Visas -- 40,040 -- 40,040 -- 40,040 -- 40,040

Reserved ------ 6,006 --- 4,004 --- 4,004 ------- 0
25% ----------- 1,502 --- 1,001 --- 1,001 ------- 0

Unreserved --- 34,034 -- 36,036 -- 36,036 -- 40,040
85% ----------28,929 -- 30,631 -- 30,631 -- 40,040

Effectively, for FY2012 that would initially be :

China ------- 5,105 (34,034 minus 28,929)
India ------- 28,929 (85% limit)
Mexico ------- 1,502 (25% limit)
Philippines -- 1,502 (25% limit)
ROW ---------- 3,002 (Remainder)
Total ------- 40,040

[pdmay2008]

Good hear gurus :)

HR 3012 moved to next stage.
CO comments on upcoming VBs..
485 inventory(Little disappointment, but can live with the facts).

I see a big light bulb at the end of the tunnel, But some one has to turn it ON. Please help on HR 3012 every one. We will all benefit by this.

[nishant2200]

Thank you all.

I noticed lot of you wishing well for me, and my personal sake in next bulletin.

I do not say much on HR 3012 and other laws here as this is predictions calculations thread, but yes, that is the only real hope for EB3I as well as EB2I as once economy improves, SO might be less and porting increase. I am just one of countless people, I got lucky maybe, but there are scores with families and kids waiting.

I will again repeat a sentence in my earlier post, as it got lost in the celebration: "I will also say that keep emotions in check, until the event happens, it's all just probability, high or low. I know it's difficult, but I would like to repeat, we should not take it for granted."

[grnwtg]

Yes Nishant..thats true..over optimism might lead to severe disappointment.


Thank you all.

I noticed lot of you wishing well for me, and my personal sake in next bulletin.

I do not say much on HR 3012 and other laws here as this is predictions calculations thread, but yes, that is the only real hope for EB3I as well as EB2I as once economy improves, SO might be less and porting increase. I am just one of countless people, I got lucky maybe, but there are scores with families and kids waiting.

I will again repeat a sentence in my earlier post, as it got lost in the celebration: "I will also say that keep emotions in check, until the event happens, it's all just probability, high or low. I know it's difficult, but I would like to repeat, we should not take it for granted."

[dreamer]

Pedro/Spec,

Thanks for your time and analysis on this. Just curious, is there a reason why you have allocated max 85% limit to just India as both IC are following same priority date movement?



I've updated Spec's earlier analysis to show what the numbers are without taking inventory into account. Someone else, please look into it and see if the inventory would mean less demand from some of these categories.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For Unreserved visas (those for IC initially), no Country may use more than 85% of that total.

For Reserved visas (to be split between Mexico, Philippines & ROW), no Country may use more than 25% of that total.

The limits would be:

-------------- FY2012 -- FY2013 -- FY2014 -- FY2015 on
Reserved ------ 15% ----- 10% ---- 10% ---------- 0%
Total Visas -- 40,040 -- 40,040 -- 40,040 -- 40,040

Reserved ------ 6,006 --- 4,004 --- 4,004 ------- 0
25% ----------- 1,502 --- 1,001 --- 1,001 ------- 0

Unreserved --- 34,034 -- 36,036 -- 36,036 -- 40,040
85% ----------28,929 -- 30,631 -- 30,631 -- 40,040

Effectively, for FY2012 that would initially be :

China ------- 5,105 (34,034 minus 28,929)
India ------- 28,929 (85% limit)
Mexico ------- 1,502 (25% limit)
Philippines -- 1,502 (25% limit)
ROW ---------- 3,002 (Remainder)
Total ------- 40,040

[Reader]

I do not think anything fundamental has changed in terms of policy. I think this has all do with replenishment of pipeline. I also think that this is closely tied to 3012 which would indicate that 3012 doesn't have as slim chance as we may think.

I think it is purely for the purpose of collecting the inventory with the assumption that there would be ~30K visas available by the end of the FY. As for 3012, anything might happen as it has to pass the full house voting. I don't think CO would be making any of his decision based on 3012 at this point.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Pedro/Spec,

Thanks for your time and analysis on this. Just curious, is there a reason why you have allocated max 85% limit to just India as both IC are following same priority date movement?

I didn't have the time to look at the inventory report, but the assumption is that India is India to China EB2 demand is 85%:15% or higher. If that isn't true, China will of course take more than 15% and India less than 85%. The other inherent assumption is that India/China will not catch up with ROW/M/P within the transition time period. If it does, that % drops further.

[sandeep11]

Nishant...Bulls Eye...Murthy confirmed, I guess we take it and start preparing our documents....Thanks.


something does seem afoot. (3012...?) It is very uncharacteristic. I will again maintain, this is it, this might be the last golden opportunity for Mr. CO before various factors like visibility into demand function, hammering of service requests, pre-adjudication being fast by USCIS, etc catches up.

I will also say that keep emotions in check, until the event happens, it's all just probability, high or low. I know it's difficult, but I would like to repeat, we should not take it for granted.

[qesehmk]

Nothing is certain. But its possible that CO wants to be prepared for passage of 3012. I don't claim to know future. I am just saying that is a possibility.


I think it is purely for the purpose of collecting the inventory with the assumption that there would be ~30K visas available by the end of the FY. As for 3012, anything might happen as it has to pass the full house voting. I don't think CO would be making any of his decision based on 3012 at this point.

familyguy I found EB2IC related text very interesting. Its almost verbatim to what we have been saying except he wants the movement to occur by Feb rather than March.

Employment Second:
China and India: Significant cut‐off date movement between now and February. Such movement will not be the norm throughout the fiscal year, and there is a possibility for retrogression of the cut‐off during the summer months.

[grnwtg]

Thats should be the good strategy, last few years, they have lot of application so it made sense to move in the last few months, this year they want to build but inventory, it would be good for them and us if they move dates in first 4-5 months itself. Definetly strategy should be changed as situation is changed.


Nothing is certain. But its possible that CO wants to be prepared for passage of 3012. I don't claim to know future. I am just saying that is a possibility.



familyguy I found EB2IC related text very interesting. Its almost verbatim to what we have been saying except he wants the movement to occur by Feb rather than March.

[BALI01]

How does this sound for EB3 IC ? Will we see any dramatic changes in the next 3 years?

[skpanda]

yes.. EB3IC will get 34K in 2012, 36K in 2013 and 36K in 2014. After that, if EB3IC did not catch up with EB3-ROW, all the GCs will go to EB3IC till they catch up with ROW.

That is far better than 5.6K that EB3IC gets now.



How does this sound for EB3 IC ? Will we see any dramatic changes in the next 3 years?

[dreamer]

Pedro,

Thanks for the update. You are correct, I just checked the certified labor data for FY2008, looks like India have 23,503 and China have 4,154. India:China ratio do come up to 85:15. I hope this bill be law sometime soon.

Do you know when it will be presented on the floor/senate?


I didn't have the time to look at the inventory report, but the assumption is that India is India to China EB2 demand is 85%:15% or higher. If that isn't true, China will of course take more than 15% and India less than 85%. The other inherent assumption is that India/China will not catch up with ROW/M/P within the transition time period. If it does, that % drops further.

[polarbear]

This is a great step and will definitely help EB3 the most. I hope HR3012 continues to gain traction.
The grass roots support by all EB-India was definitely awesome as seen on various forums. However, while grass roots support is key, also important is strategy,organization and advocacy on Capitol Hill since both go hand in hand. Cannot deny a hats off to you-know-who for that. Even our friends in ROW, who are vehemently against this bill, are acknowledging that. The organization and coordination is important and I am glad that is there in this case.
Anyway, bottomline is I hope the road ahead is smooth.

[nishant2200]

Just got dumped some trash work to do from manager. Can't help but feel to say that, man, soon it's going to be time to show the finger to you sir. have fun while you can.

and if the HR 3012 kind of stuff passes, then no longer will sustained abuse of indians and chinese continue, treat us with freaking respect!

[grnwtg]

Thats true..this is kind of slavery... usa should do big amendments and i was even thinking if it will be of any help if one approaches Human Rights and tell how few employers suck blood from the consultants...
One of my friend was working as a java developer for $19/hr with a threat that employer will report to uscis ( which was mindless threat which he was frighted), this continued for 3 yrs i guess to find an opportunity which is almost triple rate.


Just got dumped some trash work to do from manager. Can't help but feel to say that, man, soon it's going to be time to show the finger to you sir. have fun while you can.

and if the HR 3012 kind of stuff passes, then no longer will sustained abuse of indians and chinese continue, treat us with freaking respect!

[sai999]

Thank you all.

I noticed lot of you wishing well for me, and my personal sake in next bulletin.

I do not say much on HR 3012 and other laws here as this is predictions calculations thread, but yes, that is the only real hope for EB3I as well as EB2I as once economy improves, SO might be less and porting increase. I am just one of countless people, I got lucky maybe, but there are scores with families and kids waiting.

I will again repeat a sentence in my earlier post, as it got lost in the celebration: "I will also say that keep emotions in check, until the event happens, it's all just probability, high or low. I know it's difficult, but I would like to repeat, we should not take it for granted."


Nishant2200 i must say i am really really appreciate on the updates your are providing to the immigration community.i don't know how you are getting this much time to provide the updates .. kudos to you and your effort.

q,Teddy , spec, veni and all other great gurus...thanks a lot for your valuable information.

By the way nishant2200 with your info regarding medicals i am getting all shots freely from community health center (which saves all most 500$ for me and my wife) once again thanks a lot.

[bhala5]

Hi Teddy/Nishant/Qesehmk

Thank you for your great service and I may posting wrong place but trying to get answer from Guru's, please advise..

Judiciary commitee approved HR 704 bill 3 month ago and not yet been submitted to house floor as of now, Will that same thing happen HR 3012?, I wish to approve this HR 3012, but trying to understand the procedure after commiitee approve ?

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee Wednesday approved the Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act (HR 704)
Committee approves bill to eliminate per-country limits on high-skilled immigrants (HR 3012)

[yesman]

CO has indicated both in Nov bulletin and with the information released today that it will move for next couple of months in large numbers, and that it will move to ATLEAST Mar 1. So, I'd assume that a couple of month's movement beyond March is a possibility.

My understanding (of the opinions expressed in this forum) is that any movement beyond April 2008 is probably motivated by the desire to allow more people to file for 485 or preparation for H.R 3012 or something like that.


Friends,

As per CO:

The cutoff date for the employment-based, second preference (EB2) category for India and China is expected to advance to at least March 1, 2008 in the December 2011 Visa Bulletin. This prediction is reliable, as we received it directly from Mr. Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Visa and Control Division, U.S. Department of State. The continued forward movement will allow for many additional individuals to pursue the final stage of their permanent residence (green card) cases in December 2011. More details and predictions for the future will be provided for MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers.
(Source Murthy law firm)

Does that mean he is going to move the dates beyond March/April 2008 in Jan 2012 VB?

Is there any chance that he will move the dates to June/July 2008 in Jan 2012 VB?

[JJcalifornian]

Is that HR3012 pass through the house?

The bill, which passed by a voice vote in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, creates what he says is a fairer system that is “first come, first serve.”

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52799052-90/advances-american-bill-chaffetz.html.csp

Washington • Federal law currently restricts how many highly skilled foreign workers can be hired from select countries, but that could change under legislation by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

Chaffetz’s Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, which advanced to the House floor Thursday, would drop the caps for country of origin that now limit how many workers can come from, say, India or England.

Chaffetz, who first ran for office on a platform of clamping down on illegal immigration, says his legislation fixes a problem with visas that hurts American businesses.

The bill, which passed by a voice vote in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, creates what he says is a fairer system that is “first come, first serve.”

“By removing per-country limits, American companies will be able to access the best talent,” Chaffetz said. “This legislation is pro-growth, pro-jobs, and pro-family.”

Chaffetz’s bill does not increase the number of visas available for highly skilled workers. The legislation is co-sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

[tanu_75]

Is that HR3012 pass through the house?

The bill, which passed by a voice vote in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, creates what he says is a fairer system that is “first come, first serve.”

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52799052-90/advances-american-bill-chaffetz.html.csp

Washington • Federal law currently restricts how many highly skilled foreign workers can be hired from select countries, but that could change under legislation by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

Chaffetz’s Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, which advanced to the House floor Thursday, would drop the caps for country of origin that now limit how many workers can come from, say, India or England.

Chaffetz, who first ran for office on a platform of clamping down on illegal immigration, says his legislation fixes a problem with visas that hurts American businesses.

The bill, which passed by a voice vote in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, creates what he says is a fairer system that is “first come, first serve.”

“By removing per-country limits, American companies will be able to access the best talent,” Chaffetz said. “This legislation is pro-growth, pro-jobs, and pro-family.”

Chaffetz’s bill does not increase the number of visas available for highly skilled workers. The legislation is co-sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

If you read the comments in that article, it is clear why nothing has happened on immigration in almost 10 years. No lawmaker wants to touch this with a 10 foot pole. Kudos to Chaffetz for doing this. Let's hope for the best.

[girish989]

This is the first time I am seeing immigrants defending any bill and answering to the anti immigrant rhetoric. I hope this bill passes and brings some relief to all of us.

[kd2008]

EB1 category was excluded from the removal of per country caps according to Lofgren's amendment. They agreed to this as EB1-ROW would have faced cut off dates if the bill passed as is. That is the only change.

The above is incorrect. A friend on "that forum" explained,


Actually the amendment is only for transition rules. The country cap is removed from EB1 as well, but there is no transition period for EB1. It is right away.

The reason for this is that EB1 is current and it benefits the US the most and there is no impact to anyone as everyone is current in EB1.

The amendment is to apply the transition rules to only EB2 and EB3. All others will be without country caps from the beginning.

This does not have any impact to anyone because, other than EB2 and EB3, all others are current anyway all the time.

[parsvnath]

Not to dash everybodys hope....This website is claiming that moving dates to March 1st 2008 is a rumor

From immigration-law website:

10/28/2011: Annual Immigrant Visa Number Limit for FY 2012 by Family-Based and Employment-Based Immigration Categories

Thus far, the EB-2 immigrant visa number movement was not too bad in the first two months of FY 2012 (October and November 2011). This overall data is posted for readers who are not too familiar with the the annual immigrant visa number limits. Lately proposed elimination of per country numerical limitation in employment-based immigration has raised a lot of issues and controversies out there as triggered by H.R. 3012 which was just passed in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday and which will be on the full House floor for the final House action sooner or later. This bill was introduced by a conservative Republican Congressman Chaffetz from Utah and co-sponsored by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Lamar Smith who has been known to be ultra conservative. In passing this bill in the House Judiciary, however, one of the most powerful Democratic House member in the immigration legislation, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California joined the group as another co-sponsor, turning the bill into a bi-partisan bill. As readers are well aware of, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren introduced in the House a similar bill in a different context quite earlier, which has been pending in the House. Accordingly, her joining of other co-sponsors of this bill will impact her own pending bill one way or another, even though her own bill will still remain alive in the House. (For the summary of her own bill, please click here.) Reportedly, she joined Represeantives Chaffetz and Smith on a condition to accept her amendment to the bill putting a cap of three years for the legislation, and the House Judiciary Committee thus passed this bill, as amended.
This legislation is controversial in the Rest of World (All Other Countries category) community in the immigrant visa bulletin and EB-3 immigrant community as the immigrant visas available for these groups will be affected in monthly visa allocations and their I-485 waiting times by the elimination of per country numberical limitation for which Chinese and Indian EB-2 have the highest stake. This reporter has reminded the readers frequently "life is an irony" in immigration legislation.
Soon, the State Department will release the Visa Bulletin for the month of December 2011. There is an unconfirmed information that the EB-2 cut-off dates for China and India may further move forward to March 1, 2008. At this juncture, this informaton remains a "rumor" in that it cannot be confirmed and verified. However, we will find out the truth soon. Please stay tuned to this web site for the release of December Visa Bulletin. At this time, there is a confirmed prediction of a significant cut-off date movement between now and February. Such movement will not be the norm throughout the fiscal year, and there is a possibility for retrogression of the cut-off during the summer months.Weather is getting a little bit chilly out there as we are approaching the Winter season. In this country, Holloween is one of the most exciting seasonal event a year for the kids with pumkins all around. Happy Holloweens, readers!

[nishant2200]

The OH Law firm was definitely not present in person at this stakeholders forum, and are playing cautious. After putting this up, he seems to have updated it, and hence he has put in blue: "At this time, there is a confirmed prediction of a significant cut-off date movement between now and February." see the actual website.

Murthy says this and Ron Gotcher doesnt dispute. My own lawyer confirmed this I have posted earlier on this thread his reply. The deal is sealed in terms of this what was said by CO. Of course the real deal is never sealed until the move happens.

