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

[Mavrick]

Slightly off topic by here you go

Sen. Chuck Grassley Launches Attack Against 29-Month OPT Program Requesting the U.S. Controller General to Investigage Abuse of the Program - http://www.immigration-law.com/

He is not going to stop...I'm starting to wonder whether he does any contribution to US other than being a road block for immigration.

[vizcard]

I totally agree with sportsfan's post. Personally, the whole immigration process needs to be ripped apart and rebuilt. Revamp EB, get rid of the damn lottery (or atleast put tighter controls on who can apply). I think the FB process while painful is probably the most fair.

[PD2008AUG25]

Not everything that Grassley or other senators do is wrong. It is perfectly right from the perspective of the Americans. Note that it is election year and the labor report has been disappointing. With Facebook sinking, the silicon valley shine has taken a hit. Expect more and more tightening of screws going forward. Q's view about HR3012 not passing any time soon is consistent with this larger theme.

I was surprised at Democrats who were so willingly supporting Irish E-3 bill without single question even though it was racist and unfair. They make Grassley look like a hero. They would pass anything without someone to stop and ask questions.

[Jonty Rhodes]

This program is abused more often than not. In absence of a stricter everify, effectively, this program simply opens up doors for F1 students to be exploited as cheap labor for more than 2 years. There are a good number of reasons why a comprehensive everify is unlikely.

Ironically, this program started to cover up one massive fraud - H1B abuse. It would have been better during 2005-2008 to stop the H1B abuse, which would have helped the future GC queues as well.

Instead of keeping people on various degrees of nonimmigrant status for a long time, the system should only pick the winners and the most talented people and simply grant them GCs. That's a good immigration policy.

Not everything that Grassley or other senators do is wrong. It is perfectly right from the perspective of the Americans. Note that it is election year and the labor report has been disappointing. With Facebook sinking, the silicon valley shine has taken a hit. Expect more and more tightening of screws going forward. Q's view about HR3012 not passing any time soon is consistent with this larger theme.

Agree with your post. This immigration system is really messed up and I hope some sane voices prevail in future. I personally feel that Sen. Grassley is not really against the HR3012 itself but is more concerned about the H1B/L1 abuse. Some of his concerns are not misplaced either because fraud in these categories is not a new thing. Now add 29 month OPT program on that. I feel that his main motive is to add those stringent measures on this bill. Now, its a different thing that those changes will probably not be accepted by technology companies and the unfortunate part is whenever H1B/L1 abuse is talked about, the discussion will almost always gets directed at IT Companies and they get truly or untruly blamed for taking unfair advantage of the system. I understand that IT and technology companies end up using most number of H1B/L1 but there are other people like me who are also on H1B and are not in technology field (physician) who are bearing the brunt of this alleged fraud/abuse of H1B/L1 and tug of war between technology companies demanding less restrictions and politicians wanting more restrictions.

I am a firm believer in Q's theory that immigration should not be tied to an employer like what we have in EB categoeries right now. I also agree with you that the immigration policy should be efficient enough to be able to pick talented people from the labor pool based on objective criteria and give them GCs instead of making talented people wait endlessly with uncertainty putting their career advancements on hold.

[gcq]

H1B is the only path for skilled immigrants to enter this country. Choking H1B program will force out all skilled immigration, lead to more outsourcing and make the country less competitive.

If grassley was so concerned about fraud, why doesn't he readily agree to stop all corn subsidies ? He won't because corn farmers are his vote bank. He doesn't care about H1B because it is not a prime interest for his farm state. He himself took advantage of the corn subsidy despite being a millionaire. Grassley's intentions -- always a suspect. He works in close collaboration with anti-immigrant groups like NUSA. In fact he bases his actions on inputs from these groups. If you want a real glimpse of what this man is, watch the youtube video where he explains why he prefers senate over house. He is an attention seeking lawmaker who want everyone to be begging to please him.

Did anyone wonder why illegal immigrants have such a clout in this country despite being illegal ? Because their fellow countrymen who are citizens support them. Look at us, we are speaking the language of anti-immigrants. For that reason we will never be a strong political force in this country. Irish had the guts to ask visas specifically for their illegals. Us ? good at bashing our own countrymen's prospects !

If we are really righteous and care about our dignity, we all should be in our home country make it stronger, fighting against corruption and make it one of the leading countries of the world, not sitting in US and bragging about how great we are.

[kd2008]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/76996.html


Grassley only recently lifted a hold on a bill by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) that would eliminate the employment-based per-country visa cap. A spokesperson for Grassley said the senator “supports legal immigration opportunities and works for measures to prevent fraud in immigration programs.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/76996.html#ixzz1wpeAQ1nM


No other source can be confirmed at this point. Please hold back all questions about impact of this and future date movements etc. It is still way to early. We need to independently confirm that the removal of hold is true.

[gs1968]

To kd2008
I had brought this up last week in the same thread after a similar news report in the Congressional Quarterly by Daniel Harrison. However that article stated that Sen.Grassley has managed to add his H-1B restrictions onto the Bill.It also mentioned that 2 other Republican senators were opposing the Bill and could block it but did not say clearly which Bill they were opposing. The POLITICO news story you mentioned does not mention anything about these H-1B trade-offs. Thus there are 2 sources now which mention the removal of hold but they could be feeding off each other. The more reputed immigration news sources like ILW, Shuesterman,AILA or Immigration-Law.com which have their ears close to the ground have not mentioned this at all. Also when Sen.Grassley released his hold on the FCC nominees he made a statement on the Floor of the Senate and his website also reported it under the NEWS section. If an agreement was reached the Bill would most likely pass under Unanimous consent today as generally the Bills are cleared before people have a change of mind/heart.
Let us hope that there is some closure on this issue soon as we are already past the 6 month mark since the House passed the Bill

[Pedro Gonzales]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/76996.html



No other source can be confirmed at this point. Please hold back all questions about impact of this and future date movements etc. It is still way to early. We need to independently confirm that the removal of hold is true.

I called his DC office. They weren't aware of the Politico article and confirmed that the good Senator's hold remains in place. So, unless there's something Michelle Quinn knows that Grassley's office doesn't yet (unlikey), she made a mistake.

[gs1968]

To Pedro Gonzales
Thank you for the update.I also read on another forum about a similar phone call to his office and the hold being firmly in place and that the article(s) were factually incorrect.
We have to wait and see.

[kd2008]

I called his DC office. They weren't aware of the Politico article and confirmed that the good Senator's hold remains in place. So, unless there's something Michelle Quinn knows that Grassley's office doesn't yet (unlikey), she made a mistake.

Pedro, Thanks for the legwork and the update.

Here is today's Senate Calendar: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-112scal-2012-06-04/pdf/CCAL-112scal-2012-06-04.pdf

On page 62, Sen. Grassley's hold on HR 3012 is still in place. So the politico story is factually incorrect.

[kd2008]

After having extensive conversations with my Senator's office, I will say that it does not matter what I think or you think. All that matters is what they think. And what they think is based mostly on political equations. Some times based on humane or patriotic grounds. If your issue does not fit into these then it is not a high priority issue and you are S-O-L.

And as far as Grassley goes, here is the deal: This guy was pro-H-1B, then the economy tanked, bodyshoppers setup shop, and a whole lot of folks got the shaft and he got burnt. I don't think he is stubborn or racist. He knows the HR 3012 is the only thing that is close to getting passed and if he does not push protections then none will ever get passed and implemented. And clearly H-1B and L-1 visas have been abused, though I suspect fraud is minimal. He wished to tighten up the language to minimize abuse and catch fraud. While is it well intentioned, it will blow up to smithereens recruitment model of many bodyshops and many large fortune companies. These are the ones who care and have enough money to get lobbyists working on what they want.

While I want my GC fast, I do not wish to be a pawn that these folks showcase and misuse to get what they want.

[Mavrick]

Unconfirmed Reports - Grassley Lifted hold on H.R.3012

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

[Mavrick]

Here is the news link

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/76996.html



Unconfirmed Reports - Grassley Lifted hold on H.R.3012

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

[kd2008]

Unconfirmed Reports - Grassley Lifted hold on H.R.3012

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

Please read the discussion of bills thread in advocacy section. This report has been confirmed to be untrue by forum member Pedro directly with Grassley's office.

[kd2008]

Here is the news link

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/76996.html

This has been discussed few pages back. This story is incorrect. Grassley still has the hold as confirmed by his office.

[tatikonda]

HR 3012 LIFT Hold by Grassley is True and Confirmed.. ( Ron' Says it )

http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17250&page=3&p=73019&posted=1#post73019

Great News ..

[tatikonda]

HR 3012 LIFT Hold by Grassley is True and Confirmed.. ( Ron' Says it )

http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17250&page=3&p=73019&posted=1#post73019

Great News ..

guys ..new is coming from Ron Gotcher's website .. I am surprised to see no one is responding !!

[tatikonda]

I am very surprised, and if this is true, it will be a great day indeed.

We still don't know for sure. Let's hold our horses until there is absolute confirmation.

Yes it is 100% true !! ( see 1st Thread on 3rd page )

http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17250&page=3&p=73019&posted=1#post73019

[Kanmani]

Soon after Kd posted the politico link, I thoroughly checked the congressional records for any clue with respect to the release of the hold , for my disappointment I couldn't find anything. Pedro called the Grassely's office and confirmed the news was not true. Somebody from the other forum also called and confirmed that the hold is intact. I don't know what is the true intention of the Grassley's office to confirm both ways.