Not to dash everybodys hope....This website is claiming that moving dates to March 1st 2008 is a rumor

From immigration-law website:

10/28/2011: Annual Immigrant Visa Number Limit for FY 2012 by Family-Based and Employment-Based Immigration Categories

Thus far, the EB-2 immigrant visa number movement was not too bad in the first two months of FY 2012 (October and November 2011). This overall data is posted for readers who are not too familiar with the the annual immigrant visa number limits. Lately proposed elimination of per country numerical limitation in employment-based immigration has raised a lot of issues and controversies out there as triggered by H.R. 3012 which was just passed in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday and which will be on the full House floor for the final House action sooner or later. This bill was introduced by a conservative Republican Congressman Chaffetz from Utah and co-sponsored by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Lamar Smith who has been known to be ultra conservative. In passing this bill in the House Judiciary, however, one of the most powerful Democratic House member in the immigration legislation, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California joined the group as another co-sponsor, turning the bill into a bi-partisan bill. As readers are well aware of, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren introduced in the House a similar bill in a different context quite earlier, which has been pending in the House. Accordingly, her joining of other co-sponsors of this bill will impact her own pending bill one way or another, even though her own bill will still remain alive in the House. (For the summary of her own bill, please click here.) Reportedly, she joined Represeantives Chaffetz and Smith on a condition to accept her amendment to the bill putting a cap of three years for the legislation, and the House Judiciary Committee thus passed this bill, as amended.
This legislation is controversial in the Rest of World (All Other Countries category) community in the immigrant visa bulletin and EB-3 immigrant community as the immigrant visas available for these groups will be affected in monthly visa allocations and their I-485 waiting times by the elimination of per country numberical limitation for which Chinese and Indian EB-2 have the highest stake. This reporter has reminded the readers frequently "life is an irony" in immigration legislation.
Soon, the State Department will release the Visa Bulletin for the month of December 2011. There is an unconfirmed information that the EB-2 cut-off dates for China and India may further move forward to March 1, 2008. At this juncture, this informaton remains a "rumor" in that it cannot be confirmed and verified. However, we will find out the truth soon. Please stay tuned to this web site for the release of December Visa Bulletin. At this time, there is a confirmed prediction of a significant cut-off date movement between now and February. Such movement will not be the norm throughout the fiscal year, and there is a possibility for retrogression of the cut-off during the summer months.Weather is getting a little bit chilly out there as we are approaching the Winter season. In this country, Holloween is one of the most exciting seasonal event a year for the kids with pumkins all around. Happy Holloweens, readers!

[immitime]

Not to dash everybodys hope....This website is claiming that moving dates to March 1st 2008 is a rumor

From immigration-law website:

10/28/2011: Annual Immigrant Visa Number Limit for FY 2012 by Family-Based and Employment-Based Immigration Categories

Thus far, the EB-2 immigrant visa number movement was not too bad in the first two months of FY 2012 (October and November 2011). This overall data is posted for readers who are not too familiar with the the annual immigrant visa number limits. Lately proposed elimination of per country numerical limitation in employment-based immigration has raised a lot of issues and controversies out there as triggered by H.R. 3012 which was just passed in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday and which will be on the full House floor for the final House action sooner or later. This bill was introduced by a conservative Republican Congressman Chaffetz from Utah and co-sponsored by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Lamar Smith who has been known to be ultra conservative. In passing this bill in the House Judiciary, however, one of the most powerful Democratic House member in the immigration legislation, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California joined the group as another co-sponsor, turning the bill into a bi-partisan bill. As readers are well aware of, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren introduced in the House a similar bill in a different context quite earlier, which has been pending in the House. Accordingly, her joining of other co-sponsors of this bill will impact her own pending bill one way or another, even though her own bill will still remain alive in the House. (For the summary of her own bill, please click here.) Reportedly, she joined Represeantives Chaffetz and Smith on a condition to accept her amendment to the bill putting a cap of three years for the legislation, and the House Judiciary Committee thus passed this bill, as amended.
This legislation is controversial in the Rest of World (All Other Countries category) community in the immigrant visa bulletin and EB-3 immigrant community as the immigrant visas available for these groups will be affected in monthly visa allocations and their I-485 waiting times by the elimination of per country numberical limitation for which Chinese and Indian EB-2 have the highest stake. This reporter has reminded the readers frequently "life is an irony" in immigration legislation.
Soon, the State Department will release the Visa Bulletin for the month of December 2011. There is an unconfirmed information that the EB-2 cut-off dates for China and India may further move forward to March 1, 2008. At this juncture, this informaton remains a "rumor" in that it cannot be confirmed and verified. However, we will find out the truth soon. Please stay tuned to this web site for the release of December Visa Bulletin. At this time, there is a confirmed prediction of a significant cut-off date movement between now and February. Such movement will not be the norm throughout the fiscal year, and there is a possibility for retrogression of the cut-off during the summer months.Weather is getting a little bit chilly out there as we are approaching the Winter season. In this country, Holloween is one of the most exciting seasonal event a year for the kids with pumkins all around. Happy Holloweens, readers!

The date movement depends on How many new I-485s are filed after Nov 1st 2011.. and of course there might be CP cases too, we will never know. Blogs, Attorneys, Individual blogs, forums, websites to increase traffic can claim anything. but just give always 25 % probability on that.

[TeddyKoochu]

Hi Teddy/Nishant/Qesehmk

Thank you for your great service and I may posting wrong place but trying to get answer from Guru's, please advise..

Judiciary commitee approved HR 704 bill 3 month ago and not yet been submitted to house floor as of now, Will that same thing happen HR 3012?, I wish to approve this HR 3012, but trying to understand the procedure after commiitee approve ?

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee Wednesday approved the Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act (HR 704)
Committee approves bill to eliminate per-country limits on high-skilled immigrants (HR 3012)

My knowledge about the legislative process is limited. AFAIK after the committee vote the bill has to come to both the house and senate floors be discussed, debated and get passed in the same session otherwise the bill gets lapsed. Unfortunately in this long journey many bills simply get dropped out and very few make it to the president’s desk. HR3012 has passed the committee vote and is a very promising legislation for retrogressed countries but it’s still a long way to go. It’s great that the bill made it this far.

[username]

Is that HR3012 pass through the house?

The bill, which passed by a voice vote in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, creates what he says is a fairer system that is “first come, first serve.”

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52799052-90/advances-american-bill-chaffetz.html.csp

Washington • Federal law currently restricts how many highly skilled foreign workers can be hired from select countries, but that could change under legislation by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

Chaffetz’s Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, which advanced to the House floor Thursday, would drop the caps for country of origin that now limit how many workers can come from, say, India or England.

Chaffetz, who first ran for office on a platform of clamping down on illegal immigration, says his legislation fixes a problem with visas that hurts American businesses.

The bill, which passed by a voice vote in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, creates what he says is a fairer system that is “first come, first serve.”

“By removing per-country limits, American companies will be able to access the best talent,” Chaffetz said. “This legislation is pro-growth, pro-jobs, and pro-family.”

Chaffetz’s bill does not increase the number of visas available for highly skilled workers. The legislation is co-sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

I am not against of this bill but if this bill pass than mainly India and China will benefit from it. It will harm most of the world/countries (excluding India, China, Mexico & Philippines). Just a thought.

[sreddy]

Come on be fair man.. If this bill doesn't pass, some these EB3 folks in the line joined recently will have to wait for 20-30 years to get their GC. Do you expect an employer don't throw them away for 20-30 years? That's not fair. Also take in terms of population ratio, these two courntries have same numbers as small countries around? Not fair.


I am not against of this bill but if this bill pass than mainly India and China will benefit from it. It will harm most of the world/countries (excluding India, China, Mexico & Philippines). Just a thought.

[qesehmk]

username this bill (3012) will make it first come first serve or FIFO (if you are into computers!)
FIFO doesn't sound harmful. The current country limits has been harming EBs from IC for so long. This bill removes that.


I am not against of this bill but if this bill pass than mainly India and China will benefit from it. It will harm most of the world/countries (excluding India, China, Mexico & Philippines). Just a thought.

[username]

Come on be fair man.. If this bill doesn't pass, some these EB3 folks in the line joined recently will have to wait for 20-30 years to get their GC. Do you expect an employer don't throw them away for 20-30 years? That's not fair. Also take in terms of population ratio, these two courntries have same numbers as small countries around? Not fair.

As I said before I am not against this bill, it was just a thought.

If this bill comes or not what you have said will remain the same(EB3 folks in the line joined recently will have to wait for 20-30 years to get their GC). It will only help old folks who are already in line. For new people join the line will be even more worst.


username this bill (3012) will make it first come first serve or FIFO (if you are into computers!)
FIFO doesn't sound harmful. The current country limits has been harming EBs from IC for so long. This bill removes that.
Q, you are correct. Only solution to EBs is to increase the limit.
This bill will surely help people who are in the line but it will make it worst for new one joining the line no matter which country. Just imagine...

[yesman]

I agree! This bill only provides every individual (within a EB category) an equal shot at immigration irrespective of which country he/she was born in. That only sounds fair to me but again, I'm from India :)


username this bill (3012) will make it first come first serve or FIFO (if you are into computers!)
FIFO doesn't sound harmful. The current country limits has been harming EBs from IC for so long. This bill removes that.

[yesman]

It only makes it as bad (for people joining the line from ROW) as it would be for an Indian/Chinese national joining the line.


As I said before I am not against this bill, it was just a thought.

Q, you are correct. Only solution to EBs is to increase the limit.
This bill will surely help people who are in the line but it will make it worst for new one joining the line. Just imagine...

[bieber]

when H1 doesn't have restriction on country, EB green card should follow same path, in my opinion

disclosure -I'm from India, I will benefit

[username]

It only makes it as bad (for people joining the line from ROW) as it would be for an Indian/Chinese national joining the line.
so in other words we are asking all other countries to suffer in EB3 category as we Indian and Chines are suffering currently. Sound great. :)

[iamdeb]

username this bill (3012) will make it first come first serve or FIFO (if you are into computers!)
FIFO doesn't sound harmful. The current country limits has been harming EBs from IC for so long. This bill removes that.

Very well put Q. Everyone should have equal and fair chance at getting the green card. For so many years the people from other countries have been grinning their way to GC,whilst we suffer from anxiety,stress and depression because of the long wait.

[skpanda]

I think it important to spread awareness amont the anti immigrants who post in those websites without even understanding what the bill does. Please take out some time to rebuke the inaccurate comments from anti immigrants.



This is the first time I am seeing immigrants defending any bill and answering to the anti immigrant rhetoric. I hope this bill passes and brings some relief to all of us.

[sreddy]

Everybody suffering won't be 20-30 years ... may be about 5-6 years. Yes, it does sound great to me.


so in other words we are asking all other countries to suffer in EB3 category as we Indian and Chines are suffering currently. Sound great. :)

[srimurthy]

I guess the EB is Employment Based Immigration and USCIS state the following:

"Every fiscal year (October 1st – September 30th), approximately 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas are made available to qualified applicants under the provisions of U.S. immigration law. Employment based immigrant visas are divided into five preference categories. Certain spouses and children may accompany or follow-to-join employment-based immigrants. "

And when we talk about equal opportunity on Employment and selection is based on qualification, these contradict against the country based limits.

To maintain the ratio of ethnicity, there is a diversity visa and also family based which have country limits. I guess going forward if they see that the back log / wait time is so high for any category (EB2 / EB3) for all countries, then there can be bills brought in to support that the current numbers of 140K are not sufficient and US wants more skilled professionals and increase that number.

Just my thoughts.

so in other words we are asking all other countries to suffer in EB3 category as we Indian and Chines are suffering currently. Sound great. :)

[cbpds1]

This bill (3012) has a long way to go......Usually the Dems and Repubs are at loggerheads not to give either one the upper hand during election time.

Moreover Mr O has to think if it will alienate his hispanic base as he ends up doing something for the legal folks while leaving the illegals in quandry

I do support this bill and I do not think CO is pushing dates based on the bill. He is getting a 35-40k inventory perhaps so he can use the same precedence prior to 2011.




Very well put Q. Everyone should have equal and fair chance at getting the green card. For so many years the people from other countries have been grinning their way to GC,whilst we suffer from anxiety,stress and depression because of the long wait.

[tanu_75]

so in other words we are asking all other countries to suffer in EB3 category as we Indian and Chines are suffering currently. Sound great. :)

It's not a question of asking someone else to suffer. It's about fixing something which is stupid. If you want to have diversity, then have an alternate plan to do it. But if you mix that with trying to remain competitive for talent and skills in today's world, then you better not have lame rules like these where you stop countries who provide 90% of the skills that you want. But as they say, there's no cure for stupid.

[qesehmk]

Q, you are correct. Only solution to EBs is to increase the limit.
This bill will surely help people who are in the line but it will make it worst for new one joining the line no matter which country. Just imagine...

username, yes the best solution is to either increase the overall CAP. Some people (like Bill Gates) have suggested that there should be no cap. If a business makes a decision to hire - why prevent them. I think that would be too extreme. But I would say it is ridiculous to not have a cap in FB or a very high cap in FB but in EB which actually helps economy there is a very small cap.

As per 3012 - the bad part is - it is a zero sum game. So yes EB2ROW and EB3ROW wait times will increase further. But the current system itself is unfair. 3012 only seeks to make it fair.

But I wholeheartedly agree that the best solution is to increase overall cap to at least twice the current.


ps. - On another note, to EVERYBODY, its understandable why people from ROWMP will find 3012 hurtful. So lets not villify people who oppose 3012. We should root for everybody and that includes ROW.

[leo07]

Guys, If we want to use this forum for discussing political outcomes. let's at least show respect to each others ideas. What might be stupid to us might not be stupid to others. So, they will be inclined to use much harsher words next time. Next thing we know, we would be bringing our mothers and sisters into game:)

It's not a question of asking someone else to suffer. It's about fixing something which is stupid. If you want to have diversity, then have an alternate plan to do it. But if you mix that with trying to remain competitive for talent and skills in today's world, then you better not have lame rules like these where you stop countries who provide 90% of the skills that you want. But as they say, there's no cure for stupid.

[Pedro Gonzales]

As I said before I am not against this bill, it was just a thought.

If this bill comes or not what you have said will remain the same(EB3 folks in the line joined recently will have to wait for 20-30 years to get their GC). It will only help old folks who are already in line. For new people join the line will be even more worst.


Q, you are correct. Only solution to EBs is to increase the limit.
This bill will surely help people who are in the line but it will make it worst for new one joining the line no matter which country. Just imagine...

I REALLY recommend that we move this discussion to another thread. I've been actively debating this on trackitt for the last month and trust me, the debate gets ugly soon.

Anyway, as to "For new people join the line will be even more worst. " that is plain nonsense. It should be obvious to anyone who knows how the system works that eliminating country caps can do nothing but good for someone from a retrogressed country. I am cutting and pasting something I wrote on trackitt in response to someone who made the same claim with respect to EB3I. Hope it clarifies the situation for you.

"Yes, an EB3I with a PD of 2010 will continue to have a long wait for his green card, but a) his/her wait will not be 15 to 18 years (btw, I don't buy into the 70 year nonsensical number either), and b) his/her wait will be considerably shorter than (orders of magnitude, certainly less than half as long as) it would have been with country caps.

Simple assumptions:
1) # of EB3 I in the queue per the I485 inventory is 57K.
2) # of EB3 total in the queue per the I485 inventory is 122K.
3) On average 1000 EB3I applicants per month after July 2007, that's 52 months x 1K = 52K EB3Is waiting to file I-485
4) On average 3000 EB3total apps per month after July 2007, 52 months x 3K = 156K EB3total waiting to file I-485
5) Total of 109K EB3I and 278K EB3total in the queue before someone from EB3I applies for his PERM today.

Ignoring porting from EB3 to EB2 and assuming no spillover ever comes down to EB3 because EB2 continues to use all the visa numbers,
a) Status quo: 3K visa numbers for EB3I per year, it'll take the guy that applies now 109K/3K = 36 years to get his GC (I think in reality the number of EB3I applicants per year post2007 will be below 1000, as more people apply in EB2 than EB3, plus porting plus some spillover will eventually fall to EB3, together will make the wait significantly better but this is a conservative estimate).
b) If country caps are removed: 40K visa numbers for all EB3s per year, it'll take the guy 278K/40K = 7 years to get his GC."

So, in that case the 36 year wait for the EB3I becomes a 7 year wait with HR 3012

Hope that addresses your concerns.

[username]

I REALLY recommend that we move this discussion to another thread. I've been actively debating this on trackitt for the last month and trust me, the debate gets ugly soon.

Anyway, as to "For new people join the line will be even more worst. " that is plain nonsense. It should be obvious to anyone who knows how the system works that eliminating country caps can do nothing but good for someone from a retrogressed country. I am cutting and pasting something I wrote on trackitt in response to someone who made the same claim with respect to EB3I. Hope it clarifies the situation for you.

"Yes, an EB3I with a PD of 2010 will continue to have a long wait for his green card, but a) his/her wait will not be 15 to 18 years (btw, I don't buy into the 70 year nonsensical number either), and b) his/her wait will be considerably shorter than (orders of magnitude, certainly less than half as long as) it would have been with country caps.

Simple assumptions:
1) # of EB3 I in the queue per the I485 inventory is 57K.
2) # of EB3 total in the queue per the I485 inventory is 122K.
3) On average 1000 EB3I applicants per month after July 2007, that's 52 months x 1K = 52K EB3Is waiting to file I-485
4) On average 3000 EB3total apps per month after July 2007, 52 months x 3K = 156K EB3total waiting to file I-485
5) Total of 109K EB3I and 278K EB3total in the queue before someone from EB3I applies for his PERM today.

Ignoring porting from EB3 to EB2 and assuming no spillover ever comes down to EB3 because EB2 continues to use all the visa numbers,
a) Status quo: 3K visa numbers for EB3I per year, it'll take the guy that applies now 109K/3K = 36 years to get his GC (I think in reality the number of EB3I applicants per year post2007 will be below 1000, as more people apply in EB2 than EB3, plus porting plus some spillover will eventually fall to EB3, together will make the wait significantly better but this is a conservative estimate).
b) If country caps are removed: 40K visa numbers for all EB3s per year, it'll take the guy 278K/40K = 7 years to get his GC."

So, in that case the 36 year wait for the EB3I becomes a 7 year wait with HR 3012

Hope that addresses your concerns.

In my discussion am talking ONLY about new people joining EB3 line....

Your calculation dose not make sense to me. Currently FY is 2012 and EB3 India stands in 2002 (10+ yr wait) , EB3 - China stand in 2004, Mexico and Philippines stand in 2005. How come just removing country cap from EBs (EB3) it will give GC to new people joining the line in 7yrs instead of 10+ yrs with the same numbers of applicants and quota?

This bill will be unfair to people other than ICMP (India, China, Mexico, Philippines). I am thinking from other end of ICMP. Just an example, if person "A" country of changeability is Australia and currently if "A" apply for GC under EB3 than "A" will get GC in less than 1 year. If this bill pass, than "A" has to wait atleast 10+ yr to get GC. For new people joining EB3 line (dose not matter which country of changeability) waiting time will 10+ yrs.

Just for you information my country of changeability is india.

[qesehmk]

[COLOR="darkred"]if person "A" country of changeability is Australia and [B]currently if "A" apply for GC under EB3 than "A" will get GC in less than 1 year. If this bill pass, than "A" has to wait atleast 10+ yr to get GC. For new people joining EB3 line (dose not matter which country of changeability) waiting time will 10+ yrs.

username, if you do the math,(just as an exampe) if 50% people today have wait time of 10 years, and 50% have 0, then if you institute strict FIFO, the average waittime will be 5 years.

[Pedro Gonzales]

[COLOR="darkred"]
This bill will be unfair to people other than [B]ICMP (India, China, Mexico, Philippines). I am thinking from other end of ICMP. Just an example, if person "A" country of changeability is Australia and currently if "A" apply for GC under EB3 than "A" will get GC in less than 1 year. If this bill pass, than "A" has to wait atleast 10+ yr to get GC. For new people joining EB3 line (dose not matter which country of changeability) waiting time will 10+ yrs.

Just for you information my country of changeability is india.

No doubt an Australian EB3 applicant will have a longer wait than he does now. No one is disputing that.

But he does not have a 1 year wait under the status quo, he has a 4 - 5 year wait, and he won't have a 10 year wait, per my calculations he'll have a 7 year wait. You can use different assumptions and come up with a different figure, but it will be very hard for you to justify your 10 year figure. In 10 years, 40,000 x 10 = 400,000 visa numbers will have been given out. Since the queue per the June inventory is only 122K, and since it covers folks until July 2007 PDs, that means in the ~52 months since July 2007, 378K EB3 applications have been received, which =~ 7,250 EB3 applicants per month. If you look at the inventory, you'll see that at no point has it been consistently above 3,000 applicants, and we've been in a recessionary environment for most of the intervening period so I see that as being highly highly improbable.

In any case, the point of my previous post was that for EB3I there is a significant improvement, not just for the folks in the queue, but for folks who haven't yet applied for their PERM. And for the folks not yet in the queue, it benefits not just EB3I, also EB3C, EB3P, EB3M, and potentially in the future EB3 South Korea, Pakistan and Taiwan too, all of which countries may in the next several years also retrogress.

[username]

Q & Pedro Gonzales,

If we have left out EB3 visa number than where it will go? I mean to ask is if ICMP use there 2080 visa number and EB3 Italy only use 80 out 2080, than where 2000 visa number will go? Does it fall to EB3 row?

[Pedro Gonzales]

Q & Pedro Gonzales,

If we have left out EB3 visa number than where it will go? I mean to ask is if ICMP use there 2080 visa number and EB3 Italy only use 80 out 2080, than where 2000 visa number will go? Does it fall to EB3 row?

That is exactly what ROW is. All folks from countries that don't use 2800 visa numbers. But totally, they require more than their supply of 38,800 (40,000 - 2,800 x 4 (I,C,M,P)), which is why ROW is also retrogressed. A few countries in that group use close to their 2,800 limit (SK, Taiwan and Pakistan are the 3 I read about), so if their numbers increase they'll exceed the limit too and also retrogress.

[Pedro Gonzales]

That is exactly what ROW is. All folks from countries that don't use 2800 visa numbers. But totally, they require more than their supply of 38,800 (40,000 - 2,800 x 4 (I,C,M,P)), which is why ROW is also retrogressed. A few countries in that group use close to their 2,800 limit (SK, Taiwan and Pakistan are the 3 I read about), so if their numbers increase they'll exceed the limit too and also retrogress.

Ironically, if they cleared all EB3 backlogs, and then immediately after that, all countries were retrogressed, we'd see a FIFO allocation of PDs going forward.

[username]

Pedro Gonzales & Q, for your explanation. Now it got more clear to me.

[codesmith]

[QUOTE=sportsfan33;12379]http://www.immigration-law.com/

11/01/2011: The Rank of H.R. 3012 Bill Soared to Number One of the Weekly Top Five Pending Legislative Bills in the Legislative Bill Report Site

Do you have any tentative schedule about voting ?
Can we assume that it would go for vote before end of this year (2011)?

[jackbrown_890]

[QUOTE=sportsfan33;12379]http://www.immigration-law.com/

11/01/2011: The Rank of H.R. 3012 Bill Soared to Number One of the Weekly Top Five Pending Legislative Bills in the Legislative Bill Report Site

Do you have any tentative schedule about voting ?
Can we assume that it would go for vote before end of this year (2011)?

there is no tentative schedule yet. First it needs to be reported by judiciary committee. and its an administrative process and no one knows how long it will take,, i think it will be one of the clerks working for d committee who will report it. it has not been reported yet as of today. if i find out about the report and the calendar number assigned to this bill, i will post it here.

[geterdone]

if you look at the following link- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3012 it says it has already been reported on Oct 27th, is this different and is there another reporting to be done?

[kd2008]

Yes, the bill was marked up by the Judiciary committee. Now a report is prepared stating pros and cons and other legal stuff, impact etc. Then it will go to the Rules committee. They will vote on how the debate should proceed on the house floor. Then depending on the house leadership the bill may be brought to floor for debate. They may suspend it, complete it, vote on it etc.

If a vote happens and it passes then the whole rigmarole repeats on the Senate floor where the odds are even more tough as 60/100 votes are needed for avoiding filibuster and to bring the bill to debate.

[immitime]

Yes, the bill was marked up by the Judiciary committee. Now a report is prepared stating pros and cons and other legal stuff, impact etc. Then it will go to the Rules committee. They will vote on how the debate should proceed on the house floor. Then depending on the house leadership the bill may be brought to floor for debate. They may suspend it, complete it, vote on it etc.

If a vote happens and it passes then the whole rigmarole repeats on the Senate floor where the odds are even more tough as 60/100 votes are needed for avoiding filibuster and to bring the bill to debate.

Hoping for the best to happen.. This is really a Herculian task, which unknown variables are more and only the time is until Dec 31st 2011, and the House and Senate goes on a recess two times on these months for Thanks giving and Christmas, looking at this the hindarence are more. + the unknown "UNKNOWNS".

Still all the best for all of us to have our GC 's ASAP!

[jackbrown_890]

if you look at the following link- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3012 it says it has already been reported on Oct 27th, is this different and is there another reporting to be done?

I think they are using wrong language. It was ordered to be reported to by the Judiciary, but it has not been reported yet. There is no fix amount of time for a bill to be reported by the committee. some bills have been reported a week after it was ordered to be reported and some have taken more thn 3 months to be reported...
This bill is really small and specific, so hopefully it will take only few weeks to be reported.

[codesmith]

http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/848666621/hr-3012-someone-is-proposing-this-amendment/page/last_page

What does it mean > no categories ?

[jackbrown_890]

Since lot of people have been asking how long will it take to be on house floor for vote.
I checked the last few bills reported by judiciary committee and amount of time taken for reporting them. It seems like they (judiciary committee) have taken from 5 weeks to 9 weeks to report the bill after it was ordered to be reported. I checked other bills too from other committees and some of them have taken from 1 week to 10 weeks. So it seems like there is no way guess accurately how long it will take for a bill to be reported after it has been ordered to be reported.
I am hoping it will be soon.

[geterdone]

should both house and senate pass this bill before the end of this year? and if not is it back to square 1?

[Pedro Gonzales]

no. They don't need to finish it this year. the legislative session is a 2 year session, so they have until Dec 2012. However, most people seem to think that 2012 being an election year, nothing will get done then, so it's now or never.

[whiskeylover]

Just found this forum and glad to see you guys active here.

Keep up the good work.

[Kanmani]

Two more co-sponsors for HR.3012

COSPONSORS
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 11/4/2011
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] - 10/11/2011
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 11/4/2011
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 10/31/2011
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 10/25/2011
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 9/22/2011

[jackbrown_890]

Two more co-sponsors for HR.3012

COSPONSORS
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 11/4/2011
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] - 10/11/2011
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 11/4/2011
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 10/31/2011
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 10/25/2011
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 9/22/2011

Thanks for posting it here. This is great news. another Democrat and republican added to the co-sponsors list. Now we have Republican bill with 3 republican and 3 democrats cosponsors. This makes it truly bipartisan bill, making it easier and easier to pass in d house.
bad news is it has not been reported yet.

[gcq]

Great news Indeed. Rep Luis Gutierrez support means the bill has support from CHC.

http://www.gutierrez.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=666&Itemid=71

[manubhai]

Two more co-sponsors for HR.3012

COSPONSORS
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 11/4/2011
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] - 10/11/2011
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 11/4/2011
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 10/31/2011
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 10/25/2011
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 9/22/2011

Awesome news brother!!! As sportsfan33 has said, if this one fails, it will be a hard pill to swallow.

Finally, I truly hope that people coming on this page recognize the significance of this bill and the impact it will have on Indians and Chinese for "DECADES" to come. And once they do, I hope they realize that every now and then in life, there come moments where you need to stop hoping/wishing/complaining, and need to really pick up the phone and make a 20 second call... about 50 times.

[kd2008]

Today House was adjourned till Nov. 10. So more delay for H.R. 3012.

[Kanmani]

KD2008

House is in recess this week see here ........http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/cong_schedule.html

You can check the schedule of the house floor here ...........http://majorityleader.gov/floor/weekly.html

[immitime]

Hope this bill will pass ASAP, to escape from the modern day torture for lot of families.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Found this article. Speaks usual stuff about the effect on diversity due to HR 3012 Bill.

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2011,1110-endelman.shtm

Congrats to everyone who got current with this visa bulletin. I understand that this is not an advocacy forum but I would really appreciate if people visiting here can take some time out and support HR 3012 which can help people like me who have PDs in 2011. Also, let your friends know to support this. Since year 2000, not a single immigration bill has made it through House Judicial Committee so people like us have really have high hopes on it.

[skpanda]

The author of that article has no clue what he is talking about.

His conclusion is that ROW will be backlogged instead of India and China. I think he does not understand first come first serve.

If there is a backlog.. everybody will be backlogged... not just ROW.

Example, in the current year, there are 160K applications, 140K are approved based on PD (does not matter which country they belong to). Rest 20K will be backlogged (again it does not matter which country they belong to).



Found this article. Speaks usual stuff about the effect on diversity due to HR 3012 Bill.

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2011,1110-endelman.shtm

Congrats to everyone who got current with this visa bulletin. I understand that this is not an advocacy forum but I would really appreciate if people visiting here can take some time out and support HR 3012 which can help people like me who have PDs in 2011. Also, let your friends know to support this. Since year 2000, not a single immigration bill has made it through House Judicial Committee so people like us have really have high hopes on it.

[skpanda]

I went to that lawyer's website and in CONTACT US left the below letter:

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

Hello Gary Endelman,

This is in response to your article in ILW.

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2011,1110-endelman.shtm

In my opinion your understanding of HR 3012 is incorrect.

Your conclusion that the backlogs for India and China will be replaced by people of Rest of the world is INACCURATE.

This is a firstcome first serve. So obviously does not favor just India and China. If 140K ROW people apply before India and China in a Fiscal year, then all GCs will be given to ROW and zero to India and China (After the Transition period in 2015 ofcourse).

If there is backlog, all countries will be backlogged.


Example:

If in a Fiscal year, there are 160K applications, 140K (max GCs available) are approved based on PD (does not matter which country they belong to). Rest 20K will be backlogged (again it does not matter which country they belong to).

I am disappointed that an Immigration Attorney could have error in judgement and write such an article.

If you think I am missing something, kindly educate me.

Best Regards,

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


Found this article. Speaks usual stuff about the effect on diversity due to HR 3012 Bill.

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2011,1110-endelman.shtm

Congrats to everyone who got current with this visa bulletin. I understand that this is not an advocacy forum but I would really appreciate if people visiting here can take some time out and support HR 3012 which can help people like me who have PDs in 2011. Also, let your friends know to support this. Since year 2000, not a single immigration bill has made it through House Judicial Committee so people like us have really have high hopes on it.

[gcq]

Like Ron, this lawyer is sympathetic to ROW countries because he is from one of those countries. If he was objective, he wouldn't be looking at the country of birth in employment based immigration. Employment/employment based immigration does not care where an employee comes from, only the skills. This lawyer is flawed.

[Jonty Rhodes]

I totally agree with you skpanda. This whole idea of "Diversity being adversely affected if HR 3012 Bill becomes a Law" is complete BS. The only reason for this hype and hoopla in opposing this bill is because, EB2ROW folks will be waiting 2-3 years to get their GC in EB2 category instead of 6 months. Hence, the link between removing per country caps and diversity being adversely affected, is completely frivolous.

Just to highlight this diversity point and show how ridiculous it is, I will quote my own example. My GC is filed under EB2I category. I am a physician working in a hospital. I have degree of MD in Internal Medicine and also MPH (Masters in Public Health). My physician colleagues include physicians from India, China, Pakistan, Nepal, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Philippines, Japan, Britain, Canada, Chile, Brazil, Peru, Poland, Argentina, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Egypt, Russia, Algeria, Nigeria, Israel and Tanzania. Out of all these physicians, I have the highest academics and I know this because I was told this by my boss. Most of the physicians except those from India and China, who applied with me have already received their green cards in less than 6 months and remaining are about to get them in next 1-2 months except physicians from India and China who will be waiting at least 4-5 years.

Even with HR 3012 Bill becoming a law, all the other nationalities mentioned above who applied with me, will get their Green Cards also around the same time. Then how does it kill the diversity? Fair opportunity is when you compete against other applicants in skills, not country of birth.ROWers claim is that only India and China will get the visas -- that is a stretch because with everybody in the queue, ROWers will not lose their position in the line, they will get it when their PD is current. (along with any IC who applied on the same day).

This bill does not benefit only 2 countries. The intent of the bill is to restore fairness and make sure everyone is treated equally in the EB queue. Initially it benefits two countries because they are backlogged the most. But once these two countries reach non-backlogged countries, which should take 1.5 to 2 years, then everyone will move based on PD.

If you apply for GC, you should wait the same as the next person who applied for GC as long as both of you are in the same category. This is fairness and everyone being treated equally. If you apply in the same category as another person in EB queue, but get approved or expect to get approved years before the next person, because you were born in a different country, then that is not fair.

That is what this bill restores. Bring fairness to an existing unfair system. Hopefully, the House and Senate Members will understand and bring some sanity to this system.



The author of that article has no clue what he is talking about.

His conclusion is that ROW will be backlogged instead of India and China. I think he does not understand first come first serve.

If there is a backlog.. everybody will be backlogged... not just ROW.

Example, in the current year, there are 160K applications, 140K are approved based on PD (does not matter which country they belong to). Rest 20K will be backlogged (again it does not matter which country they belong to).

[Pedro Gonzales]

Congrats to everyone who got current with this visa bulletin. I understand that this is not an advocacy forum but I would really appreciate if people visiting here can take some time out and support HR 3012 which can help people like me who have PDs in 2011. Also, let your friends know to support this. Since year 2000, not a single immigration bill has made it through House Judicial Committee so people like us have really have high hopes on it.

Correction JR, this isn't an advocacy thread, but the forum itself is quite supportive of advocacy efforts. Check out our advocacy thread here: http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php?211-Discussion-of-Bills-that-remove-the-Per-Country-Limits-H.R.2161-H.R.3012-H.R.3119

Also on the second point, I think HR3012 is in the interests of most people here. From the PD database list that we've been creating, over 70% of the members, including me, haven't become current yet (PDs post March 15 2008). In my opinion, even though the the dates will move forward for another couple of VBs, there is a reasonable chance that they retrogress to about here before everyone else receives their GCs. So I think that it is in the interests of most people here to support HR3012 in any case.

And in my case, what's driving my efforts on HR3012 is less the personal benefit i will receive and more the memory of the stark unfairness of my wait compared to those of my colleagues from other countries (I was the only Indian in my joining class). This delay has cost me $s, career opportunities and time with my wife (we've spent the last 2 years living apart because of jobs in different cities). I'll celebrate my GC when I get it, but the memory of the unfairness isn't going to fade soon.

Gurus, if you guys don't mind, I'll move the last few advocacy related posts including this one to the other thread later today. I wanted to let Jonty's appeal to receive some more eyeballs for now.

[gcq]

IMO there is no point hurrying. It is better to schedule it once the bill has a strong support.
If bill doesn't have enough support, more amendments could be added to it, ultimately killing the bill.

[Pedro Gonzales]

IMO there is no point hurrying. It is better to schedule it once the bill has a strong support.
If bill doesn't have enough support, more amendments could be added to it, ultimately killing the bill.

On the flip side, the opposition to the bill isn't organized yet. The longer you give them the better they'll organize and the more cogent the opposition.

Loha garam hai.........

EDIT: [Translation for Kanmani & QBF] - Dialogue from that old cult classic Sholay that translates to "The anvil is hot, strike the hammer"

[cool_mj007]

I agree, this bill is so simple and doesn't affect any citizens. So the sooner it gets on the floor the better would be the chances of a favorable outcome.
As things get closer to the election date, anything that has the word immigration will be subject to higher scrutiny.

[kd2008]

rom http://immigration-law.com/


11/11/2011: Senate Version of the House H.R. 3012 Per Country Numberical Limitation Elimination Bill Introduced in the Senate Yesterday, 11/10/2011

One of the hottest House bills, H.R. 3012, was introduced by a Congressman from Utah on the House side. Now, a Republican Senator from the same state of Utah, Mike Lee, introduced S.1857 to eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants and to increase the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants. This bill may be a companion bill of the H.R. 3012 on the Senate side, which apparently was introduced yesterday in anticipation of House passing H.R. 3012 and reaching of the bill in the Senate soon. The full text has yet to be made available. Please stay tuned to this website for the full text of the Senate version.

Please discuss and get ready to call Senators in due course of time.