[tatikonda]

Soon after Kd posted the politico link, I thoroughly checked the congressional records for any clue with respect to the release of the hold , for my disappointment I couldn't find anything. Pedro called the Grassely's office and confirmed the news was not true. Somebody from the other forum also called and confirmed that the hold is intact. I don't know what is the true intention of the Grassley's office to confirm both ways.

I called Senator Grassley Office, 202 224 3744 and They say that Bill is STILL ON HOLD.

[gs1968]

To kd2008

Lots of confusion this AM after the report from Ron Gotcher's website.But Tatikonda who posted the first news has now confirmed that the hold is still in place after he called the Senator's office personally. This Bill, if the hold is released unconditionally without amendments,will pass with unanimous consent at the earliest possible opportunity after the release of the hold.One can cite the examples of the FCC nominees being confirmed on May 7 (Monday)as soon as the Senate returned from its recess. An earlier news report from CQ which started off all these rumors/discussion about the hold being lifted seemed to suggest that there were 2 other Republican senators opposing this Bill although no identities were revealed. I agree with Kanmani in one of these threads when she says that there have been no change in the underlying dynamics of this Bill for Sen.Grassley to change his stance.

[kuku82]

Before passing with unanimous consent (if at all we get to that stage), the bill needs to be amended to change the transition period years starting FY2013 onwards.....


To kd2008

Lots of confusion this AM after the report from Ron Gotcher's website.But Tatikonda who posted the first news has now confirmed that the hold is still in place after he called the Senator's office personally. This Bill, if the hold is released unconditionally without amendments,will pass with unanimous consent at the earliest possible opportunity after the release of the hold.One can cite the examples of the FCC nominees being confirmed on May 7 (Monday)as soon as the Senate returned from its recess. An earlier news report from CQ which started off all these rumors/discussion about the hold being lifted seemed to suggest that there were 2 other Republican senators opposing this Bill although no identities were revealed. I agree with Kanmani in one of these threads when she says that there have been no change in the underlying dynamics of this Bill for Sen.Grassley to change his stance.

[gs1968]

Another interesting article about a House Equivalent to the Start Up Act but I am not sure what the prospects are-Please draw your own conclusions

http://nationaljournal.com/daily/senate-shies-away-from-dream-act-other-measures-20120605

[gs1968]

I apologize for posting in bits and pieces but we should make an attempt to watch this on Sunday

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/cnn-fareed-zakaria-immigration-333365

Apparently he is interviewing Michael Bloomberg

[qesehmk]

Tatikonda - got your message. My hunch is Grassley has indeed lifted his hold. However doesn't want to acknolwledge for some reason - may be waiting for right time and place to declare it. I said the same thing to Pedro 3-4 days back. So when I saw your post this morning - it only strengthened my initial hunch.


I called Senator Grassley Office, 202 224 3744 and They say that Bill is STILL ON HOLD.

[ton_vj]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.5893:
H.R. 5893, was introduced today by Republicans Michael Grimm (N.Y.), with the Republican co-sponsores Kevin Yoder (Kan.), Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Robert Dold (Ill.), and Democrat co-sponsors Loretta Sanchez (Calif.), Russ Carnahan (Mo.) and Jared Polis (Colo.). This bill contains elimination of per country limit to the employment-based immigration from the current immigration statute.

www.washingtonpost.com/business
/on-small-business/startup-act-20-house-lawmakers-introduce-senators-immigration-reform-bill/2012/06/05/gJQAAVHnGV_story.html

[Mavrick]

Looks like many trackitt users are getting message that HOLD has been lifted when they called Grassley's office now. Still, we have to wait until it is confirmed.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.5893:
H.R. 5893, was introduced today by Republicans Michael Grimm (N.Y.), with the Republican co-sponsores Kevin Yoder (Kan.), Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Robert Dold (Ill.), and Democrat co-sponsors Loretta Sanchez (Calif.), Russ Carnahan (Mo.) and Jared Polis (Colo.). This bill contains elimination of per country limit to the employment-based immigration from the current immigration statute.

www.washingtonpost.com/business
/on-small-business/startup-act-20-house-lawmakers-introduce-senators-immigration-reform-bill/2012/06/05/gJQAAVHnGV_story.html

[manubhai]

I called the Hon. Mr. Grassley directly to confirm.

He never picked up the phone:
http://thehill.com/video/senate/231309-sen-grassley-struggles-to-silence-ringing-phone-during-floor-speech

[operas]

I called the Hon. Mr. Grassley directly to confirm.

He never picked up the phone:
http://thehill.com/video/senate/231309-sen-grassley-struggles-to-silence-ringing-phone-during-floor-speech

LOL.. ! Appreciate your perseverance :)

[A_Tech_Softie]

Looks like someone in Mr. Grassley's office got pissed off with the number of calls about the same topic and started answering "YES" in frustration! :)

[immitime]

Do not miss this week "Fareed Zakaria GPS" Sunday at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/06/fareed-zakaria-debriefs-immigration-in-primetime-political-special/

[gs1968]

It is so sad that there is something like this news story happening almost daily.This is the reason why no STEM based Bill is ever going to make it through Congress without significant struggle

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-6-2012/ceo-tech-school-nj-charged-visa-fraud.html

[abcx13]

It is so sad that there is something like this news story happening almost daily.This is the reason why no STEM based Bill is ever going to make it through Congress without significant struggle

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-6-2012/ceo-tech-school-nj-charged-visa-fraud.html

And also why such a bill wouldn't be perfect (even though I stand to benefit from such a bill). The moment such a bill passes, diploma mills will be set up and Indians will come in in droves. Think about it - the only cost of a GC will be a MS program in a STEM degree. What do you think all Indian families with $50-70k to spare will do? Even if they don't have it, people will beg, borrow and steal to get a MS in the US. The system will eventually break down again because the supply of potential immigrants is too high. What is required is quality control. I think Cornyn's bill had a clause that qualifying universities need to have at least $5MM in federal research funding. I think this should be increased to a more substantial figure or some University ranking filters need to be added. I realize rankings are flawed but I don't have a better solution.

[gcq]

It is so sad that there is something like this news story happening almost daily.This is the reason why no STEM based Bill is ever going to make it through Congress without significant struggle

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-6-2012/ceo-tech-school-nj-charged-visa-fraud.html
Any system will have fraud. There are agencies responsible to investigate and deal with them. Having caught a fraud in the SEVIS system is no reason to abandon SEVIS altogether.

Again the same tactic by NUSA. Their argument, there was an instance of fraud in the system, eliminate the system itself. ( Unfortunately we immigrants fall for their tactic)

Real solution:
Fraud ? let ICE handle it.
Let the SEVIS program continue as is, as there is nothing wrong with the system.

[Mavrick]

Funny Stuff from Mr.Grassley

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155644/Senator-Chuck-Grassleys-floor-speech-interrupted-ring-OWN-iPhone.html

[Pedro Gonzales]

Politico has corrected their article. The hope-inducing sentence has been corrected to "Grassley recently announced he was working on an agreement to lift his hold on a bill by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) that would eliminate the employment-based per-country visa cap." I'm almost certain that refers to his non-starter amendments from back in December. I have no reason to believe that anything else is in the works.
Also "An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Sen. Grassley had lifted a hold on Rep. Chaffetz’ bill."

The whole article is at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/76996.html#ixzz1xV051z66

[ontheedge]

Guys, what impact does this have on the other bills advocating removal of per country caps? Once again, legal immigration falls by the wayside when it comes to immigration 'reform' -

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/politics/immigration/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[immitime]

Under present conditions US immigration means (I)LLegal only!... the most part of the immigration that politicians care is for Illegal people due to the votes they get from their supporters!... Legals any way pay tax! do everything Legal. so they can wait. That is the attitude of the Administration. And there is a Insider group which is benefitted by this called AILA.. all the attorneys make money! so this is a kind of insider trading!. Apart from it the Anti immigrants who support GrassUncle's hold, in the name of Protection of Jobs in US! Election Year anything can happen! wait for more circus when the Presidential debate starts!:rolleyes:

[Mavrick]

Relief for Skilled Immigration community is coming folks. Let's keep our fingers crossed.


Under present conditions US immigration means (I)LLegal only!... the most part of the immigration that politicians care is for Illegal people due to the votes they get from their supporters!... Legals any way pay tax! do everything Legal. so they can wait. That is the attitude of the Administration. And there is a Insider group which is benefitted by this called AILA.. all the attorneys make money! so this is a kind of insider trading!. Apart from it the Anti immigrants who support GrassUncle's hold, in the name of Protection of Jobs in US! Election Year anything can happen! wait for more circus when the Presidential debate starts!:rolleyes:

[ontheedge]

Relief for Skilled Immigration community is coming folks. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

I hope your optimism pays off! :)

[immitime]

Finally some silverline, new negotiations happening with Grassuncle on H.R.3012

http://www.aila.org/mobile/default.aspx?mode=all

Full text posted on Ron Gotcher's imminfo forum link below

http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17482

Read the latest message on AILA website

[vishnu]

Given the Politico article and now this, I am definitely starting to become more constructive on HR 3012. There is a small part of me which thinks that CO has moved EB2 ROW dates to 2009 (with talk that there may be cut off dates for even EB1) to reflect possible implemenetation of 3012 (as it would have to be retroactively applied to 2012 October). Just can't think of any other reason why CO would have been so reckless in moving EB2 IC dates so agressively and handing out GCs for 2008 and some 2009 applicants

[bvsamrat]

This is my 2 cents

EB2 WW date COD to 2009 and also EB2 U as it is now
May now get combined with a single COD by FY2013
It appears heading that way

Finally some silverline, new negotiations happening with Grassuncle on H.R.3012

http://www.aila.org/mobile/default.aspx?mode=all

Full text posted on Ron Gotcher's imminfo forum link below

http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17482

Read the latest message on AILA website

[suninphx]

Finally some silverline, new negotiations happening with Grassuncle on H.R.3012

http://www.aila.org/mobile/default.aspx?mode=all

Full text posted on Ron Gotcher's imminfo forum link below

http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17482

Read the latest message on AILA website

Looks promising..