[vishnu]

Companion bills encourage simulataneous consideration of an item of legislation to speed up the process. This is a good thing! Just need equal support from democrats for the senate version as well and we have great chances of this becoming law!

[imdeng]

This is awesome. There is movement. They are expecting the house bill to pass soon, hence the senate bill. Seems like the decision makes on capitol hill are assigning HR-3012 a fair chance of success.

[suninphx]

rom http://immigration-law.com/



Please discuss and get ready to call Senators in due course of time.



Friends

"Senate Version of the House H.R. 3012 Per Country Numberical Limitation Elimination Bill Introduced in the Senate Yesterday"

Bill Text is currently not available

Courtesy : http://www.immigration-law.com/

great news!!

[geterdone]

Is this going to be put for vote by senate or is it going to a Committee and the entire process starts again? if you look here it seems like it is going to be considred by committee- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1857

[dreamer]

gerterdone,

I think it will have to go through the entire process in the senate as it did in the house. I guess this is done may be to avoid any delays by proceeding independently and combine/negotiate the bill after its passed both in House & senate.

As per US senate glossary
"companion bill or measure - Similar or identical legislation which is introduced in the Senate and House. House and Senate lawmakers who share similar views on legislation may introduce a companion bill in their respective chambers to promote simultaneous consideration of the measure."

Here is the legislative process for senate & house, I was just referring to it and thought would be helpful to understand the process
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm
http://www.house.gov/content/learn/legislative_process/


Is this going to be put for vote by senate or is it going to a Committee and the entire process starts again? if you look here it seems like it is going to be considred by committee- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1857

[dreamer]

Kanmani,

Just to add to your links, I think floor current day schedule can be checked here
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20111104


KD2008

House is in recess this week see here ........http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/cong_schedule.html

You can check the schedule of the house floor here ...........http://majorityleader.gov/floor/weekly.html

[feedmyback]

So if house passes H R 3012 and Senate passes this senate version (S. 1857), let us assume at a similar time, then will there still be a need for H.R 3012 to go to Senate or the only thing pending would be the Signature of President to make it a law? I am having difficulty to understand the simultaneous bills in House and Senate and how they would contribute together...

[Kanmani]

feed

If you look at the bills summary in the thomas library, if there is any similar version of the House bill in the Senate, I mean to say exactly the same version, then there is no need to be considered in the respective houses one more time . This holds true for both house and Senate version.

On the contrary if there is any additional amendment which is diff from the other version , then each bill has to go through every step in both the houses.

I think i somewhat explained, hope it is clear.

[gcq]

Here is a link

Q:”What happens to an approved Senate bill with respect to an identical House bill? If the House version is defeated, does the bill end?”
http://www.govtrack.us/blog/2008/10/17/if-the-house-version-is-defeated-does-the-senate-bill-die-too/

[Kanmani]

dreamer thanks for the link . This webpage of the clerk is updated only after the house activity is completed, it is minute by minute update .


Kanmani,

Just to add to your links, I think floor current day schedule can be checked here
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20111104

[feedmyback]

Thanks Kanmani,

I got it now :)


feed

If you look at the bills summary in the thomas library, if there is any similar version of the House bill in the Senate, I mean to say exactly the same version, then there is no need to be considered in the respective houses one more time . This holds true for both house and Senate version.

On the contrary if there is any additional amendment which is diff from the other version , then each bill has to go through every step in both the houses.

I think i somewhat explained, hope it is clear.

[feedmyback]

Thanks gcq,

The article is very informative and adds to what kanmani explained.


Here is a link

Q:”What happens to an approved Senate bill with respect to an identical House bill? If the House version is defeated, does the bill end?”
http://www.govtrack.us/blog/2008/10/17/if-the-house-version-is-defeated-does-the-senate-bill-die-too/

[manubhai]

Great news about the bill being introduced in the Senate.

Apart from getting your list of senators' phone number ready (to make those twenty second calls), I urge the readers to take a few moments and vote for it on PopVox and OpenCongress just as you all did for HR 3012.

Please note that this time around, the voices AGAINST these bills are much louder. It is even more important for us to do the little we can (as opposed to just talking about it here on the board).

POPVOX: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1857
OpenCongress: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1857/show

And in case you missed voting for HR 3012 earlier, please do so now.
POPVOX: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3012
OpenCongress: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3012/show

Please... "DO" the little you can to support this bill.

Thank you!

[Pedro Gonzales]

Done.
This is certainly good news. But tons of work still to do. All hands on deck!

[PlainSpeak]

Done.
This is certainly good news. But tons of work still to do. All hands on deck!

Just had a doubt. Read somewhere that introducing a similar bill in both senate and house is a tactic to kill the bill. Is this true?
Does having a similar bill in senate make it more likable to pass or less. Also if passed which will actually pass and is the new senate bill the exact duplicate of the house bill 3012 and if not then what are the differences.

Sorry the questions came out in a gush.

[immitime]

Just had a doubt. Read somewhere that introducing a similar bill in both senate and house is a tactic to kill the bill. Is this true?
Does having a similar bill in senate make it more likable to pass or less. Also if passed which will actually pass and is the new senate bill the exact duplicate of the house bill 3012 and if not then what are the differences.

Sorry the questions came out in a gush.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Floor Action

Once a committee has approved legislation, it becomes eligible for debate on the House and Senate floors, where it may be passed, defeated or amended. Because floor debates often are scheduled on short notice, you should prepare your messages (e.g. e-mails, letters etc.) well in advance. However, keep in mind that timing is extremely critical. Any communications about legislation that is coming up for floor debate should arrive as close to the time of voting as possible.

Conference Action

It is usually the case that the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill. When that occurs, a handful of members from each chamber are appointed to serve on a conference committee that attempts to work out a compromise. A conference committee usually consists of selected members of the House and Senate subcommittees that originally developed the legislation. In some instances, conference committees may need to resolve only a few issues; in the case of appropriations bills, there may be several hundred to be reconciled. Constituents whose senators or representatives happen to be on a conference committee can play a crucial role in the deliberations.

The end product of the meetings is a conference report containing a compromise bill and a section-by-section explanation of the agreed-upon compromise. Once both the House and Senate agree to the conference report, the measure is sent to the President for approval (or veto).

Read More here
http://www.aacom.org/advocacy/congress/Pages/default.aspx

Good Luck to all...

[jackbrown_890]

Bills before 3012 under Judiciary committee - H.R. 10 and H.R. 822 both were ordered to be reported on 25th of last month and they have been reported on Thursday. So i am hoping 3012 report will be out soon. Hopefully this week.

[PlainSpeak]

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

Floor Action

Once a committee has approved legislation, it becomes eligible for debate on the House and Senate floors, where it may be passed, defeated or amended. Because floor debates often are scheduled on short notice, you should prepare your messages (e.g. e-mails, letters etc.) well in advance. However, keep in mind that timing is extremely critical. Any communications about legislation that is coming up for floor debate should arrive as close to the time of voting as possible.

Conference Action

It is usually the case that the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill. When that occurs, a handful of members from each chamber are appointed to serve on a conference committee that attempts to work out a compromise. A conference committee usually consists of selected members of the House and Senate subcommittees that originally developed the legislation. In some instances, conference committees may need to resolve only a few issues; in the case of appropriations bills, there may be several hundred to be reconciled. Constituents whose senators or representatives happen to be on a conference committee can play a crucial role in the deliberations.

The end product of the meetings is a conference report containing a compromise bill and a section-by-section explanation of the agreed-upon compromise. Once both the House and Senate agree to the conference report, the measure is sent to the President for approval (or veto).

Read More here
http://www.aacom.org/advocacy/congress/Pages/default.aspx

Good Luck to all...

Thanks immitime for the info. It looks like you are very knowlegeble regarding the the complete process a bill goes through. Good to have you on this forum which is about calrity about the process

[immitime]

Thanks immitime for the info. It looks like you are very knowlegeble regarding the the complete process a bill goes through. Good to have you on this forum which is about calrity about the process

Thank You for appreciation, I have seen your posts, You think for everyone, there is no onesided thing in your post for the whole immigrant community, I have seen lot of people writing against you in other forums. Again, I was not knowing the legislative process until last year when a EB immigration bill came to Congress/Senate.

Necessity is the mother of invention! :-) As some one said a Genius is a Genius until the source is discovered! is it not :-)

Hope all of us EB immigrants will comeout of this big hole soon! Praying for the good of all.

[PlainSpeak]

Thank You for appreciation, I have seen your posts, You think for everyone, there is no onesided thing in your post for the whole immigrant community, I have seen lot of people writing against you in other forums. Again, I was not knowing the legislative process until last year when a EB immigration bill came to Congress/Senate.

Necessity is the mother of invention! :-) As some one said a Genius is a Genius until the source is discovered! is it not :-)

Hope all of us EB immigrants will comeout of this big hole soon! Praying for the good of all.

If by this " I have seen lot of people writing against you in other forums" you mean ** then yes i guess i am unpopular there. Funny thing is i got banned there last year but when i checked it looks like the ban is lifted but i feel no need to register and post on ** again because it is not worth it.

Keep up the good work !!!!! You knowledge is very much needed in todays environment

[Pedro Gonzales]

one more Bill (AGREE Act ) is introduced in Senate which also has provision of eliminating per country quota in EB and changing cap from 7 to 15% in FB .

If enacted, The AGREE Act would do the following:

Provide a three year extension of 100 percent bonus depreciation for the full cost of qualified investments such as equipment and property.
Provide a three year extension of Section 179 expensing levels for small businesses.
Provide a three year extension of eliminated taxes on certain small business stock.
Extend the Research & Development tax credit until 2013, increase the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) from 14 percent to 20 percent, and makes the ASC permanent.
Establish an enhanced research credit for domestic manufacturers to encourage job creation at home.
Provide veterans with a tax credit equal to 25% of the fee associated with starting a franchise up to $100,000.
Provide a five-year exemption from Section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley for the first five years of a company going public, or for those below $250 million in total gross revenue (whichever comes first).
Eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrant visas and adjusts the limitations on family based visa petitions from 7% per country to 15%.
Protect intellectual property by clarifying the Trade Secrets Act, and making it explicitly clear that it is not a crime for federal officials, in the performance of their duties, to share information about suspected infringing products with the right holder of a trademarked good.

http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/11/senators-coons-rubio-introduce-the-agree-act

Between Senators Lee and Rubio the right wing of the Republican party senators seem to be firmly in support of ending caps. The idea seems to be gaining some traction in general. Good news, in my opinion. Thanks for keeping us up to date Kanmani.

[Pedro Gonzales]

And Chris Coons is a moderate Democrat. So, it has that support too. I keep getting more optimistic about this every day.

[jackbrown_890]

This is a great bill.
Good thing about this bill: It is bi-partisan and both parties agree on most of the stuff in the bill
bad thing: my only concern is, adding stuff to 3012 will add to the length of the process of passing the bill since it will go back and forth between house and senate to compromise on added stuff plus details and language. They agree on general Idea, doesn't mean they agree on intricate details or language of the bill. (i guess that is part of politics) Next year is election year so i am hoping this becomes law before the end of first quarter of 2012 or sooner.

I would like to see- H.R. 3012 and S.1857 - stand alone bills (first step) without any other added baggage (unless it is recapture or 50000 diversity visas diverted to EB - current SAFE Act eliminates diversity visa program) to it since there is a proven support to these bills from both parties. (we still need democrat senate member to co-sponsor S.1857)

[gcq]

I don't prefer Rubio's bill as it has other components to it that can invite partisan politics into it. Not sure whether it will ever gain steam. Remember there are scores of other bills out there none of which has gained steam.

Most favorable aspect of Rubios bill is Latinos are seeing the benefit that HR 3012 provisions brings to family based immigrants. If we can spread this message to regular gc holders and citizens ( both FB and EB ), we can get even more support.

From my side I have started talking to some of my citizen friends about this bill and they seem to be excited. Most of the citizens will have someone stuck up in FB queue. I am also planning to prepare a letter on behalf of these citizens and ask them to send it to their senators/congressman.

[imdeng]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/15/4056812/latino-partnership-commends-senators.html : Rubio/Coons are trying to roll HR-3012 into a new AGREE Act.

I am not sure how much to read into this. Surely, this shows that there is Latino support because of the FB provisions, which is vital for passing this. However, HR-3012 (or its Senate counterpart) was a very clean bill, while the AGREE Bill has a lot of other provisions which might make it more difficult. Anyways - the main fight is not in the house but in the Senate - so its good to see Senators moving on it. Still - this muddies the waters a little bit.

More details on the AGREE Act: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/11/senators-coons-rubio-introduce-the-agree-act

Most of the provisions seem not too controversial. Democrats might balk at Republicans cherry-picking part of President's Jobs Plan. At the same time, since its a "Jobs Bill" - lawmakers will be less likely to oppose it in the current economic climate. FWIW - the bill is bi-partisan as Coons is a Dem Senator.

[imdeng]

Senator Coons website is positioning EB part of AGREE Act as: "it reduces the barriers preventing highly skilled workers who have studied here from staying here." - I think this is a good line to take but gives the subtle impression that the provision will allow more legal immigration than the current setup - which is not true.

Good article on CNN about the AGREE Act: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/15/senators-say-joint-jobs-bill-has-best-chance-of-passing/

[Kanmani]

As I said earlier , this AGREE Act has included already passed stand alone versions of Jobs bills. Eric Cantor, House majority leader last week complained about the Senate sitting over ( not considering) several stand alone job bills passed by the House . ( Stand alone mini bills are portions of Obama's main job bill ).

So in my opinion, even if House version (3012) passes and sent to Senate it will stand as stand alone bill. If 1857 comes out of judiciary, 3012 will be merged with 1857 and then sent for voting.

If Agree Act takes a short route to pass both the houses to become law ( has no controversy so more likely) then the above said bills have no value thereafter.

[imdeng]

AGREE Act seems to have some momentum. As far we are concerned, it doesn't matter whether HR3012/S1857/AGREE passes - as long as ONE of them passes BOTH the House and the Senate. Senate is the bottleneck - so a bill that starts in the Senate has a better chance of then passing the House rather than vice-versa. AGREE Act has a lot of steps to cover though - however - they can be leaped over quite fast if there is no major opposition.

[manubhai]

...
If Agree Act takes a short route to pass both the houses to become law ( has no controversy so more likely) then the above said bills have no value thereafter.

I think this probably has more to do with the politics of politics than just... politics.

It could be that the senators want to ultimately take credit for the idea behind 3012 once its become law... or it could be that the line in AGREE act (which is the meat of 3012) has been included to get more senators to read and be OK with the concept of elimination of per country cap from EB Immigration - in other words... "I am going to push forward your bill today so that you could push forward mine some other day".

Whatever the scenario may be, at the end of the day, more reps and senators are agreeing with 3012's concept. I am guessing it is immaterial how the law manifests, whether via 3012/1857 or AGREE act, as long as they don't change major aspects of 3012 (like in effect from fiscal 2012, etc).

Regardless of the debate... S.1857 just got one more republican and one more democratic senator to (unofficially) sponsor it. Rest is how politics plays out.

Kanmani, jackbrown, sportsfan, iamdeng, gcq, and Pedro... thanks for being so proactive about this and about bringing the news to the board. Cheers!

[Kanmani]

Text of S.1857 available now .......http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1857:

Friends , can any one please compare and tell us if there is any difference

[abcx13]

I ran a text comparison utility without even reading the bills and apart from the title and numberings, the actual text of both bills is *exactly* identical.

Yay!

First post here. Hi everyone. :)

[Kanmani]

Sportsfan, Thank you.

I think the currently available text of 3012 is revised . (Lofgren amendment included right?). Then, this is 100% companion bill.


I ran a text comparison utility without even reading the bills and apart from the title and numberings, the actual text of both bills is *exactly* identical.

[suninphx]

Sportsfan, Thank you.

I think the currently available text of 3012 is revised . (Lofgren amendment included right?). Then, this is 100% companion bill.

If its companion bill then its going in right direction :)

[Pedro Gonzales]

PA Republican Congressman Glenn Thompson is also cosponsoring this bill. Now 8 cosponsors, so 9 in all, 5 Repubs, 4 Dems.

Also, I read some posts on trackitt where Senator Hutchinson responded to some folks saying the bill had been put on the House calendar. Do you see it anywhere Kanmani, or did the senator jump the gun a bit?

[imdeng]

Two bills are now officially linked as companion bills.


If its companion bill then its going in right direction :)

[suninphx]

Two bills are now officially linked as companion bills.

Yes- saw that on Trackitt. Great news!

[imdeng]

If you have a moment then please vote for our bills at the site below. No Login necessary - just a simple one click.
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_HR_3012.html
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_SN_1857.html

You can post comments too - no login needed - just a simple non-robot type-number-in-picture check. Click on "see what people are saying" link for commenting.
Thanks.

[manubhai]

Quoting from source http://www.delawarepolitics.net/group-praises-rubio-and-coons/ by David Anderson

""

November 15, 2011 3:33 PM EST

Calls on President Obama to Get Involved in the Discussion

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, a leading voice of Latino conservatives, commended U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) for introducing today the American Growth, Recovery, Empowerment and Entrepreneurship Act. The AGREE Act stems from areas of common agreement between the President’s jobs plan, recommendations from the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and plans put forward by both parties in Congress and includes a provision which eliminates per country caps on employment based immigrant visas and increases the per country cap for family-based immigrant visas from seven to fifteen percent. This same provision is included in H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, which was passed unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee recently. H.R. 3012 was introduced by Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and is co-sponsored by, among others, House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL).

“The impact of the AGREE Act immigration provision is quite significant. It will go a long way to reduce the enormous immigrant visa backlog that exists for workers from countries like India and China,” said Alfonso Aguilar, Executive Director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. “This is good news for high-tech American companies who currently have a very hard time recruiting and hiring professionals with advanced degrees from abroad simply because there are no visas available.

“H.R. 3012 will also shorten the wait for immigrant visas for people from countries like Mexico and the Philippines who want to come to the U.S. to be reunited with their families. Under the current per country limits, individuals from certain countries have to wait excessive – and sometimes unrealistic – periods of time for a family-based immigrant visa to become available.

“While President Obama continues to demagogue the immigration issue for political purposes, Senators from both sides of the aisle are actively working on legislation that begins to put our immigration system in order. In the House, H.R. 3012 has brought together members of Congress that normally have opposite views on immigration, from a Lamar Smith to a Luis Gutierrez.

“The latest action by the House Judiciary Committee and now Senator Rubio’s leadership on the issue proves unequivocally that President Obama is not being fair or honest when he accuses Republicans of not wanting to deal with the tough issue of immigration. Ironically, it is the President who has been missing in action from this important policy discussion. We call on Republicans and Democrats in both House and Senate to support this important measure. And we encourage the President to stop grandstanding on immigration and get involved in the discussion of this important policy proposal.”

""

[whiskeylover]

Did anyone notice the new FUD being spread by Jeff on trackitt about live saving physicians not being able to get green cards if this bill passes?

[immitime]

Pedro

As far as we know the house floor calendar is updated on the last day of DC work Week for public view. If there is a Constituent Work week inbetween two DC work week in the calendar , I observed that the schedule is posted on the last working day of the constituent work week . Let us say if a bill is coming to floor on monday, do we expect the house rep is informed the 2 days before as we are informed ? I dont think so . If it is a rushed bill the case is diff.

So there is a good reason that Reps and Senators have advance notification in my opinion .

( I am following Jason chaffetz in twitter as he is updating events in advance )

Below is the link from trackit and the letter from Senator.

http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/855822197/h-r-3012-another-cosponsor-jesse-jackson-jr-blackcaucus


Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I believe current U.S. immigration law is unsatisfactory in many ways, ranging from continuing illegal immigration to arbitrary limitations on admissions of high-skilled professionals needed by U.S. businesses.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allocates 140,000 visas annually for employment-based legal permanent residents (LPRs). They made up 14.2% of the total 1 million LPRs in Fiscal Year 2010. The INA also includes an annual, country-specific limit of 7% of total U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits, or country caps.

On September 22, 2011, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced H.R. 3012, which would eliminate country-specific numerical restrictions on permanent employment-based admissions. It would also raise the per-country cap on family-based immigration from 7% to 15% over several years.

H.R. 3012 has been placed on the House of Representatives' calendar for legislative action. Should the House pass the bill and send it to the Senate, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

[Pedro Gonzales]

Did anyone notice the new FUD being spread by Jeff on trackitt about live saving physicians not being able to get green cards if this bill passes?

I did. It would be a strong argument if it were true. For those of you who are staying clear of that receptacle of bile, here is the sum of Jeff's argument: Indian PERM is roughly 70% IT, whereas every other country's IT % is much lower. Hence, if Indians get their GCs sooner thanks to HR3012/S1857, IT folk will crowd out doctors who otherwise file in EB2-NIW and would now not do that anymore.

The argument sounds credible but is in fact specious for several reasons,
a) Who is to say that a doctor is more valuable than an IT professional (although at the surface that might seem obvious).
b) If 2 years of additional wait before they get their GC is too much for doctors, I suspect their loyalty towards their profession/employer.
c) There are surely a large % of Indian/Chinese doctors in the EB2-NIW queue (we have a few that contribute to this forum) which may be as large a % of total EB2NIW applicants as Indians are as a % of total IT professionals.

The data to run the analysis for 'c' is here: http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx
I don't have access to Access, so I can't open the file to run an analysis.

[gcq]

It is all about percentage. India & China represent a major chunk of world population. For any profession, Indians and Chinese will outnumber ROW applicants. So there is no case for "physicians getting impacted". Sure ROW physicians get impacted but, IC Physicians are benefited. From Physicians perspective, the new law won't discriminate against any physician based on country of birth.

He is trying to come up with different FUDs.

[immitime]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/hr-822-concealed-carry-bill_n_1097997.html

H.R. 822 Gun bill passes the house yesterday, This bill also was before 3012 during Judiciary committee hearing, so any chance for 3012 after Thanks Giving Recess.

More support for Legal Immigration reform. Read this news


Bloomberg and Murdoch call for US visa reformBy Anjli Raval in New York
Michael Bloomberg, New York City mayor, joined with Rupert Murdoch and other business leaders on Thursday in calling for the Obama administration to overhaul US immigration policy and shift the discussion away from illegal immigrants and towards business.

The following sentence goes a long way for the support of the bill.

The US government estimates that there are 3m unfilled jobs in the country because of skills shortages, particularly in fields such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Many businesses are frustrated with the country’s immigration policy, which they feel hampers their ability to compete and grow as they are in the short term unable to fill these jobs with foreign-born workers.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3a39df4-1137-11e1-a95c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1e071NiTV

All the best

[leo07]

Good one. It's nice to see both parties wanting to pass something on Immigration. Obama definitely needs one bill to go 'talk' about during elections. Because, with all the talk he did in 2008, there's absolute no action in area.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Whatever that Jeff said is complete non-sense. To counter his argument, I would just give you one example. We had total 22 residents in my batch. Our MD was of 3 years. Out of those 22 physicians, 9 were Indian. Rest were 2 Nepalese, 1 Nigerian, 1 Syrian, 1 South Korean, 1 Philippians, 4 Pakistanis, 1 Russian, 1 Algerian, 1 Iranian. Indian and Chinese Physicians make most of the physicians in EB2 so there is no question of only ROW Physicians being affected. Everyone will be similarly affected.

[whiskeylover]

Whatever that Jeff said is complete non-sense. To counter his argument, I would just give you one example. We had total 22 residents in my batch. Our MD was of 3 years. Out of those 22 physicians, 9 were Indian. Rest were 2 Nepalese, 1 Nigerian, 1 Syrian, 1 South Korean, 1 Philippians, 4 Pakistanis, 1 Russian, 1 Algerian, 1 Iranian. Indian and Chinese Physicians make most of the physicians in EB2 so there is no question of only ROW Physicians being affected. Everyone will be similarly affected.

Someone should draft a letter to the politicians with these numbers. Because the opposing side has started bombarding them with Jeff's argument.

[Pedro Gonzales]

I can take some initiative in drafting this letter. Do we have any numbers before we undertake this endeavor? For example, out of the X physician visas given out, how many of them were from India/China?

Also, I am interested in finding out how the distribution of profession is specifically in EB2. I have always been EB2-centric in my argument, because EB3-I already has a very strong argument (the 70 year wait) in their favor. If you take the entire PERM data, it is not surprising to find out that 76% of India represent IT, but how many of the ones are IT only in EB2 (we can do some creative data mining, such as setting a cut-off above 70-75K in the PERM data and using that subset for EB2 - it won't be perfect, but it would be something).

Also, the simplistic SOC-code argument lacks merit, as IT is not just one profession but comprises of system engineering, application engineering, network engineering, software development and so on. So it is extremely unfair to say that all of us are crowding out just 1 profession, when in reality, there are at least 10s (if not 100s) of different professions under the umbrella of the "SOC-15 IT". can we compile a list of professions under SOC-15 and drive the point of *variety within IT*?

Also, how much share IT itself is taking in the US economy in terms of the GDP and exports? If IT is the dominant industry field, it is not surprising at all that 76% of immigrants are professing IT. Let's make the point that IT is the driving force of American competitiveness, and actually results in a net trade surplus. America is in trade deficit because it imports most of the manufactured stuff and oil, whereas it is in surplus as it exports services, software, entertainment etc. So all of us are helping the US trade balance.

Let's get together with it friends. Please provide valuable information, data, any other arguments that we can come up with, and I can start drafting a letter that we can all work on.

I am planning on meeting the Senators personally in the first week of December, and I will give them a hand written letter. They are more likely to read it than the junk they receive in emails/faxes.

It goes back to that PERM data from the link I'd attached to my last email. If we can prove Jonty's point about Indian/Chinese doctors being a disproportional share of the EB2-NIW physicians, the argument falls apart. It doesn't have to be > 76%. If it is > 50% we're set. Even if it is only as high as 30%, I think we can make a credible argument. I don't have MS Access, so I can't open the file. Surely someone on this forum does (this thread has had almost 15,000 views for crying out loud). Now's the time for you guys to get involved. We're not asking you to do it for us, do it for yourselves.

I get your point, however. We disprove the physician theory. He's going to say the IT influx hits marine biologist supply. Then architects. Then colonoscopy technicians. We'll have to explain the 'IT surplus' eventually. However, for now, I think we attack the 'physician dilemma' head on. Should be a quicker fix.

[gcq]

IMO there is no need to respond to Jeff's antics. He has no logic in his argument. If he presents his points about physicians to anyone, it will work against his position.

What we should do is engage our Indian organizations and ask them to support this bill as it benefits family based applicants. If have this kind of support from GC holders and citizens, our bills will sail smoothly.

No need to analyze distribution of professions in each category. It does not make sense from a lawmakers perspective. Arguments for/against doesn't make any difference from lawmakers perspective.

About grassley:
he is not going to make a difference in the bill. Grassley is the senate version of Steve King. Look how steve king's amendment were thrown out on Judiciary committee. Most probably this bill will come up in judiciary committee only if it gets strong support from both democrats and republicans. In that case grassley cannot do anything. As far as I see, charles schumer has already bought into this. Senator Cornyn ( republican ) is also a strong supporter of this. There will be more senators from either side of the aisle supporting this.

About Jeff's argument "it is not helping illegals":
It is a very narrow bill. Everybody knows that. CHC lawmaker Luis Gutierrez is already a co-sponsor. Latino organizations are already supporting Rubio's bill as it has the provisions of HR 3012 in it. We could make our positions stronger by asking Latino groups to support this bill because of the family component side of it. Latinos will be benefited in a big way by 7 to 15% increase in FB quota.

[gcq]

Jeffs yahoo group post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EB_ROW/message/812

His strategy requesting lawmaker to attach DREAM act to this bill in order to kill the bill.

[rinku1112]

I think Sportsfans' plan to hand deliver letters to Senators/Congressmen in DC is not a bad idea. The main ROWer plan which is crytal clear to everyone is to scuttle HR3012/S1857 by expanding its scope. Some poison-pills that ROWers are cooking to expand the scope to kill these bills:

1) IT from India will swamp everyone else: This is a fallacious argument. There was/is shortage of IT skills in US and since India graduates a lot of Engineering/IT professionals who can communicate in English, there was a perfect match over a period of time to bridge this demand from India. If you look at the number of Nurses that come into US, you will see a lot of them are from Phillipines. There is an acute shortage of Nurses in US at the moment and there are a large number of professionally trained Nurses from Phillipines that are bridging this gap currently. I am quite positive if someone can look at the number of Nurses that are coming out of Phillipines to US the % will be quite high as well.

Our counter argument should be - Making long term laws by focusing on short term trends is inherently flawed.

2) DREAM act provisions attached to HR3012/S1857: I agree with poster 'gcq' that this argument will not fly too much, especially since DREAM bill already had its chance in Congress on its own. The scope of these bills is intentionally narrow so that they can pass. There is not only limited relief for severely backlogged EB professionals but also for backlogged FB families which will benefit Hispanic families.

Our counter argument - Piling on DREAM provisions that were very divisive when it had a chance in Congress will kill the limited relief that these bills will provide to EB and FB backlog victims; affecting Hispanic families that would have some much needed relief with raise in country cap in FB if these bills are not allowed to pass with their current narrow scope.

[leo07]

YUP, that's a sure way of killing a bill!

Jeffs yahoo group post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EB_ROW/message/812

His strategy requesting lawmaker to attach DREAM act to this bill in order to kill the bill.

[leo07]

Very good argument. The bill as it stands, with whatever minimal inclusions has the best chance of passing. If anyone is trying to expand the scope, they surely are trying to scuttle the efforts. I think proponents are firm on not expanding the scope at this point.

I think Sportsfans' plan to hand deliver letters to Senators/Congressmen in DC is not a bad idea. The main ROWer plan which is crytal clear to everyone is to scuttle HR3012/S1857 by expanding its scope. Some poison-pills that ROWers are cooking to expand the scope to kill these bills:

1) IT from India will swamp everyone else: This is a fallacious argument. There was/is shortage of IT skills in US and since India graduates a lot of Engineering/IT professionals who can communicate in English, there was a perfect match over a period of time to bridge this demand from India. If you look at the number of Nurses that come into US, you will see a lot of them are from Phillipines. There is an acute shortage of Nurses in US at the moment and there are a large number of professionally trained Nurses from Phillipines that are bridging this gap currently. I am quite positive if someone can look at the number of Nurses that are coming out of Phillipines to US the % will be quite high as well.

Our counter argument should be - Making long term laws by focusing on short term trends is inherently flawed.

2) DREAM act provisions attached to HR3012/S1857: I agree with poster 'gcq' that this argument will not fly too much, especially since DREAM bill already had its chance in Congress on its own. The scope of these bills is intentionally narrow so that they can pass. There is not only limited relief for severely backlogged EB professionals but also for backlogged FB families which will benefit Hispanic families.

Our counter argument - Piling on DREAM provisions that were very divisive when it had a chance in Congress will kill the limited relief that these bills will provide to EB and FB backlog victims; affecting Hispanic families that would have some much needed relief with raise in country cap in FB if these bills are not allowed to pass with their current narrow scope.

[leo07]

I think trying to answer or frame a response to everyone's argument will not be very helpful. It could make us look bad. IMHO, we must point out what's "unjust" and "unfair" without referring to others talking-points.

Someone should draft a letter to the politicians with these numbers. Because the opposing side has started bombarding them with Jeff's argument.

[rinku1112]

Very good argument. The bill as it stands, with whatever minimal inclusions has the best chance of passing. If anyone is trying to expand the scope, they surely are trying to scuttle the efforts. I think proponents are firm on not expanding the scope at this point.

Thanks Leo. Yes, the primary focus for us should be to defeat any attempts by anyone to rewrite or modify the existing bill(s). That said, I dont know much about advocacy or the dynamics inside US Congress to pretend I have a solution from that happening :)

My only motivation in supporting this initiative is to strip all undeserved benefits that these trash ROWers enjoy now with the current country cap status-quo!

[Pedro Gonzales]

I think trying to answer or frame a response to everyone's argument will not be very helpful. It could make us look bad. IMHO, we must point out what's "unjust" and "unfair" without referring to others talking-points.

I think it is important to have counterpoints to every argument against the bill, although we may not need to include everything in every letter we send out.

There is no reason for HR3012 to not pass. This should be easy. We have both fairness and numbers on our side. I think we should use both effectively. Below is what I've been thinking about for a while but haven't had the time as I've got busy both at work and at home.

My suggestion is that we have a website that
a) details the arguments for HR3012/S1857
b) debunks every argument against HR3012 with facts and rational arguments.
c) a summary of the bill along with links to it and
d) action items to help get HR3012 passed.

I think that the right people to actually put 'a' and 'b' in words are sportsfan33, damnrandom and nathang (all from trackitt, I think sportsfan33 is the only one here) if they would volunteer to help. They write very cogently (although nathang does get pretty verbose at times I think the other two can temper the length of his responses). I think that the rest of us can all contribute to the arguments above and provide data to help them write out the responses.

The website would need an easy to remember url, and shouldn't have anything else other than 'a' through 'd' above for simplicity.

Ultimately, such a website could serve as a go-to place for a grassroots recruitment effort too. There will come a time (and probably soon) when we need to man phones to call senators/congressmen and I think we should reach out to the folks that would benefit the most from HR3012 passing: grad students and H4 spouses. They have time on their hands and the motivation to make multiple rounds of calls. I think the way to reach out to them is to post one page posters on desi grocery stores and movie theatres across the country. The poster would have only two things on them 1) a cartoon depicting the absurdity of the country caps (we need a cartoonist, btw) and 2) the url of the website above (which is why it needs to be simple and easy to remember). That would result in inbound traffic to the website that will outline the rest. I'm not trying to sideline ** here. The action items would be theirs. We leave the advocacy to them. We just focus on the marketing aspect.

To get this off the ground, we'd need
a) someone who can relatively quickly get a website together that can take lots of traffic
b) cartoonist to help come up with an attention grabbing description of the absurdity of country caps (I have an idea).
c) sportsfan33, damnrandom and nathang to type out the arguments for and debunking of arguments against HR3012 (much of the material is already available either on trackitt or here)
d) the rest of us to supply data to them to help out with c,
e) us all to print out the posters and post them in the desi grocery stores and movie theatres
f) collect a list of indian grad student association emails.

I wanted to do this with a smaller group in a more secretive manner, but given time constraints, I think its best to crowdsource the effort.

What do you all think?

[gcq]

One issue with responding to Jeff's argument is.

As of now Jeff don't have many people working on his crazy action items. If we try to respond to his arguments as action items, we will be actually marketing his idea though in a negative way. Remember we have the numbers.

Smartest thing to do is to depict how this country cap is a non-sense with our own points rather than countering Jeff's points. Spreading the message to our GC and citizenship friends and family is the best way to increase support.

[jackbrown_890]

I totally agree with gcq. If we start writing to other senators/H.R.s, even though we will be defending our point against what that guy has been saying, we will actually be marketing his idea as gcq said because some sanators/hrs who are opposing the idea of 3012 may use jeff's points in their arguments.
As others mentioned, i see a their point in writing to congress and tell them the facts but at the same time we do not want to spread his words.
I see on majority of bills related websites: 3012 has over 80% public support and less thn 20% opposing this bill. It is good to have someone opposing this too but it is not threat yet unless the opposition to this bill grows beyond 25%. So that guy may be encouraging lot of people to write but it seems like he is still far from damaging the idea of majority support to these bills. (i do believe in - if it ain't broke bro, don't fix it - he hasn't done considerable amount of damage YET, so right now we don't need to fix anything (yet) lets just sit tight and hope the bill goes for a vote soon in the House.
If more and more people here feels like the opposition to these bills is rising, thn i am in- we will respond to his argument.
Another reason, I also get excited about doing things right away but i would like to see people keep their excitement to themselves untill we really need it i.e. for the right time i.e. when bill is on the floor for vote. At that time lets attack congress with phone calls/emails/letters...
Lets see for day or two if lot of people here thinks we need to do something and respond to that guy's argument,,we will form a letter/petition to support our argument.
does that sound reasonable?