[kd2008]

Due to President Obama's executive order, the antis have sprung in to action. They will start posting malicious articles by droves in the media pretty soon. They will paint illegals and legals in the same brush.

This means all politicians will run away from any immigration related legislative actions.

Sen. Grassley's demands are not extreme in my personal opinion. But I am not the broker for the deal. So I don't know what other people in negotiations think of it.

While I have wistful smile reading his amendment, I realistically do not expect it to go anywhere.

Please refrain from engaging in any verbal duel with the antis on any of the forums, in comments to any online articles. Do not bad mouth ROWs, illegals etc. If you wish to comment then just put forth your argument of fairness and economic benefits.

Also please do not conflate the visa bulletin date movement with the HR 3012 activity. The two are separate and independent. We do not need to raise suspicion when none exists. Mr. CO has no stake in HR 3012, probably hasn't read it, won't care for it one way or the other - it is not his concern whatsoever. There are no inside shenanigans or anything.

[vishnu]

very sensible thoughts KD2008...makes sense

[kd2008]

In the coming days, the U.S. Senate is expected to consider bipartisan legislation modernizing how green cards are awarded to equally skilled individuals. The bill would replace the per country cap with a more equitable, first-come-first served system – a change that would shorten the wait times for work visas for people from countries, such as India and China that generate large numbers of engineers and scientists. The tech sector is organizing a letter to show industry support for this important proposal. A strong showing of support from the industry most affected by this outdated system will help underscore the importance of this legislation to the industry and its workforce.

The tech industry letter in support of repealing per-country limit can be found at https://docs.google.com/a/technet.org/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFRxU3VLbld2QzVDTDVvTlNqSG1WN0E6M A#gid=0

Please let the HR of your company know about this. Write a personal note on how you are affected by per-country limits. Ask them to sign the letter.

Also tell your friends working in other companies.

The deadline is June 26, 2012.

[Mavrick]

HR-3012 is ready for senate vote as per **

http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/1030978253/hr-3012-is-ready-for-senate-vote-as-per-**/page/last_page

[Mavrick]

HR-3012 is ready for senate vote as per **

http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/1030978253/hr-3012-is-ready-for-senate-vote-as-per-**/page/last_page

[Mavrick]

http://immigration-law.com/ also claims that Grassley is planning to lift hold on H.R.3012.


HR-3012 is ready for senate vote as per **

http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/1030978253/hr-3012-is-ready-for-senate-vote-as-per-**/page/last_page

[Mavrick]

HR-3012 is ready for senate vote as per **

http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/1030978253/hr-3012-is-ready-for-senate-vote-as-per-**/page/last_page

http://immigration-law.com/ also claims that Grassley is planning to lift hold on H.R.3012.

[kd2008]

Yes, we are seeing these news out there. But nothing is official and request everyone's patience. There is still a ton of work to be done. And the fight will get much harder if they get serious about the bill. Please be ready to contact law makers at a later appropriate time and to ask for their vote on the bill.

[gs1968]

To immitime,Spec,Q and others
Thank you for maintaining a very clean,informative and decent blog that is always fun visiting.I have been visiting this blog for much longer than my date of joining indicates. I strongly feel that this week will see H.R 3012 passed through both houses.The senate version will most likely pass by voice vote/unanimous consent on Monday and House concurrence later in the week before the July 4 recess. The momentum for this Bill is significant given the incorporation of its language in numerous Bills by multiple lawmakers and so if not stand-alone it would have passed as part of some other Bill. There is no need to discuss the merits and demerits of this Bill as everybody has had plenty of time to do this in a very civil fashion in this blog and a more boisterous and foul language in other forums (no names here!).
I am a US citizen of Indian origin and stand to gain nothing from this Bill. However the lack of courage on the part of our lawmakers to pass a more sweeping legislation to help improve EB immigration is shocking. We are in direct competition wit other Anglo-philic societies like Canada,Australia,New Zealand,Singapore etc and no other country is as flat-footed with its policy as the USA. The ceiling of 140,000 per year was set in 1990 when the total population was 248 million which has by now grown to 313 million. This number represents an addition of 0.03% of the total population annually. On a different note-unlike other categories-most EB visas are AOS and these individuals have already been counted in the census-some long-time waiters probably had the misfortune of being counted in 2 census 10 years apart. Furthermore as the population increases by roughly 30 million per decade this figure will become almost invisible!
The irony is that people's lives are hanging in balance due to completely arbitrary numbers at various stages in the legislative process.I would direct attention to this article if you have not already read it
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm

Towards the end of the article are details of the conference reports on how this number of 140000 was arrived at (totally arbitrary). I have always wondered that if the original language of the bill with 75000 EB visas and exemptions for dependents would have made these backlogs a lot less.My calculations based on recent statistics show that we would have ended up with about 180000 annually for a total increase of about 500000 visas in the past decade. Till the economy improves this cap is not going away anywhere anytime soon and this is sych a shame.
Compare this to immigration policies in Australia,Canada and NZ.This is a link to the migration policy statistics for 2011 in Australia

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/pdf/report-on-migration-program-2010-11.pdf

The skill stream accounts for 67% of immigration compared to roughly 13% for the USA.What is interesting is that Australia with an estimated population of 21 million admits the same number of skilled immigrants annually as the USA with a population of 313 million. The other stark comparison is the nimble policy making from these predominantly Parliamentary democracies which allows them to scale immigration up or down based on the economy and specific needs. In the USA this happens annually with refugee ceilings as ordered by the President after consulting with Congress and I have always wondered if somebody with adequate foresight cannot create something similar for EB immigration also.

What this current Bill will do for the future of immigration is unclear and too soon to predict.The obvious winners will be the heavily backlogged I/C individuals between 2003 and 2006 but once the dust settles after the run-in years I feel that these 2 countries will take up about 50% of the EB2/EB3 quotas annually. The most recent data suggest that China is the provider of most international students to the USA-a position long held by India

http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/Leading-Places-of-Origin/2009-11

Cumulatively these 2 countries account for about 36% of all students in the USA and these numbers will be reflected in EB immigration going forward.I also feel that this data is the most significant driver of this Bill.Most of the current backlog at this time is related to the early 2000s tech boom where the H-1B caps were raised to 195000 and once these are cleared with this Bill-there should be much smoother movement. There can also be a shift in the business practices of the off-shoring companies all of whom are increasing hires in the USA.I also feel that the EB filing patterns of individuals of all countries will start to change and there will be significant motivation to get in line early and not wait for the perfect employer as they are probably doing now.

I will not get into details about the STEM visa Bills but I strongly feel that these should not be at the expense of the DV category. This was created by the same Act of Congress as the H-1B visa and EB categories and serves a purpose of its own.The Diversity Visa is the classical pinata everybody wants to whack at every year. I agree that the visa program at this time is not giving the same results for the Europeans as it was originally envisaged but has opened up opportunities for numerous countries to send their citizens here. Sen.Schumer who was one of the main architects behind the Bill in 1990 (used to be called Schumer Visas) will fight very hard to retain the Program.The republicans will fight this program for the same reason they fight Medicare/Social Security etc-these are Democratic ideas. The premise that because only a high school diploma is needed, the USA is getting rejects from everywhere is not always true. Please read the stories below

http://thecollegianur.com/2011/11/17/stefanova-vessela-hart/24175/

http://www.firsthealth.org/About%20FirstHealth/Newsroom/2012/May/New%20OBGYN%20Specialist%20Joins%20FirstHealth%20R ichmond%20Medical%20Group.asp

http://www.timesherald.com/article/20120520/LIFE01/120529997

The lack of will to even suggest an increase in EB visas to accommodate these STEM graduates is startling. The question always seems to be " Where are these 50000 visas going to come from?" For heaven's sake-Just add them on to what we have!!!

The recent DREAM announcement lead me to another thought and I was hoping other members would voice their thought. I am friends with a family who came here in 2000 with a 3 year old daughter who is soon to be 16 and are still waiting in EB3 with a PD in Oct 2004.I see in her the EB equivalent of DREAM as I am not sure what her status would be in 2 years when she turns 18 if they are not approved by them.She is also somebody who can legitimately call herself a legal DREAMER and I am sure she is not the only one.

I stopped visiting another forum regularly as I could not stand the language being used but this Bill has truly brought out the darker side in people which I hope will settle once this becomes law. Most of us EB immigrants have seen nothing in life compared to some Karen Burmese refugees for whom I volunteered to teach English in my spare time last year.The stories I heard of the atrocities were beyond description and I strongly suggest to all friends in this forum at various stages of immigration to stop worrying about this and spend some time with refugees like these in your area to truly understand the value of the American dream

I apologize that my post got too long but even after having long completed the immigration process I am still frustrated at the difficulties we encounter in creating sensible policies that will help this country in the long run. I feel that 3012 is a helpful step but not enough by any means.A prospective filer in 2012 under EB3 still faces a 11-12 year wait at a minimum and this is not an attractive alternative at all.

[kd2008]

GS1968, thank you for your kind words.

[Spectator]

To immitime,Spec,Q and others
Thank you for maintaining a very clean,informative and decent blog that is always fun visiting.I have been visiting this blog for much longer than my date of joining indicates.