One issue with responding to Jeff's argument is.

As of now Jeff don't have many people working on his crazy action items. If we try to respond to his arguments as action items, we will be actually marketing his idea though in a negative way. Remember we have the numbers.

Smartest thing to do is to depict how this country cap is a non-sense with our own points rather than countering Jeff's points. Spreading the message to our GC and citizenship friends and family is the best way to increase support.

[immitime]

I totally agree with gcq. If we start writing to other senators/H.R.s, even though we will be defending our point against what that guy has been saying, we will actually be marketing his idea as gcq said because some sanators/hrs who are opposing the idea of 3012 may use jeff's points in their arguments.
As others mentioned, i see a their point in writing to congress and tell them the facts but at the same time we do not want to spread his words.
I see on majority of bills related websites: 3012 has over 80% public support and less thn 20% opposing this bill. It is good to have someone opposing this too but it is not threat yet unless the opposition to this bill grows beyond 25%. So that guy may be encouraging lot of people to write but it seems like he is still far from damaging the idea of majority support to these bills. (i do believe in - if it ain't broke bro, don't fix it - he hasn't done considerable amount of damage YET, so right now we don't need to fix anything (yet) lets just sit tight and hope the bill goes for a vote soon in the House.
If more and more people here feels like the opposition to these bills is rising, thn i am in- we will respond to his argument.
Another reason, I also get excited about doing things right away but i would like to see people keep their excitement to themselves untill we really need it i.e. for the right time i.e. when bill is on the floor for vote. At that time lets attack congress with phone calls/emails/letters...
Lets see for day or two if lot of people here thinks we need to do something and respond to that guy's argument,,we will form a letter/petition to support our argument.
does that sound reasonable?

There is strong business lobbying happening in the background as per financial times article, so this bill definitly is going to make it in an election year, but only thing we need to make sure is avoid a "Fillibuster" in the senate! any of the Senator can do that.to block the bill, We had previous histories And in the forum any one can write against or in favour of. ultimately Congress and Senators are taking decisions. To my knowledge we need to focus on Senators and Congressman, rather than replying to ignorable comments. And catch hold of US Citizens (of India and China Origin) I am working with some of the groups and they all agreed to see the senators during Thanksgiving recess when they are in their constituencies. In each state we need to focus this. and they all agreed because of the Family Based provision in this bills, and also what the EB immigrants from India and China is going through. most of them were not aware of this issue!

Hoping and Praying for the best.

[leo07]

I agree that there is a risk of us "selling" Jeff's points while responding. Response should be carefully, if at all, to convince the remaining by-standers without losing the ones in pocket :)

[Jonty Rhodes]

I agree with most of you above so I don't have to add anything new to the above discussion. The bottomline is that we need to show the hardships and the problems we face with current system showing that we only want the system to be fair, unbiased and non-discriminatory.

Having said this, there are strong and influential organization of Indian and Chinese Physicians which may be supportive of HR 3012. If someone who has good drafting skills can prepare a letter and send it these organizations requesting them to support this bill and asking them to throw their weight behind HR 3012, it would definitely take care of ideas of people like Jeff.

American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin(AAPI) is a very strong and influential organization with more than 40,000 members. They include physicians of Indian Origin born in US as well as physicians of Indian origin who have emigrated from India and other countries to US. If this organization supports the bill, it would be a huge positive step for us. For physicians like me, AAPI supporting HR 3012 is comparable to an Indian IT Professional getting the support for HR 3012 from Microsoft, Apple or Google.

Though beware that there are two different organizations with similar names. Here is the link for both. It would not hurt to ask for support from both the organizations.

http://aapiusa.org/

http://www.aapio.org/index.html

Here is a wikipedia link about this organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Physicians_of_Indian_Origi n

Similarly, there are two associations for Chinese physicians. The Association of Chinese American Physicians (ACAP) and Chinese American Medical Society.

http://acaponline.org/

http://www.camsociety.org/presidentmessage_2010.html

And there are various ethnic medical societies.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/international-medical-graduates/imgs-in-united-states/directory-ethnic-medical-associations.page

[kuku82]

I agree that we should be very judicious about including any of Jeff's non-sense in our communication with the congressmen. However, at the very least, I feel we should include 1-2 max of the common points that ROWers used against the bill (indo - chn dominance, body shops stealing away GCs, etc.) along with their respective counterpoints. A ratio of 80/20 (90/10??) about points supporting the bill and reasons ROWers give for being against the bill respectiv. should be a healthy balance.

One more thing btw. I haven't seen any Chinese folks around in these forums promoting this bill. Are there any other forums that are primarily used by the Chinese? Maybe we can talk to our Chinese coworkers (if not already done so) to garner their support as well......

[leo07]

I appreciate what you are doing. my only suggestion would be to not give undue importance to naysayers points. But highlight more on our plight and why it's right.

Thanks, there is a lot of useful discussion and direction on this forum.

I will phrase a letter later today and send it to a few key members here. I had the same direction - I don't want to brood over Jeff's points too much and make my rebuttal sound like a rebuttal, but at the same time, it should show the side of our argument comprehensively. If any Senator had any doubt about this, those doubts should get resolved. That should be our proactive goal.

I don't want us to be anti-illegal immigration (and neither pro-illegal immigration for that matter). However we should take the stand that EB immigrants can use a piecemeal approach that helps us right now without considering any fancy grand reform scheme, and we will always be in support of any *fair* legislation that is created for immigration as a whole. Let's also not use the words legal/illegal here...employment based immigrants is a proper usage because we are not fighting for other legal immigrants either.

[essenel]

Wow...I'm really glad to see that this thread is so active. I have been actively supporting H.R. 3012. I've sent several emails, made several calls to representatives and also visited a senator's office. Will continue to do what I can. Per country limits are out-dated and completely unfair. I've noticed that several people on this thread have been doing a lot to keep advocacy efforts alive and trying to get other people involved. Kudos to you guys. I am following it like a hawk and chipping in however I can....

[manubhai]

I agree with most of what you are saying in concern to "dont respond to Jeff because that just elevates his points". Very true. That said I think there were some incredible points laid out by Pedro that we've just ignored in the messages after.

My humble disagreement is with the statement: "The bottomline is that we need to show the hardships and the problems we face with current system". I dont think that THAT is what the underlying, singular, driving message should be from "us".

Our troubles and sacrifices cannot be sold as the the primary reason for why United States needs to act on a policy issue. The only reason why United States will and should change a policy is because it serves the interest of United States.

And THAT is what we should be selling as the primary reason why HR 3012 should be supported.

How does 3012 help United States? Its economy? We are all very clear about that. We KNOW how it makes a difference in the long run. That's what we need to sell.

And... who's our audience? If you are writing on a newspaper's message board in response to an article or a comment, your audience is different than if you go to meet with your representative or senator. Your audience is different if you are writing to the Indian/Chinese Student Association of a university. And yet again, your audience is different if you are responding to a message from an ignorant jackass on Trackitt.

For a news site/message boards where the audience is "general public" who has no understanding of and desire to understand the mess of immigration... dont bore them with how you have to wait and you cant buy a house and that your wife cant work (that's my life btw!!!). SERIOUSLY - DONT DO THAT. You have 10 words and 5 seconds in your comments to get their attention or lose it. Dont waste it by telling them that this bill is good because it makes YOUR messed up life much easier. Instead tell them how this is a "small step forward' for this great country in a bipartisan environment where nothing is moving forward.

Some of the points you could use:

1. This bill is about potential LEGAL immigrants who are educated, experienced, English speaking, tax paying, professionals who have legally entered United States after having proven their worth.
2. This bill is a practical bill because it does not aim to solve all the immigration problems in one swoop. It is a small step in the right direction.
3. This bill does NOT increase the number of legal immigrants allowed in the United States.
4. More than ever before, United States' economy needs the best it can attract. This bill aims to make USA a more productive and competitive nation by allowing these potential immigrants a better, fairer path to become immigrants.
5. This bill eliminates an archaic provision of the currently broken immigration law that discriminates the amount of time a legal immigrant needs to wait based on his country of birth.
6. This bill has garnered solid support from both republicans and democrats in both the house and the senate. It is a product of sane minds on both sides of the aisle working together to produce small, beneficial results for the US economy.
7. This bill will have no impact on the diversity of the immigrant pool because it only impacts a small percentage of the total immigrant pool.

Key points that matter to Mr. John Doe Public:
1. No increase in visas.
2. Helps build the US economy for decades to come.
3. About LEGAL, not ILLEGAL immigration. About high skilled professionals, not people who jump the fence.
4. Both democrats and republicans are supporting this. Finally... some sign of sanity.
5. No change in immigration diversity.

Finally... I'd say again... Pedro has mentioned two things that somehow we've continued to ignore. He said this about a month back too - involve the "grad students and H4 spouses" and "spread the word". I'm not sure how many here have come to US straight on H1 and how many have been grad students. I can assure you, in the miserable, poverty stricken days of my masters, if someone would have told me that you have the choice of green card between 2 years and 6 years, I'd have gone to the moon for that guy. So yes, please find the email addresses of Indian Student Associations and their administrators (easily found on the university website or Google it). Mail them, spread the word. I ask people to vote on popvox, etc, not because voting on those sites helps the cause. But it brings a sense of ownership to the person who took the time to create a login/password and press the support button. And when they see the number of votes go from 2 to 20 to 200, it makes people feel they are part of a community and that they too can do a "little" to make a difference. So yes... please... spread the word. Ask people to mail and get the telephone number of the congressmen (list is on this thread and on **).

Finally, my opinion may differ from some of you, but I am extremely glad that we have folks here who are all trying to do the best they can to get this bill to pass. Good luck!!

[gcq]

manubhai,
Great post. One point I would add. Don''t put up the argument LEGAL vs ILLEGAL. That will work against us. Most of the democrats and surprisingly large number of republicans are in support of undocumented/illegals. So keep that comparison out of the conversation.

Don't know whether anyone noticed the after effects Albama's strict immigration law. Undocumented are needed for this economy.
Watch this one http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/10/immigration-humor-colbert-to-alabama-i-told-you-so.html

[manubhai]

manubhai,
Great post. One point I would add. Don''t put up the argument LEGAL vs ILLEGAL. That will work against us. Most of the democrats and surprisingly large number of republicans are in support of undocumented/illegals. So keep that comparison out of the conversation.

Don't know whether anyone noticed the after effects Albama's strict immigration law. Undocumented are needed for this economy.
Watch this one http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/10/immigration-humor-colbert-to-alabama-i-told-you-so.html

gcq,
I agree that "elected officials" may be in support of illegals. However, IMHO, our reader on a newspaper site, or in conversation, needs to be "informed/taught/coached" differently. I've seen people talk about "this bill will bring in more of those illegal mexicans who are committing crime in my neighborhood" in a conversation about 3012. You read that and you go "HUH?".
People need to be told that this bill doesn't bring in the bad boys... its only about the good boys.
As for "elected officials" - If they have any sort of impact on this bill, I assume they'd have read the two page bill and understood it enough to know that this bill does no harm and no good to illegals. So even if they do support illegals, there is no reason for them to not support this bill even if we do end up bringing up the subject.

[kuku82]

Side topic: CBO estimate for HR. 3012 is out

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/125xx/doc12561/hr3012.pdf

[whiskeylover]

Jeffs yahoo group post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EB_ROW/message/812

His strategy requesting lawmaker to attach DREAM act to this bill in order to kill the bill.
That's the marc guy on yahoo forums. Extremely annoying and filled with an anti-India agenda. He also claims to be a USC and seems to know some anti-immigration Americans. He's the only guy you should watch out for.

[whiskeylover]

I totally agree with gcq. If we start writing to other senators/H.R.s, even though we will be defending our point against what that guy has been saying, we will actually be marketing his idea as gcq said because some sanators/hrs who are opposing the idea of 3012 may use jeff's points in their arguments.


I agree, but we should have the facts ready just in case someone brings up this point. Then you should have those number handy to debunk Jeff's myth.

[whiskeylover]

My suggestion is that we have a website that
a) details the arguments for HR3012/S1857
b) debunks every argument against HR3012 with facts and rational arguments.
c) a summary of the bill along with links to it and
d) action items to help get HR3012 passed.



I can put together a quick website and assign a few of us here permissions to add content to it. I can eat the cost of domain registration and website hosting. I have plenty of experience with this and that's the least I can do for my desi brethren. Lemme know.

[jackbrown_890]

I am not sure if anyone mentioned it here yesterday that AGREE Act is also going to be introduced in the House by Bill keating and Richard Hanna. Another bi-partisan team.
It will be companion bill of Coon-Rubio AGREE.

[whiskeylover]

Jack, that is good news. I can see a lot of momentum towards eliminating EB per country cap. Hopefully one of these many bills becomes a law.

Good luck to everybody. Hope you don't have to wait as long as I had to.

[gcq]

Another argument for removing country quota:

China and India form the largest percentage of foreign students in US universities.

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20111118150938606

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/11/15/are-indian-students-shunning-america/?mod=google_news_blog

[jackbrown_890]

It seems like people do want to take some action. i think someone said he/she is going to draft a letter. Munnabhai listed few good points to be included in the letter.
Let us know when it is ready.
There is a link to opencongress in this thread somewhere. but i am reposting it.
First step is to Support and Send a letter thru open congress to your area congressman. If you have not done it, please go to the link below and support it and also send a letter. You can make your letter private if you want, so no one can see it. But just go there and support the bill with a letter.
Senate bill has only little over 100 supporters so far. House bill has close to 1000. But that is also not enough. We need to make both numbers close to 10,000 (with emails/letters) Someone mentioned we need support of our Chinese brothers and sisters.. so lets find out where they are and flood congress with phone calls/emails/letters. they were really helpful (before any of the bills were introduced) with by signing that petition "retain skilled immigrants". I don't some guy from Chinese community posted a link to some website and we had like 3000 emails sent to congress in one weekend. as someone else said earlier that we need to find them again to gather support for actual bills.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1857/show
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3012/show

[gcq]

What is the significance of CBO estimate on a bill ? I assume it is just a formality that every bill has to go through.

[jackbrown_890]

What is the significance of CBO estimate on a bill ? I assume it is just a formality that every bill has to go through.

Well, i think, there are people who (specially republicans) doesn't want anymore government spending since in last few years they have spent a lot of money. Its not news that CBO estimate says there is not cost. But just confirmation of No cost from CBO mean one less hurdle. Since any bill costing govenment will have hard time passing right now, specially when they are trying to cut budget by 1.2 trillion.

[Kanmani]

H.R.3012 reported to the full house on 11/18/2011 Report No.House Report 112-292 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/15?cp112:./temp/~TSOPwot7U&sid=TSOPwot7U&item=15&sel=TOCLIST&hd_count=34&xform_type=3&r_n=hr292.112&dbname=cp112&&refer=&&

[jackbrown_890]

H.R.3012 reported to the full house on 11/18/2011 Report No.House Report 112-292 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/15?cp112:./temp/~TSOPwot7U&sid=TSOPwot7U&item=15&sel=TOCLIST&hd_count=34&xform_type=3&r_n=hr292.112&dbname=cp112&&refer=&&

Great news
thanks kanmani for posting it
.,,lets follow house calendar and see when it shows up on d calendar..as soon as it shows up on calendar, lets push big on our advocacy efforts..

[Jonty Rhodes]

Great news, Kanmani.

I hope this bill passes the house vote smoothly which has more than 400 members. The other good thing I feel about this bill is that ROWers are not really organized in opposing it. In fact, most of them don't even know whether this kind of bill exist. I hope that most of the opposition that is coming remains limited to the forums. The opposition would become threat if it materializes in to contacting Congressmen persuading them to oppose it. But in my opinion, till now, things don't look really bad.

I am keeping my fingers crossed. In fact, I am crossing everything I can.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Two more co-sponsors for HR 3012.

Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-IL)

Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA)

There are total 8 co-sponsors now for this bill.

Also, found this message on ** regarding HR 3012. Looks like they are really utilizing the backdoor channels.

At this time there is just one public action item mentioned on the first post of this thread. Pls make sure you are part of it.
Lot of work is going on that cannot be made public for obvious reasons. We all want the bill to pass ASAP.

Get more friends involved. Spread the word for more participation in the absence of new action items.

[jackbrown_890]

I just wrote an email to Eric Cantor and included a list of main points and benefits of 3012. I stressed on the fact that it is bi-partisan bill.
In my understanding this bill has no cost to it will be in House Calendar not in Union calendar or any other calendar and it looks like there are still 12 working days left in 2011 in house calendar so i think we should contact Eric Cantor since he is the one managing the activities of House Calendar.
Here is the link to Eric Cantor's contact form: If you have 2 minutes of time, just fill out the contact form and mention your support to this bill in main body and include some of the points mentioned here earlier by few people here on this thread.
Here is the link to his Contact page: http://www.majorityleader.gov/contact/contact.html
Good luck and thank you

[manubhai]

I just wrote an email to Eric Cantor and included a list of main points and benefits of 3012. I stressed on the fact that it is bi-partisan bill.
In my understanding this bill has no cost to it will be in House Calendar not in Union calendar or any other calendar and it looks like there are still 12 working days left in 2011 in house calendar so i think we should contact Eric Cantor since he is the one managing the activities of House Calendar.
Here is the link to Eric Cantor's contact form: If you have 2 minutes of time, just fill out the contact form and mention your support to this bill in main body and include some of the points mentioned here earlier by few people here on this thread.
Here is the link to his Contact page: http://www.majorityleader.gov/contact/contact.html
Good luck and thank you

Done. Thanks for the link jackbrown. This task IS important.

My mail included summary from my previous message on this thread. It was basically:
1. Thank you for your time.
2. Request you to expedite in bringing this bill to the table and support this bill.
3. Does not increase work visas.
4. Does not address the contentious issue of Illegal Immigration.
5. Being supported by both sides of the aisle, so proves that the House of Reps. is still doing its best by taking small steps forward to do the right thing for the country and its economy.
6. Does not change immigrant diversity.
7. Lastly, it alleviates the suffering of many highly qualified, English speaking, tax paying, professionals, whose only "crime" was that they were born in India or China.

Folks, don't just sit there and attempt to answer the question: "How helpful will this ever be?". Even Master Yoda won't have an answer for that. Just do it - http://www.majorityleader.gov/contact/contact.html

[trackright]

Three more co-sponsers making the count 11 now.

Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 11/18/2011
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 11/18/2011
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 11/18/2011

One more Question.. It says the bill is placed on the union calander What does this mean exactly?

11/18/2011 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-292.
11/18/2011 Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 193.

[immitime]

Union Calendar
The rules of the House provide that there shall be:

•A Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, to which shall be referred public bills and public resolutions raising revenue, involving a tax or charge on the people, directly or indirectly making appropriations of money or property or requiring such appropriations to be made, authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, releasing any liability to the United States for money or property, or referring a claim to the Court of Claims.
The large majority of public bills and resolutions reported to the House are placed on the Union Calendar. For a discussion of the Committee of the Whole House, see Part X.

Read Further

http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/How_a_bill_becomes_a_law/VIII._Calendars#Union_Calendar
:cool:

[jackbrown_890]

So i was wrong. It does not have any cost but this bill may raise revenue so i am guessing thats why it is placed under Union Calendar.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-112hcal/html/CCAL-112hcal-pt2.htm

[Pedro Gonzales]

Guys,

I met with my Congressman this morning and the meeting went very well. I would recommend to everyone to schedule meetings with your representatives. They should all be in their district offices this week.

[kd2008]

Guys,

I met with my Congressman this morning and the meeting went very well. I would recommend to everyone to schedule meetings with your representatives. They should all be in their district offices this week.

Pedro, Thanks for the update. Did you meet directly with your Representative or did you meet with a staffer? I am unable to meet my Rep. or the staffer. Quite frustrating honestly.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Pedro, Thanks for the update. Did you meet directly with your Representative or did you meet with a staffer? I am unable to meet my Rep. or the staffer. Quite frustrating honestly.

Met with the Rep this time. Didn't last more than 5 minutes, but it was positive. This was my third visit btw, I met with staffers both previous trips, although the Congressman was in the district both of those times (and in the office at least once). I think i got to meet the Congressman this time because my last meeting with the staffer went well. My district isn't very populous (or rather its spread out because of its relative population density) so the Congressman's office wasn't very busy on any of my visits. I would expect it would be tougher if you live in a large city.

[kd2008]

Committee of the Whole House info:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/consideration.html#whole


Committee of the Whole House

In order to expedite the consideration of bills and resolutions, the rules of the House provide for a parliamentary mechanism, known as the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, that enables the House to act with a quorum of less than the requisite majority of the entire House. A quorum in the Committee of the Whole is 100 members. All measures on the Union Calendar- those involving a tax, making appropriations, authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, or disposing of property- must be first considered in the Committee of the Whole.

The Committee on Rules reports a rule allowing for immediate consideration of a measure by the Committee of the Whole. After adoption of the rule by the House, the Speaker may declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole. When the House resolves into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker leaves the chair after appointing a Chairman to preside.

The rule referred to in the preceding paragraph also fixes the length of the debate in the Committee of the Whole. This may vary according to the importance of the measure. As provided in the rule, the control of the time is usually divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the relevant committee. Members seeking to speak for or against the measure may arrange in advance with the Member in control of the time on their respective side to be allowed a certain amount of time in the debate. Members may also ask the Member speaking at the time to yield to them for a question or a brief statement. A transcript of the proceedings in the House and the Senate is printed daily in the Congressional Record. Frequently, permission is granted a Member by unanimous consent to revise and extend his remarks in the Congressional Record if sufficient time to make a lengthy oral statement is not available during actual debate. These revisions and extensions are printed in a distinctive type and cannot substantively alter the verbatim transcript.

The conduct of the debate is governed principally by the rules of the House that are adopted at the opening of each Congress. In the 106th Congress, the rules were recodified for simplification and clarity. Jefferson's Manual, prepared by Thomas Jefferson for his own guidance as President of the Senate from 1797 to 1801, is another recognized authority. The House has a long-standing rule that the provisions of Jefferson's Manual should govern the House in all applicable cases and where they are not inconsistent with the rules of the House. Most parliamentary questions arising during the course of debate are responded to by a ruling based on a precedent in a similar situation. The Parliamentarian of the House is present in the House Chamber in order to assist the Speaker or the Chairman in making a correct ruling on parliamentary questions.

[EB2Jun08]

Hi,
based on the recent trends on this bill, how many more steps are there to become this as a law ?



Committee of the Whole House info:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/consideration.html#whole

[kd2008]

Hi,
based on the recent trends on this bill, how many more steps are there to become this as a law ?

There are quite many steps. Don't get discouraged. That is why advocacy is hard. Moreover, as the bill moves forward, the opposition gets more vocal. Other issues like deficit reduction may get more attention etc. So please contact your Congressperson and try to convince them to vote for this bill. Let them know this is important and must be done.

[self.coach]

HR 3012 update:

9/22/2011: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
9/23/2011: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.
10/27/2011: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
10/27/2011: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
11/17/2011: Congressional Budget Office highlights there is no impact of HR 3012 on budgets. Source: CBO link (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/125xx/doc12561/hr3012.pdf)
11/18/2011 1:37pm: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-292 - click here to see complete report/bill with latest ammendments. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt292/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt292.pdf).
11/18/2011 1:38pm: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 193. From Wiki: The Union Calendar is a separate calendar in the United States House of Representatives that schedules bills involving money issues. Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3012rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr3012rh.pdf


Keep your fingers crossed. I am still trying to understand what it really means by putting on the Union Calendar, but intuitively it is some progress. Just hope that this congress ends up passing this bill (anything, for that matter...this political gridlock is not helping the US).

[evoori]

Do we have some Guru who can enlighten us on different steps for passing of bill in U.S. congress ? My knowledge is limited and all I know is that a bill can be proposed in either House or Senate and the same has to be passed by Senate/House.


HR 3012 update:

9/22/2011: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
9/23/2011: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.
10/27/2011: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
10/27/2011: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
11/17/2011: Congressional Budget Office highlights there is no impact of HR 3012 on budgets. Source: CBO link (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/125xx/doc12561/hr3012.pdf)
11/18/2011 1:37pm: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-292 - click here to see complete report/bill with latest ammendments. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt292/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt292.pdf).
11/18/2011 1:38pm: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 193. From Wiki: The Union Calendar is a separate calendar in the United States House of Representatives that schedules bills involving money issues. Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3012rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr3012rh.pdf


Keep your fingers crossed. I am still trying to understand what it really means by putting on the Union Calendar, but intuitively it is some progress. Just hope that this congress ends up passing this bill (anything, for that matter...this political gridlock is not helping the US).

[Feb262009]

I am not aware of the process either. BUt per the belwo link, The status is:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3012

Status:

Occurred: Introduced Sep 22, 2011
Occurred: Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Occurred: Reported by Committee Oct 27, 2011
Not Yet Occurred: House Vote ...
Not Yet Occurred: Senate Vote ...
Not Yet Occurred: Signed by President ...


Do we have some Guru who can enlighten us on different steps for passing of bill in U.S. congress ? My knowledge is limited and all I know is that a bill can be proposed in either House or Senate and the same has to be passed by Senate/House.

[leo07]

FWIW, Immigration Voice dot org has a good faq about this. Search on that site or google : "How a Bill becomes law": Image below

http://armine.pbworks.com/f/1272296003/howlaw.gif


Do we have some Guru who can enlighten us on different steps for passing of bill in U.S. congress ? My knowledge is limited and all I know is that a bill can be proposed in either House or Senate and the same has to be passed by Senate/House.

[self.coach]

Excellent link leo.. thanks.

I guess it is in the "Calendared" phase right now..really boils down to the vote. The most recent vote was 6 to 23 against the bill, if you see Page 5 of this bill. Now what was defeated was not the entire bill but part of it, as it says in the attachment:


the Committee advises that the following
roll call vote occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R.
3012.
1. An amendment by Mr. King that would have removed the
bill’s increase in the family-sponsored immigrant visa per-country
cap was defeated by a vote of 6 to 23.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt292/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt292.pdf



FWIW, Immigration Voice dot org has a good faq about this. Search on that site or google : "How a Bill becomes law": Image below

http://armine.pbworks.com/f/1272296003/howlaw.gif

[Kanmani]

Excellent link leo.. thanks.

I guess it is in the "Calendared" phase right now..really boils down to the vote. The most recent vote was 6 to 23 against the bill, if you see Page 5 of this bill. Now what was defeated was not the entire bill but part of it, as it says in the attachment:



http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt292/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt292.pdf
No Votes were registered against the bill or part of the bill .
The voting was for the amendment offered by congressman Mr. King , which was defeated by 6-23 votes 6 yay and 23 nay.
Amendment here refers to any change to the original bill .

[vizcard]

Excellent link leo.. thanks.

I guess it is in the "Calendared" phase right now..really boils down to the vote. The most recent vote was 6 to 23 against the bill, if you see Page 5 of this bill. Now what was defeated was not the entire bill but part of it, as it says in the attachment:



http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt292/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt292.pdf

It sounds like it was just the ammendment that was defeated

[leo07]

Do we know what was the amendment that was shot down?

If it's an amendment from King and it was shot down, then that in itself is a good sign :) ( defeating Kings amendment, because he is known to include items that can bring the whole bill down)


No Votes were registered against the bill or part of the bill .
The voting was for the amendment offered by congressman Mr. King , which was defeated by 6-23 votes 6 yay and 23 nay.
Amendment here refers to any change to the original bill .

[rdsingh79]

I think Rep King wanted to block the increase in per country limit for family-based category (7 to 15%). This is defeated.

He also wanted to eliminate the EB3 category all together and bring the EB visa limit down to 100,000. This amendment was adjudged as 'not relevant' and was rejected (no voting required by committee)


Do we know what was the amendment that was shot down?

If it's an amendment from King and it was shot down, then that in itself is a good sign :) ( defeating Kings amendment, because he is known to include items that can bring the whole bill down)

[vizcard]

Do we know what was the amendment that was shot down?

If it's an amendment from King and it was shot down, then that in itself is a good sign :) ( defeating Kings amendment, because he is known to include items that can bring the whole bill down)

Increasing the # of Family-based GCs.

[leo07]

Thanks! This guy always tries to throw a wrench in the last minute...I'm sure he has more up his sleeves until President signs the paper.

I think Rep King wanted to block the increase in per country limit for family-based category (7 to 15%). This is defeated.

He also wanted to eliminate the EB3 category all together and bring the EB visa limit down to 100,000. This amendment was adjudged as 'not relevant' and was rejected (no voting required by committee)

[Waiting4Ever]

Guys,
Why does 85% apply to only 40K, why not 140K....
And does 85% apply to India or India and China? The way I was reading it, it would apply only to one country(India).

[Pedro Gonzales]

Guys,
Why does 85% apply to only 40K, why not 140K....
And does 85% apply to India or India and China? The way I was reading it, it would apply only to one country(India).

It applies of EB2 and EB3 only, so it's 85% x 40K each. It doesn't apply to the other EB categories (actually, It's been a while since I've read the bill so I'm going by memory, I'm not certain about EB4 and EB5).
The 85% of 40K applies to all countries based on PDs. The remaining 15% is reserved for all countries other than India and China (which were the 'states whose natives used the most EB visa numbers in 2010'). Of the 85% unreserved, not more than 85% (so 72% of the total 40K) can be used by any one country (effectively India).

In effect, In EB2 and EB3 India will use 72% x 40K, China will use 13% x 40K and the rest will be used by ROW-M-P for the next couple of fiscal years.

[jackbrown_890]

AGREE ACT (Senate): So it is officially a BILL now:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1866/show
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1866
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1866: - Title V
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1866/report#nation
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_SN_1866.html

and News from Coons website: U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) today applauded the introduction of a companion to their bipartisan American Growth, Recovery, Empowerment and Entrepreneurship Act in the House today by U.S. Representatives Richard Hanna (R-NY-24) and Bill Keating (D-MA-10).

Part of Bill will - Eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrant visas and adjusts the limitations on family based visa petitions from 7% per country to 15%

[kd2008]

As the bill was referred to the committee of the whole house, we won't be able to see it publicly on the calendar because for that it needs to go thru rules committee and needs debate rules. It basically now becomes a side show. Hopefully, it will be quick and in our favor.

[immitime]

AGREE ACT (Senate): So it is officially a BILL now:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1866/show
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1866
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1866: - Title V
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1866/report#nation
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_SN_1866.html

and News from Coons website: U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) today applauded the introduction of a companion to their bipartisan American Growth, Recovery, Empowerment and Entrepreneurship Act in the House today by U.S. Representatives Richard Hanna (R-NY-24) and Bill Keating (D-MA-10).

Part of Bill will - Eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrant visas and adjusts the limitations on family based visa petitions from 7% per country to 15%


As some one said, For Politicians any bill which have a chance to pass in Senate and Congress and becomes law, is like if a "Dog sees a Fire Hydrant or mile stone" They want to put the mark. or want to search for another Fire Hydrant or Mile Stone!. So no wonder there are mutliple bills now from both parties.

Praying for all. and doing my 2 cents to make it happen!;)

[gcdedo]

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 11/18/2011: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 193.

Points in Favor

1. Country of Birth has no place in skills-based immigration. There is a diversity visa
category for that which explicitly disallows China, India etc...

2. America is the LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVE. Expecting an employees loyalty for
2-3 years in exchange for sponsorship is one thing. Expecting the same for 20-30 years is
only a shade away from indentured servitude and downright slavery. It is not who we are !

3. America needs these High-skilled Immigrants as much as they need us. We need the tax dollars to pay for our retirement, social security, medicare and medicaid. If the majority
of these immigrants are from China and India - these are fast growing MAJOR economies. many
of them can do just as well back home. when that happens AMERICA LOSES.

4. It is time we stopped treating the legal tax-paying immigrants worse than we treat illegal immigrants! These people make an important contribution to society and america - Think Jerry Yang Sergey Brin etc...

Points Against

1. Provides a small relief to backlog (a few years from decades) for India, China, and other countries in the bill while significantly increasing the wait time for the rest of the world.
2. All unused green card numbers from other countries' quotas are already allocated to the countries that are over their quota, each year.
3. Has nothing to do with fairness. Immigration is a privilege, not a birthright, US can institute policies on immigration that it deems beneficial to its interests. While it can be argued that having more highly skilled immigrants is in the best interest of the country, it cannot be logically argued that having more skilled immigrants from India, China, or Mexico will be MORE beneficial to US compared to immigrants from other countries. The selection process to determine the "high" skill of the applicants is same for all applicants regardless of their country of origin. The reason for the per country limit was to keep diversity in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics fields and to encourage immigrants from smaller countries to become permanent residents as well rather than having individuals from one or few countries dominate the STEM

[Umesh1209]

Hearing in House is confirmed. Please look at the majority leader link

http://majorityleader.gov/floor/weekly.html

[imdeng]

Great news. Among the four bills up for vote on Tue, 3012 has the most co-sponsors. It also seems like the other three are non-controversial, slam-dunk bills - so perhaps 3012 is also being seen as such. If the bill passes with a large majority then it will help it get a good chance in the Senate as well.

Have we had any progress in the Senate version of 3012? It is possible that the bill might stop in Senate if Rubio/Coons bill gets precedence over the senate companion bill (S-1857).

Hearing in House is confirmed. Please look at the majority leader link

http://majorityleader.gov/floor/weekly.html

[imdeng]

Also - its great that the bill is being voted "under suspension of rules". This is typically done for non-controversial bills that are expected to pass very easily and quickly. This ensures that the debate will be limited to 40 mins and no amendments can be added.

Great news. Among the four bills up for vote on Tue, 3012 has the most co-sponsors. It also seems like the other three are non-controversial, slam-dunk bills - so perhaps 3012 is also being seen as such. If the bill passes with a large majority then it will help it get a good chance in the Senate as well.

Have we had any progress in the Senate version of 3012? It is possible that the bill might stop in Senate if Rubio/Coons bill gets precedence over the senate companion bill (S-1857).

[longgcque]

imdeng, I dont see it on Eric Cantor's link mentioned by you. Where do you see it ?


Also - its great that the bill is being voted "under suspension of rules". This is typically done for non-controversial bills that are expected to pass very easily and quickly. This ensures that the debate will be limited to 40 mins and no amendments can be added.

[Umesh1209]

Imdeng, I agree the way how it is introduced is very encouraging.

In my opinion the toughest phase for this bill is in Senate. Also Senate is known for it slow pace. Given the stance taken by the republican candiates in their debate yesterday, it appears to me that the republican establishment is in favour of strengthning legal immigration.

On a pessimestic note, I have not seen enough news from the Dems side, although bills are introduced in the Senate , it is still not showing very encouraging signs. Atleast not yet. It is possible that they want to keep this as a low profile bill and pass it without much controversy. If that is the strategy then it most welcome and we can see some light at the end of tunnell sooner than later.

[imdeng]

http://majorityleader.gov/floor/weekly.html - the text clearly mentions that the bills below are being considered under suspension of rules.