<snip>gs1968,

A very thoughtful and considered post.

I agree the only solution is to provide more visas, otherwise due to demand, everyone is going to retrogress. Recapturing the lost visas would immediately apply a correction to the retrogressed Cut Off Dates, although I don't think the numbers are sufficient to make everybody Current.

I do like the STEM idea, because it gives greatest benefit to those Countries with the most students graduating form accredited US Universities. That happens to be China and India, who have the biggest backlogs, but then part of the reason for those backlogs is the very fact that many students come to the USA to study and then wish to make their career here.

[gs1968]

To K and Spec
I again apologize for the length of the post.I just kept typing in the small box and did not realize the length till I previewed it!
HR 3012 has created a wedge between Indians/Chinese and the rest of the world because as things stand they stand to gain most from the change.However the Open Door data for international students seems to indicate higher Chinese demand in the future.Also the significant rupee depreciation in the last 4 months will lead to a strategic change in the off-shoring business model of Indian IT cos as they stand to gain by thinning down US presence and increasing work in India. I was reviewing the rupee vs dollar chart and the significant appreciation has happened in the last 90 days and some of the H-1B visas they have applied for may not be followed through with. A combination of these factors may alter the composition of future applications for EB visas

[immitime]

Thanks Gs1968.. and Thanks Q for maintaining this forum, without any spamming.

Praying that H.R.3012 will be law soon. which gives relief to lot of families.

[randomax]

I just saw some of the posts on trackitt, I like how these converstions devolve into a crazy catfight and people keep bitching about the other every 2 minutes. Blah.

So are folks still optimistic that we get a vote on HR 3012 this week?

[Mavrick]

Officially Grassley's hold should be off, then only we can think of Senate vote. I don't think he has removed the hold on HR3012 yet.


I just saw some of the posts on trackitt, I like how these converstions devolve into a crazy catfight and people keep bitching about the other every 2 minutes. Blah.

So are folks still optimistic that we get a vote on HR 3012 this week?

[bvsamrat]

Gs1968- Well expressed. Thanks for the information with unbiased view.
This bill is needed now to make everybody is treated as equal.

[pch053]

Here are some of my thoughts on the impact of HR3012 (if at all the bill passes), primarily on EB2 and EB3 community. Of course, no one knows in advance whether the bill will pass or not and I feel there are strong arguments both in favor and against the bill.

As mentioned earlier, even if the bill passes the EB3 folks will have a wait time of 10 - 12 years after things stabilize, which is not the ideal solution. In the shorter term, based on the last pending inventory there are around 25K EB3-ROW applications that are pending with PDs up to July'07. Now, if the bill says that 15% of the visas will be reserved for ROW in the first year and lesser than 15% in the 2nd year and so on, then it will take 3+ years to clear the pending EB3-ROW applications. Also, since most of the visas will be allocated to EB3I/C, EB3-I/C will also reach a similar PD as EB3-ROW in around 3 years time. So, effectively the pending EB3-ROW applicants will need around 9+ years to get their GC as compared to their current waiting time of ~6 years; for the EB3I/C, the wait is already almost 10 years for earlier PDs (2002 - 2003) but the wait might be less (~8 - 9 years) for the later PDs (2006 - 2007). For EB2 folks, the scenario will be less extreme. There are 11K pending EB2-ROW applications with PD up to March'12 and it will take ~1 and 1/2 - 2 years to clear that backlog. So, the EB2-ROW folks will need around 2 to 2 and 1/2 years to get their green cards, which is still more than the time it takes now (~1 year). After things stabilize in 3 years time frame, the waiting time for EB2 folks will be in the range of ~3 years and for EB3, it will take around 10 - 12 years.

Maybe a summary of the impact of the bill (not going into argument of whether the bill should pass or not) from Spec, Q and others might be helpful to the readers.

[kd2008]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/business/immigrants-played-role-in-majority-of-us-technical-patents-study-finds.html?src=busln

Latest article in NYT in favor of high skilled immigrants.

[SaibabaAug2010]

A big thank you to gs1968 for sharing your views on this latest update on HR3012.

Trust me, I have been keep looking for your views on this latest update on other forum ( you know where i am coming from :-)), but couldn't find any and thought you're busy or out..

I am glad that I can see you here.

I am very sad to see people using such a foul language about this topic on other forum.

I've been following this forum since last two years and I just registered here to thank gs1968, Q, KD, Spectator, Immitime, sportsfan and other for maintaining this blog a very professional, decent and informative.

I always enjoy reading you guy’s posts. keep up guys. I really hope it will soon become a law.

[vishnu]

HR 3012 is still only in 50-50 mode of making it to senate (in my view). Looks like immigration lawyers and their advocates are the main opponents at this stage.... :(

[Mavrick]

Vishnu,

Where did you get this info?


HR 3012 is still only in 50-50 mode of making it to senate (in my view). Looks like immigration lawyers and their advocates are the main opponents at this stage.... :(

[vishnu]

the 50-50 assesment is just my view... ** newsletter - remains confident but at end highlights risk for HR 3012

[amulchandra]

This is a wonderful forum. I just registered today.
Hi Vishnu,

I take it as covering all bases and trying to weed out all opposition.

Amul

[vishnu]

Hi Amul - this is a great forum! Hope you are right! My heart tells me you are right, but my mind tells me to be cautious till we get the email from ** with the senate vote date.

[amulchandra]

Trust me. I am having sleepless nights. I am hoping and praying that this passes pretty soon.

[vishnu]

Ron Gotcher on his forum says the bill is good for his clients but is still a 'shameful sellout'
Clear opposition from the lawyer community...i dont understand why because it only affects firm that employ > 100 people - most of these firms are the ones pushing for this bill anyway. The small consulting firms will not have any impact anyway

[gs1968]

To Vishnu
I think they fear that their income will be decreased from EB3-EB2 porting which will only increase as the wait times keep getting more prolonged under existing laws

[vishnu]

Ah very fair point - completely forgot about it.

[randomax]

But what is calling a "shameful sellout"? I thought lower EB3-EB2 porting was a given if HR 3012 passed?

[randomax]

Perhaps I'm missing something here but I don't understand why lawyers would not support this. Aren't the H1 caps being hit every year? Unless they think there is so much fraud that if this bill goes through, the H1 caps will not be hit, I don't understand why they are not onboard with this bill. Further, given that there is a disproportionately large pipeline of IC clients for these law firms, the ROWs can't possibly have a bigger sway over them. Guess things are never as straightforward as they seem. I also don't understand how someone can publicly be opposed to eliminating fraud. Ofcourse, such actions are invariably accompanied by unintended consequences but I think its a move in the right direction.

[amulchandra]

I am trying to find an answer but not finding it anywhere. 'IF' HR 3012 passes the senate with this amendment should it go back to house again for vote?

What would be the process? With elections looming I am concerned.

Thank you

Amul

[gs1968]

To amulchandra
It has to go back to the House as both chambers need to pass an identical version of the Bill to become public Law
The House can either concur with the amendment and pass the Bill in which case the Bill is sent to the President who in this case is likely to sign it and not veto it.The House can ask for a conference with the Senate to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions.If agreement can be reached what emerges is a Conference report which is voted on by both houses and passed.If agreement cannot be reached then the Bill is deemed to have died in conference and legislatively there is no further hope.

More information at the link below

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

Hope this answers your question

[SaibabaAug2010]

I really don't think attorneys are worried about Eb3 to Eb2 porting money. I believe their main concern is if DOL finds fraud, attorneys are also somewhat responsible for that as big company's (S & P 500) usually go with attorney firm's and company's rely on these firms for immigration practices. So Obviously they do not want take headwinds coming on their way.

[randomax]

http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/digest/2012,0626.shtm

Not sure if this is earth shattering news but seems they have an agreement?

[gs1968]

To randomax
Great link! There is a pointless debate on the FDA Bill going on in the Senate at this time.Everybody knows they are going to agree to the House amendment and pass it. I am hoping that it is passed by voice vote/unanimous consent tonight so that immitime, amulchandra and others can sleep better.There is unlikely to be a roll-call vote as no senator wants his vote recorded on this. I am also hoping that the transportation and student loan interest bills are also passed so that the president can sign them all before the recess

[openaccount]

post on ** from attorney sskind

http://****************.org/forum/forum16-**-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3041365-update-action-item-hr3012-ask-your-employer-to-sign-this-petition-supporting-hr3012-15.html#post3507532

I am a long time supporter of Immigration Voice and also have strongly supported HR 3012. But I think **'s email this morning is incredibly unfair. Chuck Grassley is proposing to give sweeping new powers to the US Department of Labor which is not good news for anyone who is pro-immigration. The Labor Department sees as its mission not protecting all workers but protecting AMERICAN workers. Chuck Grassley is no friend of immigrants. He has been the most anti-immigrant member of the Senate for years and to pretend that anything he is adding to this bill is good for immigrants is disingenuous.

3012 may still be worth supporting even with Grassley's bad language, but to attack the immigration bar for fighting to keep out this language is simply unjust. Most of my colleagues who handle business and employment immigration matters have passed up for more lucrative practices (I started out in mergers and acquisitions and can tell you that I'd have a lot more saved for my retirement if I stayed in that field) not because we love companies, but because we believe immigration is good for America and being in immigration law is also a way to help people. I think if would have been far better if ** would simply have said that this was a tough deal to make and many won't be happy rather than defaming members of other pro-immigration groups that happen to disagree.

[kd2008]

In my humble opinion, Greg is not shooting a straight arrow.

Sweeping powers of DOL are legitimate concerns, Grassley being no friend of high skilled immigrants - self evident and I V bad mouthing lawyers group is unsound tactic.

But all of this does not add up to the opposition of the amendment. This proposed amendment is far less vicious than the one proposed in December. I think he should at least acknowledge this.

More over, there is nothing wrong in weeding out fraud. Not standing to support it makes you look really bad and raises the suspicion if you have something to hide.

To get HR 3012 voted in the Senate, Grassley will want his way one way or the other. If this is all he wants, I would say, hell yes!

[immitime]

In my humble opinion, Greg is not shooting a straight arrow.

Sweeping powers of DOL are legitimate concerns, Grassley being no friend of high skilled immigrants - self evident and I V bad mouthing lawyers group is unsound tactic.

But all of this does not add up to the opposition of the amendment. This proposed amendment is far less vicious than the one proposed in December. I think he should at least acknowledge this.

More over, there is nothing wrong in weeding out fraud. Not standing to support it makes you look really bad and raises the suspicion if you have something to hide.

To get HR 3012 voted in the Senate, Grassley will want his way one way or the other. If this is all he wants, I would say, hell yes!

Exactly, even Ron Gotcher started speaking foul about 3012. Lawyers do not want to visibly go against H.R.3012 but they want to do inside pulling or bullying, until the last minute. But with all hopes and prayers 3012 is becoming law of the land soon!

[openaccount]

In my humble opinion, Greg is not shooting a straight arrow.

Sweeping powers of DOL are legitimate concerns, Grassley being no friend of high skilled immigrants - self evident and I V bad mouthing lawyers group is unsound tactic.

But all of this does not add up to the opposition of the amendment. This proposed amendment is far less vicious than the one proposed in December. I think he should at least acknowledge this.

More over, there is nothing wrong in weeding out fraud. Not standing to support it makes you look really bad and raises the suspicion if you have something to hide.

To get HR 3012 voted in the Senate, Grassley will want his way one way or the other. If this is all he wants, I would say, hell yes!

Doesn't DOL have those kind of powers already. If there is no fraud not sure why they are against this amendment. Audits have been in place for years.

[gs1968]

I am not helping anybody by being unduly optimistic every day about this Bill's passage so it might pass if I stop predicting!
Senate done for the day and nothing in the Senate leader's remarks about the scedule seems to suggest that this is going to be discussed soon.Might still pass as part of the fire-sale en masse clearance of pending legislation on Thursday before the Senate recess

Ron Gotcher's very first post about this agreement voiced concern about the elimination of judicial review.I interpret this as the DOL being the final decider and not an immigration appeals court in case of fraud.This would prevent Immigration attorneys from being able to file judicial appeals and argue cases in court.Other forum members who have had a chance to review the amendment in greater detail should comment on this

[Jonty Rhodes]

Complete Document of Sen. Grassley's Amendment to HR3012

http://www.immigrationlegalnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/hr-3012-grassley-amendment-june-2012.pdf

On Page 3 of the document, it says this,

‘‘(B) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.— Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), and section 2(e) of the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011, of the total number of visas made available under section 203(b) in a fiscal year—
‘‘(i) not more than 15 percent may be issued to natives of any single foreign state; and ‘‘(ii) not more than 2 percent may be issued to natives of any single dependent area.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2012.

Also, it talks about keeping the family based quota to 7% and eliminating DV lottery. Are the country caps going to be eliminated or are we just going to see the increase in quota to only 15% from regular 7% and will the DV lottery be eliminated?

[SaibabaAug2010]

Jonty Rhodes,

I've seen this link on weekend. Though the link says June-12 but the content was initial amendment proposed by Grassley. As far I know, the newer amendment is only accessible to AILA registered members so far. I think Ron Gotcher copied from AILA and posted on his forum. Here is the link for that.

http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17482

New Amendment does not touch the initial 3012 but he added DOL audits for H1B-dependent employers.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Jonty Rhodes,

I've seen this link on weekend. Though the link says June-12 but the content was initial amendment proposed by Grassley. As far I know, the newer amendment is only accessible to AILA registered members so far. I think Ron Gotcher copied from AILA and posted on his forum. Here is the link for that.

http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17482

New Amendment does not touch the initial 3012 but he added DOL audits for H1B-dependent employers.

Thanks for the input. That is helpful.

[gs1968]

Good article-I am sure this influences the Senators' thinking also

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/06/26/u-s-desperately-needs-immigrants-and-a-strategy-to-get-the-right-ones/

[vishnu]

senate goes into recess from friday...
today's senate calender shows the hold still there...
perhaps the AILA opposition is delaying things, and from comments ive seen from a couple of prominent lawyers, there is def significant opposition. amazing - of all the people to oppose - the AILA

[kd2008]

Complete Document of Sen. Grassley's Amendment to HR3012

http://www.immigrationlegalnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/hr-3012-grassley-amendment-june-2012.pdf

On Page 3 of the document, it says this,

‘‘(B) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.— Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), and section 2(e) of the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011, of the total number of visas made available under section 203(b) in a fiscal year—
‘‘(i) not more than 15 percent may be issued to natives of any single foreign state; and ‘‘(ii) not more than 2 percent may be issued to natives of any single dependent area.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2012.

Also, it talks about keeping the family based quota to 7% and eliminating DV lottery. Are the country caps going to be eliminated or are we just going to see the increase in quota to only 15% from regular 7% and will the DV lottery be eliminated?

Jonty, Some lawyers are not for HR 3012 just because a compromise was reached with Grassley. So for the time being I would refrain from visit any of their sites. They are clearly hell bent on creating confusion within the community. Once again, categorically let me state that the link is INCORRECT. it is not the latest compromised agreement.

[Kanmani]

It is the First Amendment which was proposed by Sen.Grassley during December. The document has the header as "IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—112th Cong., 1st Sess."

1st session refers to 2011.

[gs1968]

To forum members
If somebody can keep an eye out for the start of the senate session at 930AM ET which is when the unanimous consent Bills are considered and inform us-that would be helpful.I doubt they will move it immediately as the Congressional Daily Digest of yesterday shows no new amendments published to the original Bill

[vishnu]

i saw the calender for today, hold still in place....so now we have only tomorrow really

[amulchandra]

Finally immigration attorneys mafia is rearing it's ugly head and started displaying publicly what they stand for. I hope the driving force behind this bill stays focused and takes it to the destination. I am getting restless day by day. I believe that might be the case with everyone here too.

[vishnu]

ya its quite ugly what they are doing. ron gotcher clearly said (after posting all the revised amendments) that they appear relatively beningn and that this should have been passed a long time ago. suddenly the next day, he changes tune, clearly after some AILA memo no doubt. how can the lawyers have a problem when the companies that are the prime beneficiaries of H1Bs (and their respective legal counsel) are the ones pushing for this bill... blatent example of self-interest. even Oh Law firm has removed HR 3012 discussion from their website...frankly quite disgusting.

[randomax]

Do the lawyers have such a powerful lobby that their view would override the sway of corporations? Time to up the contributions to **.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Jonty, Some lawyers are not for HR 3012 just because a compromise was reached with Grassley. So for the time being I would refrain from visit any of their sites. They are clearly hell bent on creating confusion within the community. Once again, categorically let me state that the link is INCORRECT. it is not the latest compromised agreement.

Thanks kd2008. Appreciate it.

[Jonty Rhodes]

It is the First Amendment which was proposed by Sen.Grassley during December. The document has the header as "IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—112th Cong., 1st Sess."

1st session refers to 2011.

Thanks Kanmani.

[vishnu]

The bill with amendment is only HR 3012 and no other bills added on...so IF it passes senate, there should be no issues in it being approved by House and being signed into law...but the IF is what we are waiting for

[gs1968]

To Vishnu
I agree that it is very frustrating at this time.The senate public periodical seems to suggest no further Roll Call votes for today and so only unanimous consent is possible to pass. In reference to the amendment mentioned by you-the Congressional daily record does not reflect this yet and I assume it has to be published first before the Senate passes it.

I thought you would find the following links useful to maybe the understand the background here

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202473540921&slreturn=1

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=K01

I visited Rep. Zoe Lofgren's website as she is an immigration lawyer and most likley an AILA member but did not see any mention applauding this agreement ( wasn't expecting but still gave it a shot)
It is possible that the two senators' offices worked this out but Sen Schumer did not anticipate the push back from the attorneys and maybe working on amending the amendment to the amendment!!

[vizcard]

The bill with amendment is only HR 3012 and no other bills added on...so IF it passes senate, there should be no issues in it being approved by House and being signed into law...but the IF is what we are waiting for

Not so sure about this. Any amendment is cause for debate. It may go to he House Judiciary committee and possibly get nixed there. Ultimately there's politics involved. I'd say that there is a better than average chance of it getting through but its not a breeze.

[randomax]

Not so sure about this. Any amendment is cause for debate. It may go to he House Judiciary committee and possibly get nixed there. Ultimately there's politics involved. I'd say that there is a better than average chance of it getting through but its not a breeze.

I think the senate version of the bill is called something else (not HR 3012) and if there is an ammendment it would need to go back to the house.

[vishnu]

Vizcard - since the amendment was agreed by Chaffetz (House member) and Grassley, my guess is that Chaffetz would already have got a majority consent prior to any deal with Grassley... but like you said, its all politics at this point. Looks like ** are done with action items and now just asking members to log in daily for updates on the bill

[kd2008]

I don't mean to pour water over everyone's excitement. But the reason I V talks in open about the deal with Schumer and Grassley is because AILA outed the deal between the parties involved.