Suspension of rules essentially means that Dems have agreed to support the bill. This does increase the possibility that Dems will also support the bill in the Senate. This would be vital since Dems control the Senate Calendar and they will decide when (and if) the bill gets voted on in Senate.



imdeng, I dont see it on Eric Cantor's link mentioned by you. Where do you see it ?

[longgcque]

I still dont see where it mentions that 3012 will taken up for discussion/vote on 11/29 at 630 PM EST. Am i missing something


http://majorityleader.gov/floor/weekly.html - the text clearly mentions that the bills below are being considered under suspension of rules.

Suspension of rules essentially means that Dems have agreed to support the bill. This does increase the possibility that Dems will also support the bill in the Senate. This would be vital since Dems control the Senate Calendar and they will decide when (and if) the bill gets voted on in Senate.

[kd2008]

I still dont see where it mentions that 3012 will taken up for discussion/vote on 11/29 at 630 PM EST. Am i missing something

I am sorry that you were not able to see it or read it. I am Quoting the text on the page with HR 3012 bolded below.

THE LEADER'S WEEKLY SCHEDULE
WEEK OF NOVEMBER 28, 2012

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28TH
On Monday, the House is not in session.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29TH
On Tuesday, the House will meet at 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules:

1) H.R. 1801 - Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of the Armed Forces Act (Sponsored by Rep. Chip Cravaack / Homeland Security Committee)

2) H.R. 2465 - Federal Workers Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act (Sponsored by Rep. John Kline / Education and the Workforce Committee)

3) H.R. 3012 - Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (Sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz / Judiciary Committee)

4) H.R. 2192 - National Guard and Reservist Debt Relief Extension Act of 2011 (Sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen / Judiciary Committee)

[suninphx]

Umesh1209 posted in the Discussion of Bills thread

"3Hearing in House is confirmed. Please look at the majority leader link"

http://majorityleader.gov/floor/weekly.html

Whats meaning of 'Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules' ? TIA

[longgcque]

Thanks KD. Based on Aman's note it is expected to pass with 90% majority. Lets hope it sails thru. I did my part by contacting all NE congressman's and they all Republicans.


I am sorry that you were not able to see it or read it. I am Quoting the text on the page with HR 3012 bolded below.

[leo4ever]

Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives).

A motion to suspend the rules is in order on Mondays and Tuesdays and towards the end of a session of Congress and may only be made by the Speaker of the House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representati ves) or their designee, though it is customary for committee chairs to write the Speaker requesting a suspension. Once a member makes a motion to "suspend the rules" and take some action, debate is limited to 40 minutes, no amendments can be offered to the motion or the underlying matter, and a 2/3 majority of Members present and voting is required to agree to the motion.
A suspension motion sets aside all procedural and other rules that would otherwise prohibit the House from consideration of the measure, but the specific rules that are to be suspended are never mentioned in the motion. Typically, a suspension motion is phrased as a motion to "suspend the rules and pass the bill," and, if the Motion is agreed to, the bill is considered as passed by the House. A Member can also move to suspend the rules and take another action, such as to "suspend the rules and consider the bill," and the House shall take the proposed action if two-thirds of those voting are in favor of the motion.
Most often, bills "on suspension" are non-controversial legislation -- such as naming Post Offices of the United States Postal Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service) or federal buildings -- and nearly all bills that are considered under suspension rules have bipartisan support. Both major political parties in the United States -- the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)) and Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) -- have internal rules that prohibit proposing or supporting a bill under suspension unless it costs less than $100 million.


Source: Wiki


Whats meaning of 'Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules' ? Apologies if its discussed already.

[jackbrown_890]

It does feel like it will pass in the house without any major hurdle. I know it is early but congratulations and thank you all for your efforts in making it possible for 3012 to house floor for a vote.
Lets regroup everyone after thanksgiving and as other people also mentioned here, shift our focus on Senate.

[jackbrown_890]

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-707921
I also posted the news on CNN Ireports in hope to get some national/media attention. Please visit the link and try to spread the word in national media to generate more support for senate version of the bill.

Can someone, who has good writing skills give me some text to go with this iReport?
Thanks

[kd2008]

Please be careful in gathering media attention. The bill is still in delicate stage. And we don't want to invite outside scrutiny and the antis yet. Rather use your enthusiasm to gather and reach out to people who will pick up the phone and call Senators when the time comes.

The thing about advocacy is we want attention of lawmakers esp now that we have a bill but not general distracting chatter from media. A simple out of context case of someone abusing the system will undo the whole bill.

[leo07]

Very good information. Thanks Leo4ever!

[gcq]

I agree. No need to go to media now. That stage is over. We are in a much advanced stage.

sportsfan33,

I think this bill will make through senate in one form or another. As many people think (especially those opposing the bill), it won't be face a hurdle in senate. Even in Senate judiciary committee, I don't see much opposition to this except maybe from Grassley. Also remember Senate Judiciary committee held the hearing for Dr Puneet Arora.

[jackbrown_890]

Please be careful in gathering media attention. The bill is still in delicate stage. And we don't want to invite outside scrutiny and the antis yet. Rather use your enthusiasm to gather and reach out to people who will pick up the phone and call Senators when the time comes.

The thing about advocacy is we want attention of lawmakers esp now that we have a bill but not general distracting chatter from media. A simple out of context case of someone abusing the system will undo the whole bill.

I definitely agree with you. It is a thin line here. But the main reason/intention behind media attention is to get Hispanic support since it does affect FB category visas.
Plus we already know both the parties support legal immigration reform and as it is bi-partisan in the House, my thinking behind media attention is to get bi-partisan support for S.1857. I may be wrong but i think there are many bills passed in the house and don't move in senate. Getting some media attention may bring some Hispanic support and thus making it desirable to move fast in senate to attract voters for both parties.
And i also agree with you about contacting lawmakers. We definitely need to do that this is just another side step to help 1857 move in senate.
I also have no problem in removing iReport if more people think this is not a good idea to generate media attention.
Let me know.
Thanks

[jackbrown_890]

My comments in RED
[QUOTE=sportsfan33;14529]Forgive me for looking ahead at this juncture, but I believe all would agree that this bill will almost surely pass in the House. If it passes with something like 80-90% ayes (as the I.V. is claiming), it will make the case that much stronger.

The advantage of the AGREE act is that it has 4 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, has gotten decent coverage in the media so far and may actually go somewhere in the Senate.

- Assuming the bill passes the House and that the president has a good pen on his desk to sign the bill (aka the president signing not being a problem), the dangers to this bill are as follows:

A. The bill never comes to the Senate for the vote. This is the most likely reason the bill will ultimately fail. I personally think the bill has generated enough of a stir for the Senate to consider it at least, but I am no political expert and cannot really make a judgment on this issue.
I have the same concern since it is proposed by a minority party in the senate and no dem. co-sponsors yet for S.1857

B. Someone is crazy enough to filibuster it. I personally think it's far fetched since the bill is noncontroversial, and no one will unnecessarily spend his/her political leverage by filibustering something that resembles an *administrative fix type of law change*.
It will be easy in the house but senate needs 60 votes. so again if we get bi-partisan support to this bill, i think with huge majority in the house passing the bill, it will be far from anyone using filibuster (as long as it makes to the floor for vote)

C. The American public takes this bill the wrong way and attacks the politicians for passing a bill that will result in more American job losses in these times. I think this is lesser possibility, but nevertheless a danger we should watch out for.
I totally agree. Since they are not adding new visas thus not allowing more immigrants, this shouldn't be a big issue.and in my understanding even so far FAIR organization hasn't opposed this bill yet, i don't think they will support it but as long as they don't oppose, it is good for us.

D. The bi-partisanship goes bad: Considering the fact that the super-committee has failed and bipartisan efforts will soon start disintegrating as the presidential campaigns heat up, the window is narrow for this bill to sail through while there is still some semblance of bi-partisanship left. At this point, the probability of this is almost NIL, but this is a time dependent variable and as time goes by, this probability increases.
I agree - possibility is NIL. Super-committee failed but the main reason was ideological differences between 2 parties on spending and taxes. This bill has no cost nor its related to taxes so that shouldn't be an issue.E.

The bill fails the Senate vote: I think we can discard this possibility.

[kd2008]

The reason they have companion bills is that even if one gets defeated in either chamber the other bill remains alive.

HR 3012 is in so advance staged, and if it passes the House vote, then it will be sent to Senate. But the Senate bill S. 1857 is still in the subcommittee stage. So the senate leader might decide to directly vote on HR 3012 and keep aside S. 1857 for now.

It all depends on what Sen. Harry Reid decides to do.

[jackbrown_890]

I like your optimism, but I am not taking it for granted that the bill is going to come for a vote in the Senate. The only reason this bill has seen a smooth passage so far in my opinion is that it was co-sponsored by Lamar Smith from day 1, and it added Zoe Lofgren later as another co-sponsor. I have to see a big name Senator - let alone a Democratic Senator - co-sponsor S1857.

I have little doubt that the bill will become law *if* it came for a vote in the Senate *now*. How it comes for a vote and when, those questions ultimately decide its fate.

Yup, if any big name from Senate (like Smith from the House Judiciary as co-sponsor), it will make passage of this bill in the Senate easy. I can think for few names, either Schumer, Leahy, coons or even McCain, Graham with one dem.

[kd2008]

I definitely agree with you. It is a thin line here. But the main reason/intention behind media attention is to get Hispanic support since it does affect FB category visas.
Plus we already know both the parties support legal immigration reform and as it is bi-partisan in the House, my thinking behind media attention is to get bi-partisan support for S.1857. I may be wrong but i think there are many bills passed in the house and don't move in senate. Getting some media attention may bring some Hispanic support and thus making it desirable to move fast in senate to attract voters for both parties.
And i also agree with you about contacting lawmakers. We definitely need to do that this is just another side step to help 1857 move in senate.
I also have no problem in removing iReport if more people think this is not a good idea to generate media attention.
Let me know.
Thanks


Don't worry about it. Just let it be there. If we need Hispanic support, then those working on the bill will to reach out to the Hispanic leadership. Once things get to media, advocacy goes out for a toss and we cannot control the discussion or the message. But I still applaud your initiative and leadership.

[Pedro Gonzales]

2. Will the bill creator instead decide to *merge* it with the AGREE act? Even if it were possible, is it desirable? HR 3012 is a proper subset of the AGREE act, but the remaining items of the AGREE act would need to clear the House hurdles again assuming they clear the Senate hurdles. This will just add more time and more hurdles. An unadulterated version of 3012 (S1857) on the other hand can clear the Senate on its own, and straight away end up on the President's desk.

The advantage of the AGREE act is that it has 4 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, has gotten decent coverage in the media so far and may actually go somewhere in the Senate.


We should wait for Kanmani's expertise and the exact text of AGREE, but my understanding is that AGREE is basically an amalgamation of bills that have already passed the house (with the exception of HR3012, which will hopefully also pass shortly). So, AGREE wouldn't need to pass the house again if it doesn't have any amendments added. It would merely be a procedural issue to merge the several house bills into one and send AGREE to the president for his signature.

[suninphx]

Please be careful in gathering media attention. The bill is still in delicate stage. And we don't want to invite outside scrutiny and the antis yet. Rather use your enthusiasm to gather and reach out to people who will pick up the phone and call Senators when the time comes.

The thing about advocacy is we want attention of lawmakers esp now that we have a bill but not general distracting chatter from media. A simple out of context case of someone abusing the system will undo the whole bill.

Agree- completely.

[kd2008]

If there is anyone from the following states interested in advocacy could you please send me a private message?

Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, New Mexico, Arkansas.

Tasks involved would be calling Senators and meeting their staff in person.

If you know anyone please engage them and get them to call their Senators and Congresspersons.

Please refrain from asking on facebook etc. Direct contact via email or phone or private message on this forum preferred

[vizcard]

Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives).

A motion to suspend the rules is in order on Mondays and Tuesdays and towards the end of a session of Congress and may only be made by the Speaker of the House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representati ves) or their designee, though it is customary for committee chairs to write the Speaker requesting a suspension. Once a member makes a motion to "suspend the rules" and take some action, debate is limited to 40 minutes, no amendments can be offered to the motion or the underlying matter, and a 2/3 majority of Members present and voting is required to agree to the motion.
A suspension motion sets aside all procedural and other rules that would otherwise prohibit the House from consideration of the measure, but the specific rules that are to be suspended are never mentioned in the motion. Typically, a suspension motion is phrased as a motion to "suspend the rules and pass the bill," and, if the Motion is agreed to, the bill is considered as passed by the House. A Member can also move to suspend the rules and take another action, such as to "suspend the rules and consider the bill," and the House shall take the proposed action if two-thirds of those voting are in favor of the motion.
Most often, bills "on suspension" are non-controversial legislation -- such as naming Post Offices of the United States Postal Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service) or federal buildings -- and nearly all bills that are considered under suspension rules have bipartisan support. Both major political parties in the United States -- the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)) and Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) -- have internal rules that prohibit proposing or supporting a bill under suspension unless it costs less than $100 million.


Source: Wiki

More positive news related to 3012. Still a long way to go but forward progress is good... atleast we'll know one way or the other sooner rather than later.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Agree with others not going to media for this. Personally, I would like this bill to pass without much hype or hoopla. More public attention to this bill can raise more hurdles and throw more controversies. If media gets a hint of it and picks up the topic, people opposing it can twist the logic behind this bill, the way they want and then the entire focus will be disrupted.

Many of ROW people who are yet to file their GC in EB2 and EB3 are unaware of this. Many ROWers who filed their GCs in 2008, 2009, 2010 and early 2011 in EB2 have already been greened so they don't care about this bill (My EB2 colleagues from Pakistan, Iran, Syria, South Korea, Algeria, Russia, Nepal, Bangladesh, Jordan, Lebanon, Nigeria, England and Canada don't even know about this bill as they have already got their GCs and have stopped following any forums). The main opposition of this bill is coming from EB3ROW which is not a significant number compared to sum of EB2I, EB2C, EB3I, EB3C, EB3M and EB3P. That is why we should not provide more leverage to those who are already opposing it and not make other ROW aware about this bill who are yet to file their GCs.

I sincerely request everyone who knows about this bill to refrain from contacting any media houses. Let us leave that job to the people from ** who are involved in backdoor advocacy, and let them go public when they feel it is appropriate. Personally, I don't see any reason at all to go public even if this bill becomes a law. This bill has been presented mainly as a minor administrative fix for the glitch in the employment based green card system existing from long time. That's the way it should be kept and presented also.

Keeping my fingers crossed. Hopefully, it will pass in the house smoothly.

[Pdmar08]

Just thought of giving thanks to the forum and the participants for helping build an understanding and enlightening us on a topic very important to us. It will not get us GC sooner but thru with this clarity people have figured out what they should expect and when. It has reduced stress for me even before i was current and helped me get prepared once i was current. Thank you to all members for keeping it fun and informative which makes each one of us come back here each day just like i would bow to god each day. Thank You.

[imdeng]

The most important person in the picture now is Harry Reid - he decides when (or if) HR-3012 comes up for Senate vote if and when HR-3012 is passed by the house. It does seem like if the bill came up for a vote then it will pass. Perhaps we need to get ready for some kind of letter/petition/call campaign to put pressure on Dem leadership to put 3012 to a Senate vote after the House vote is done.

It would be a bad idea to prefer AGREE Act instead of HR-3012. AGREE has a lot more politics behind it and has a higher probability of stalling.

[immitime]

My only prayer at this time is the Dems in Senate should not say that any "immigration" should be CIR! the chances are very low.. but just rolling the sleeves and thinking that it can be other view points! Need to concentrate on Senators more now! Especially Key Senators

[kd2008]

Thanks everyone.

Here is my summary then:

1. The bill S1857 is just a red herring. HR 3012 is the real deal.
2. AGREE act is not what we are pinning our hopes on.
3. We anticipate victory in the Senate without filibuster if the bill was brought to vote on the Senate floor.
4. We think that too much publicity in the social media at this point is only going to hurt this bill. Our campaign must be very targeted preferably resulting in meetings with our state Senators.
5. We should all know Harry Reid and dig up dirt on him so we can blackmail him to bring this bill up for vote ASAP.

Happy holidays everyone.

No need to do # 5. We need to convince him with the help of fellow Senators.

[tiger_of_web]

It's up for a vote!!! 29th Nov at 6:30 pm. Looking forward to passage.

[kd2008]

Nothing is sure when it comes to a legislation. People in know are always cautious. Everybody else is just uninformed. Senate path is actually very tough.

[vizcard]

The Tuesday vote will really impact COs decision making for the next VB.

[Pedro Gonzales]

The Tuesday vote will really impact COs decision making for the next VB.
I don't think he's going to let 3012 affect anything until it is signed into law by Obama.

[qesehmk]

Agree. Besides he is already covered for next 6-8 months from backlog perspective. The likelihood of 2012 SOFAD being bigger than the backlog at the end of Sep 2012 is quite low IMO.

I don't think he's going to let 3012 affect anything until it is signed into law by Obama.

[belmontboy]

Thanks KD. Based on Aman's note it is expected to pass with 90% majority. Lets hope it sails thru. I did my part by contacting all NE congressman's and they all Republicans.

I believe Aman is bluffing. 90% sounds too good to be true. IMHO its just to encourage people to contribute. These days no issue has such unanimous support, let alone for HR 3012

[zenmaster]

I believe Aman is bluffing. 90% sounds too good to be true. IMHO its just to encourage people to contribute. These days no issue has such unanimous support, let alone for HR 3012

I too agree. 90% is asking too much. But i do feel it should pass comfortably in the House. Senate is going to be a challenge.

[kwho32]

I don't think reaching 90% + support is that tough if you have every caucus on board in support of non controversial bills like 3012 (which has zero $ impact and zero increase/decrease in visa number).

Also IMHO people don't just start donating after seeing 90%....they would donate even if it scheduled..90% is just to show it has close to zero opposition.


I believe Aman is bluffing. 90% sounds too good to be true. IMHO its just to encourage people to contribute. These days no issue has such unanimous support, let alone for HR 3012