Otherwise we would still not know about it. I do not think the deal is finalized enough for a vote yet. So it may be months before we see any floor action.

The chances of unanimous consent or a vote before the 4th of July recess is zero! And I hope I am wrong as hell on this one :D

[amulchandra]

I will be happy if this passes before the new fiscal starts and the November elections. I am hopeful that this will pass. HR 3012 was considered dead 2 weeks back. But came back alive. This shows that there is definitely a lot going on behind the doors which is not visible to the public. I also read from Ron's forum that once it is enacted as law this cannot be challenged in a court.

So my hopes are still alive.

I also want to add one thing since this forum is all about predicting future PD movements. Please see Ron's post about the future PD movements which I felt is completely baseless claim.
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17482&page=9

I lost respect for him after seeing the post. I thought he was one of the most neutral immigration attorneys. He proved me wrong.

May be one of you more informed guys in this field can challenge him on this.

[Mavrick]

More than 300 Tech Companies and Organizations Tell Congress to Lift Per Country High Skilled Immigrant Limits

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-than-300-tech-companies-and-organizations-tell-congress-to-lift-per-country-high-skilled-immigrant-limits-2012-06-27

[eb2visa]

Tech Industry Letter in Support of Per Country Cap Repeal

http://www.technet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Tech-Industry-Letter-in-Support-of-Repealing-the-Per-Country-Limit-JUN-27-2012.pdf

[GhostWriter]

Totally agree, if you go through all the pages, he started off by calling the amendment benign and acceptable. Over last 2 days he has changed his view to align with his lawyer community and is expressing his opinion, which is devoid of facts, using harsh language.
Lawyers are always neutral, they can be on either side of truth depending on which pays more. The entire profession is built on getting paid to write ambiguous text and then making more money by defending all possible interpretations. Below are some of his quotes over last few days.
------------
6/22 - I agree that this looks pretty benign.
6/22 - I agree. This thing is so benign that if he had offered it in November, the bill would be law by now.

6/26 - If passed, this bill will be very good for our clients and our office. Still, I think that it is a shameful sellout.
6/26 - The irony in this is that by getting into bed with Grassley, and supporting his amendment to subject some H1B employers to mandatory audits, many people who would otherwise get greencards are now going to find that their I-140s will be revoked. ...
6/27 - I think that referring to the per-country limits as racism is a bit strong. There are valid arguments in favor of keeping per country limits on the family based side. Admitting enormous numbers of immigrants from a single country tends to slow, if not prevent their assimilation into our mainstream culture. ....
6/27 - Getting rid of the per country limits is one thing, reserving 90% of the entire quota for Chinese and Indians is quite another....
6/27 - Worldwide EB2 will likely retrogress several years and remain that way until the 90% set aside expires ...

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

Please see Ron's post about the future PD movements which I felt is completely baseless claim.
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17482&page=9

I lost respect for him after seeing the post. I thought he was one of the most neutral immigration attorneys. He proved me wrong.

May be one of you more informed guys in this field can challenge him on this.

[abcx13]

Hi everyone,

What an exciting time. Lots of rumors floating around. The David (the good old folks of **) against the Goliath (the ILW). It's quite disappointing to know of the ILW's stance, and it confirms how the system makes one totally devoid of true "freedom". If any lawyer in the ILW supports HR 3012, he/she fears the repercussions, so everyone is following the script. I don't blame them - I would do the same.

In view of the recent updates, it is quite shocking that the date made a march into 2010. 2008 June was a reasonable target by all accounts. DOS makes an explicit statement about how unhappy it is with retrogression.

A couple of close buddies missed the parties - it pinches me to see their spouses are sitting at home without options. If you are not in IT, it is almost impossible to get the H1B. I referred them to this good site. Hopefully, the Gurus keep on providing accurate estimates.

In any case, in light of exceptional porting, I truly believe it will take full 3 years to clear the current outstanding inventory of 47K without HR 3012. Because of the second "fiasco", I am not sure in future, the DOS will be enthusiastic about rapid advance. HR 3012 is really a necessity for us now.

A typical example of selfishness: The Indian folks who use CC are fervently opposing HR 3012. They are actually using the same arguments against other Indians that the ROW has thrown out: "fraud", "over saturation", "IT taking over". You name it. I have a friend who had PD in late 2011 who is now stuck and is fearing to "get in line". While I understand his opposition to the bill, it is quite disappointing for me to see him use disingenuous arguments.

The ugly side of the humans have reared its head. The GC is such a big prize possession - heck, even the EAD changes your life. I can already see my wife flourishing with the EAD, not 2 months after getting it. I sincerely wish everyone gets their turn in a fair manner. God bless us all. Yes to HR 3012.

I am an Indian with Indian chargeability. I support HR 3012 but at the same time I agree that there is fraud, over saturation and IT is taking over. Be realistic - India does not produce on the order of 20k highly-skilled graduates that want to migrate to the US every year - a large number of truly highly skilled IIT/IIM types don't even want to come to the US since they find better opportunities in India. And that's not even counting the 'highly skilled' EB3 guys...

Agree that HR3012 is now required more than ever, and it is about fairness at the end of the day - the system is highly discriminatory right now. Fraud and over-saturation should be tackled in other ways.

[EB3Vee]

How come every time you guys talk about eb3 you get a superiority complex and sound arrogant suddenly. There are real people who are non-fraud non-labor substitutes in the EB3 queue there. Do have some empathy.

I know people who get pushed into eb3 quagmire after 5 yrs of H1 even if their job qualifies for eb2 (with 4 yr CSE and US Masters and 5+ yrs exp). This is not even the body shop/ consulting companies I am talking about. The regular American orgs with less than 15% employees in H1. They all know to extend the life of their investment!

Porting is the only option left for EB3. When you are younger you can take a pay cut and file in EB2 through other companies. Not an easy decision to uproot your family again when you are older.

If you use hook and crook then you stand a better chance of being greened here.
Sorry for the venting post.

[EB3Vee]

Yes Sportsfan. I was referring to the other user's comments.

I thought porting PD rules is already like that - should have gained the EB2 eligibility before the PD associated. Maybe I am wrong about that assumption. Will check up later or another discussion - it is not for this thread.

[PD2008AUG25]

I am an Indian with Indian chargeability. I support HR 3012 but at the same time I agree that there is fraud, over saturation and IT is taking over. Be realistic - India does not produce on the order of 20k highly-skilled graduates that want to migrate to the US every year - a large number of truly highly skilled IIT/IIM types don't even want to come to the US since they find better opportunities in India. And that's not even counting the 'highly skilled' EB3 guys...

Agree that HR3012 is now required more than ever, and it is about fairness at the end of the day - the system is highly discriminatory right now. Fraud and over-saturation should be tackled in other ways.

Can you please stop blaming...

1) EB3 guys. They have every right to port.

2) IT guys. That's where the jobs are. That's where it is still possible to get H1B. Most non-engineering employers do not want to sponsor. I have over half a dozen non-IT graduate friends who eventually migrated to IT because of that.

3) fraud - It isn't until proven, on a case-by-case basis.

4) over saturation - that is ridiculously self-serving. You made it to US because you deserved and now close the door. Please lead by example and go back.

And also, few thousands graduating from IITs/IIMs are the only "truly highly skilled" graduates India produces each year? There is only limited anecdotal evidence about them not wanting to come US, kind of what you read in TOI. Probably only because they think since every IT guy can make to US, it isn't their exclusive club any more.

sorry for the rant, but lot of your posts shows bias against IT guys, EB3 guys, non-MS guys.

[abcx13]

There is a degree of truth in what you say. In the 90s, the US immigration was picking winners from India. It has changed drastically since 2005 - those without many options are more likely to stay longer in queues, which means the US does not choose the winners any more from India. It's harsh, but it is what it is.

HR 3012 helps this problem by making the "long lines" "everyone's problem". In the end, I do not think fraud as technically defined is the problem - it is the concept of the PD. It is an absolutely outdated and ridiculous concept, and it should already be replaced by the points system. I hope HR 3012 brings this to the forefront.

While we have the existing system though, the unfairness weighs on you and sucks your energy. It happened to me and I am sure this bitterness is pervasive. HR 3012 should remove the unfairness - plain and simple.

Agreed on both points. I know many people who immigrated to this country in the 80s and 70s and they were the cream - engineers from IIT, BITS, doctors from AIIMS, MAMC, good English speakers. All of these people have integrated and assimilated quite well in American society. The Indian immigrants I interact with are a minority in that they are mostly non-IT types educated at the top 10 US schools. These people integrate well, get high paying jobs in a variety of fields, have friends from all over the world, etc.

HR3012 should eventually unite all skilled immigrants once long waits become everybody’s problems and not just IC problems - even though a large part of the wait will still be caused by I applicants overloading the system. (This assumes that the rift caused by HR 3012 will eventually heal.) I suspect this will eventually lead to more sensible and desirable legislation in the form of greater visa numbers and some form of a points based system. That is, if Congress can get off their ass and actually agree on something.

[abcx13]

Can you please stop blaming...

1) EB3 guys. They have every right to port.

2) IT guys. That's where the jobs are. That's where it is still possible to get H1B. Most non-engineering employers do not want to sponsor. I have over half a dozen non-IT graduate friends who eventually migrated to IT because of that.

3) fraud - It isn't until proven, on a case-by-case basis.

4) over saturation - that is ridiculously self-serving. You made it to US because you deserved and now close the door. Please lead by example and go back.

And also, few thousands graduating from IITs/IIMs are the only "truly highly skilled" graduates India produces each year? There is only limited anecdotal evidence about them not wanting to come US, kind of what you read in TOI. Probably only because they think since every IT guy can make to US, it isn't their exclusive club any more.

sorry for the rant, but lot of your posts shows bias against IT guys, EB3 guys, non-MS guys.

Sorry, I should have qualified that comment about EB3 more carefully. I didn't mean to imply that just because people don't have a MS they are somehow less worthy, but I can see how it comes off that way. Yes, I know Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didn't have a MS. Neither did a lot of other successful people. The MS filter is a coarse filter and it's clearly not perfect as there are many deserving people who don't have a MS. But how else do you segment and pick the best when a system is being overloaded? You could move to a points system I suppose where a non-MS immigrant could make up somehow with other aspects.

My problem with EB3, and what I was trying to poorly point out, is that you have a lot of really crappy applicants with questionable qualifications from diploma mills in India - just go look at the posts on Trackitt. I don't mind if you port because I realize that sometimes companies file in EB3 for stupid reasons (even for people with a MS).

Also, the part about only IT companies sponsoring is crap. All kinds of companies sponsor - I know people who've been sponsored in finance, mechanical engg, environmental engg, insurance, consulting, medicine, biotech, policy work, etc. IT isn't the only place where there are jobs. Go work as a petroleum engineer. See how much you'll make. If IT is the only field where the jobs are, how come the immigrants from other countries can find jobs in non-IT fields? The other distinction I would draw is between IT companies like Infosys, Cognizant, etc. and companies which actually innovate like the Intels or the Googles or the Applied Materials. You will probably call me an elitist, but I hate to break it to you - top CS graduates don't really want to work at a TCS or a Wipro. Go to a top 10 school. See where graduates work. The Indian IT companies aren't even on the radar because they do unexciting work and pay peanuts. Notice how none of them signed the Technet letter? Because this bill would actually be bad for business - the longer they can enslave the poor immigrants, the higher their margins.

At the end of the day, people need to realize that this isn't just a supply problem. It's also a demand problem. The demand is endless because you can drive a Hummer through the loopholes in the system and the Indian IT companies are willing to do that.

I realize this is a polarizing view because most of the immigration forums are dominated by IT guys but it is what it is.

Also, you are delusional if you think IIT guys don't want to come to the US these days because they have some sort of ego contest with people in IT companies. It's because the smart ones are unwilling to put up with a dead end IT job with no pay raises for 6 years. And whether you like it or not, the quality of India's engineering graduates declines really quickly as you start going down the college rankings.

[GhostWriter]

Wow !! i have never seen anyone be so apologetic about his arrogance with even more arrogant attitude. Sorry, couldn't resist. Moderators, please feel free to delete my post if it seems controversial. To EB3Vee and PD2008AUG25, i wil just reiterate what sportsfan33 said, abcx13's comments are just his own and do not reflect the general opinion.


Sorry, I should have qualified that comment about EB3 more carefully. I didn't mean to imply that just because people don't have a MS they are somehow less worthy, but I can see how it comes off that way. Yes, I know Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didn't have a MS. Neither did a lot of other successful people. The MS filter is a coarse filter and it's clearly not perfect as there are many deserving people who don't have a MS. But how else do you segment and pick the best when a system is being overloaded? You could move to a points system I suppose where a non-MS immigrant could make up somehow with other aspects.

My problem with EB3, and what I was trying to poorly point out, is that you have a lot of really crappy applicants with questionable qualifications from diploma mills in India - just go look at the posts on Trackitt. I don't mind if you port because I realize that sometimes companies file in EB3 for stupid reasons (even for people with a MS).

Also, the part about only IT companies sponsoring is crap. All kinds of companies sponsor - I know people who've been sponsored in finance, mechanical engg, environmental engg, insurance, consulting, medicine, biotech, policy work, etc. IT isn't the only place where there are jobs. Go work as a petroleum engineer. See how much you'll make. If IT is the only field where the jobs are, how come the immigrants from other countries can find jobs in non-IT fields? The other distinction I would draw is between IT companies like Infosys, Cognizant, etc. and companies which actually innovate like the Intels or the Googles or the Applied Materials. You will probably call me an elitist, but I hate to break it to you - top CS graduates don't really want to work at a TCS or a Wipro. Go to a top 10 school. See where graduates work. The Indian IT companies aren't even on the radar because they do unexciting work and pay peanuts. Notice how none of them signed the Technet letter? Because this bill would actually be bad for business - the longer they can enslave the poor immigrants, the higher their margins.

At the end of the day, people need to realize that this isn't just a supply problem. It's also a demand problem. The demand is endless because you can drive a Hummer through the loopholes in the system and the Indian IT companies are willing to do that.

I realize this is a polarizing view because most of the immigration forums are dominated by IT guys but it is what it is.

Also, you are delusional if you think IIT guys don't want to come to the US these days because they have some sort of ego contest with people in IT companies. It's because the smart ones are unwilling to put up with a dead end IT job with no pay raises for 6 years. And whether you like it or not, the quality of India's engineering graduates declines really quickly as you start going down the college rankings.

[Jonty Rhodes]

This is unreal. Extraordinary ability....really? We all talked about how EB1C is abused by employees and companies. But here someone who did not have any extraordinary ability or special skill is getting a green card by conning the USCIS and boy, they have complied.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-genius-visa-attracts-entrepreneurs-playmates-051239990--sector.html

Imagine this in reference to my physician friend and senior who had three gold medals during his MBBS in India, had MPH from Johns Hopkins, has double MD in Internal Medicine, has Nephrology from University of Missouri, has Transplant Nephrology from Northwestern University, had excellent letters from top reputed universities and had multiple publications and citations was denied EB1 stating that he did not have required qualifications to qualify for this visa.

Unbelievable. I don't know how many others are there like her in the pile of applications that USCIS receives.

[Spectator]

This is unreal. Extraordinary ability....really? We all talked about how EB1C is abused by employees and companies. But here someone who did not have any extraordinary ability or special skill is getting a green card by conning the USCIS and boy, they have complied.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-genius-visa-attracts-entrepreneurs-playmates-051239990--sector.html

Imagine this in reference to my physician friend and senior who had three gold medals during his MBBS in India, had MPH from Johns Hopkins, has double MD in Internal Medicine, has Nephrology from University of Missouri, has Transplant Nephrology from Northwestern University, had excellent letters from top reputed universities and had multiple publications and citations was denied EB1 stating that he did not have required qualifications to qualify for this visa.

Unbelievable. I don't know how many others are there like her in the pile of applications that USCIS receives.Jonty (one of the best fielders I've ever seen by the way),

Perhaps you are going a little OTT - probably on purpose. :)

It's a terrible article. A little more digging seems to reveal she has been granted an O-1 non-immigrant visa, which probably says more about the lawyer's ability. The same accusations can probably be levelled at some that obtain H and L visas. She just happens to be "newsworthy".


Thanks to the help of her immigration lawyer Chris Wright, Bechard was bestowed the O-1 visa, commonly referred to as the "genius visa" by the U.S. government, "an internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize." Wright argued that her accomplishments in modeling and business earned her consideration for the visa.

It also appears there was an RFE to deal with - described as "after initial hiccups" in one of the articles.

Would I have given her an O-1 visa? No, probably not, but I don't know the full facts of her case.

The standards applied to an EB1A are far tougher. From the scant information available, she would have a tough time securing one of those.

The entertainment industry uses O-1 quite a lot, since many of the "artistic" types really can't fulfil the conditions required for an H1B and no other alternative exists.

In this specific case, I'm not sure she quite fits the definition of "fashion model" for which an H1B visa might have been available. In any case, her income is not fully derived from that activity so is not applicable anyway. I can't think of any other non-visitor non-immigrant class she could have applied under.

On the other hand, she has undoubtedly risen (no pun intended) to the top her particular field. In addition she has been prominently featured by name in both national and international publications with verifiably large circulations. I have no doubt she also commands a high salary relative to others in her field.

It's just horses for courses, but I suspect her connections helped. Again, that is nothing new - I've seen similar for entertainers from all over the world, including India.

Many of these have criminal convictions (including drugs) yet still seem to get their visa, seemingly contrary to the law or the standards applied to normal people. Such is life, where celebrity seems to have a value beyond anything else.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Jonty (one of the best fielders I've ever seen by the way),

Perhaps you are going a little OTT - probably on purpose. :)

It's a terrible article. A little more digging seems to reveal she has been granted an O-1 non-immigrant visa, which probably says more about the lawyer's ability. The same accusations can probably be levelled at some that obtain H and L visas. She just happens to be "newsworthy".



It also appears there was an RFE to deal with - described as "after initial hiccups" in one of the articles.

Would I have given her an O-1 visa? No, probably not, but I don't know the full facts of her case.

The standards applied to an EB1A are far tougher. From the scant information available, she would have a tough time securing one of those.

The entertainment industry uses O-1 quite a lot, since many of the "artistic" types really can't fulfil the conditions required for an H1B and no other alternative exists.

In this specific case, I'm not sure she quite fits the definition of "fashion model" for which an H1B visa might have been available. In any case, her income is not fully derived from that activity so is not applicable anyway. I can't think of any other non-visitor non-immigrant class she could have applied under.

On the other hand, she has undoubtedly risen (no pun intended) to the top her particular field. In addition she has been prominently featured by name in both national and international publications with verifiably large circulations. I have no doubt she also commands a high salary relative to others in her field.

It's just horses for courses, but I suspect her connections helped. Again, that is nothing new - I've seen similar for entertainers from all over the world, including India.

Many of these have criminal convictions (including drugs) yet still seem to get their visa, seemingly contrary to the law or the standards applied to normal people. Such is life, where celebrity seems to have a value beyond anything else.

Sorry, my bad. I thought she got it under EB1A which drove me nuts. But afterwards I realized that was O-1. But thanks for the details, Spec. You are always right on target. I wish I could articulate things like you do. I am sure pretty much everyone on this forum agree with me on that.

[Spectator]

Sorry, my bad. I thought she got it under EB1A which drove me nuts. But afterwards I realized that was O-1. But thanks for the details, Spec. You are always right on target. I wish I could articulate things like you do. I am sure pretty much everyone on this forum agree with me on that.Jonty,

As I said - It was a badly written article open to misinterpretation.

Sometimes these things are sent to try us, but they do provide some light relief!

I'm sure I've said this before, but one of the oddest AAO denials I ever saw was under EB1A for a person claiming extraordinary ability in the art of paper cutting. I have to admit it did make me chuckle, but it does illustrate quite how broad the category can be.

[vizcard]

Amazing
http://news.yahoo.com/u-genius-visa-attracts-entrepreneurs-playmates-051239990--sector.html

[chengisk]

Amazing
http://news.yahoo.com/u-genius-visa-attracts-entrepreneurs-playmates-051239990--sector.html

Yep that is the news that is extremely upset Jonty Rhodes in the Discussion-of-Bills-that-remove-the-Per-Country-Limits thread.

[vizcard]

Can you please stop blaming...

1) EB3 guys. They have every right to port.

2) IT guys. That's where the jobs are. That's where it is still possible to get H1B. Most non-engineering employers do not want to sponsor. I have over half a dozen non-IT graduate friends who eventually migrated to IT because of that.

3) fraud - It isn't until proven, on a case-by-case basis.

4) over saturation - that is ridiculously self-serving. You made it to US because you deserved and now close the door. Please lead by example and go back.

And also, few thousands graduating from IITs/IIMs are the only "truly highly skilled" graduates India produces each year? There is only limited anecdotal evidence about them not wanting to come US, kind of what you read in TOI. Probably only because they think since every IT guy can make to US, it isn't their exclusive club any more.

sorry for the rant, but lot of your posts shows bias against IT guys, EB3 guys, non-MS guys.

I agree EB3 have every right to port. But retention of their PD is not right. Let me explain why. The whole point of EB2 vs EB3 vs EB1, is the level of qualifications. So let's say someone who filed EB3 in 2003 had EB3 qualifications. That person has since acquired EB2 qualifications. So let's say they "port" in 2011. That implies they got EB2 qualifications in 2011. Someone filing EB2 in 2008 earned EB2 qualifications in 2008 - a whole 3 yrs before the porter. Yet based on the current rules, the porter gets preference. This flies in the face of first come- first serve.

My perspective is that if you port across categories (EB3 -> EB2 or EB2->EB2), you should not be able to retain your PD.

[qesehmk]

I could see why after I read throiugh the article. The article is quite anti immigrant and starts on a really dumb note. Giving an example of Hugh Hefner's model is not quite pro-immigrant or smart one would say!
Yep that is the news that is extremely upset Jonty Rhodes in the Discussion-of-Bills-that-remove-the-Per-Country-Limits thread.

[GhostWriter]

Vizcard, there are other arbitrary rules in the system that favor EB2 over EB3 disproportionately. EB3-IC receives zero spillover every year as all of it is consumed by EB2-IC. So someone who applied in EB2-IC in 2008 will receive his GC much before someone who applied in EB3-IC in 2006. An alternate rule could be to allocate at least portion of spillover to EB3-IC so that the category can move a little bit at least. But someone crafted the category based spill over rule.

I know many in EB2-IC will be annoyed at my comment and argue that EB2 requires higher experience and the current spill over rule is justified. Even though i am in EB2 i do not agree with the 100% spillover being consumed by a higher category. If we were to assign a number to the relative importance of EB1/Eb2 and Eb2/Eb3 i am quite sure none of us will come up with infinity as the answer, but that is what the current spillover rule assumes that a person in EB1 is infinitely more important than one in Eb2 and one in Eb2 is infinitely more important than Eb3 irrespective of their priority dates !!!

My point is that a limited amount of resources are being allocated, no system of rules can be entirely fair to everyone. What we should keep in mind is that none of us in any of the categories devised the rules and all of us irrespective of the category will use the current set of rules to our advantage.
It is just very convenient to assume that the part of the system that favors us is fair and the part that does not favor us is unfair.


I agree EB3 have every right to port. But retention of their PD is not right. Let me explain why. The whole point of EB2 vs EB3 vs EB1, is the level of qualifications. So let's say someone who filed EB3 in 2003 had EB3 qualifications. That person has since acquired EB2 qualifications. So let's say they "port" in 2011. That implies they got EB2 qualifications in 2011. Someone filing EB2 in 2008 earned EB2 qualifications in 2008 - a whole 3 yrs before the porter. Yet based on the current rules, the porter gets preference. This flies in the face of first come- first serve.

My perspective is that if you port across categories (EB3 -> EB2 or EB2->EB2), you should not be able to retain your PD.

[vizcard]

Vizcard, there are other arbitrary rules in the system that favor EB2 over EB3 disproportionately. EB3-IC receives zero spillover every year as all of it is consumed by EB2-IC. So someone who applied in EB2-IC in 2008 will receive his GC much before someone who applied in EB3-IC in 2006. An alternate rule could be to allocate at least portion of spillover to EB3-IC so that the category can move a little bit at least. But someone crafted the category based spill over rule.

I know many in EB2-IC will be annoyed at my comment and argue that EB2 requires higher experience and the current spill over rule is justified. Even though i am in EB2 i do not agree with the 100% spillover being consumed by a higher category. If we were to assign a number to the relative importance of EB1/Eb2 and Eb2/Eb3 i am quite sure none of us will come up with infinity as the answer, but that is what the current spillover rule assumes that a person in EB1 is infinitely more important than one in Eb2 and one in Eb2 is infinitely more important than Eb3 irrespective of their priority dates !!!

My point is that a limited amount of resources are being allocated, no system of rules can be entirely fair to everyone. What we should keep in mind is that none of us in any of the categories devised the rules and all of us irrespective of the category will use the current set of rules to our advantage.
It is just very convenient to assume that the part of the system that favors us is fair and the part that does not favor us is unfair.

The underlying requirements to qualify in EB1 vs EB2 vs EB3 would suggest that there is an implicit hierarchy in importance - at least to the US government. But purely from a business sense (forget about immigration for now), if you ran your own business and had a $1000 to spend and you could hire only one person, would you hire a PhD with experience or someone straight out of college with almost no experience. The answer to that describes importance.

Regarding allocation of spillover, I dont disagree that there should be some "sharing". Im sure the split would be debatable but philosophically I agree.

[GhostWriter]

The way you phrased your question, your answer seems incorrect. It would depend on the job requirement. If the job requires a fresh graduate then why hire a PhD :). The question can probably be rephrased to if there are two empty positions one requiring a PhD and other requiring a fresh graduate and you can only fill one position (by granting one visa number), which one would you fill. If both of them have been vacant for the same time then in the marginal case one can probably say fill the one that is hard to fill and hence the PhD. But the reality is not that simple. Does it make sense to keep the fresh graduate waiting for 4 years and assign a visa number that becomes available after 4 years to a new PhD position. That is quite inefficient.
Categories already take care of the hierarchy and hence assign a separate queue so that categories with stricter skill criteria move faster. The question is in case of excess visas how should they be allocated to different queues taking into account their average utility (how fast do we want one category to run vs the other with the spillover visas - current answer is infinite).
There are various possible solutions (all of them would have flaws but most of them would be better than the current spillover downfall in my opinion). Below are some i could think of, there can be many more.

1. Take the average actual wages earned by people in the categories and use that as an indicator of how much employment market values a category. For EB2 to EB3 the ratio will probably be 1.5-3 at best. I know this is going to hurt a lot of egos :).

2. Take the number of years of work experience required to file in a category as an indicator. So EB2 requires minimum 5 and let us say EB3 can be filed with just 1 year. Even this liberal estimate gives a ratio of 5 (implying 16% visas to be given to EB3 instead of 0%).

3. Discard the entire notion of importance. After all the queues are already separate and account for relative importance. So how do you decide if an economy should produce 10 pounds of tea or 7 bars of soap. The answer is you don't decide, the demand governs it. So the spillover can be in proportion to the relative demands in these categories. After all if businesses need more people who are just out of college than PhDs then filling all the PhD PERMs while not supplying any fresh graduates will hurt the system more than if they were supplied in proportion to their demands.

The above approaches still do not give any weight to the amount of time a person has already been in his respective queue but just try to assign relative importance of categories on average. The anger at porting (with retaining older PD) that some people express from time to time does not seem justified (in my opinion) given the distorted distribution of spillover visas.


The underlying requirements to qualify in EB1 vs EB2 vs EB3 would suggest that there is an implicit hierarchy in importance - at least to the US government. But purely from a business sense (forget about immigration for now), if you ran your own business and had a $1000 to spend and you could hire only one person, would you hire a PhD with experience or someone straight out of college with almost no experience. The answer to that describes importance.

Regarding allocation of spillover, I dont disagree that there should be some "sharing". Im sure the split would be debatable but philosophically I agree.

[vizcard]

My post was responding to your post about "importance". However, it looks like the fundamental issue you have is distribution of spillover. I already agreed with that in my previous post and specifically I said "Regarding allocation of spillover, I dont disagree that there should be some "sharing". Im sure the split would be debatable but philosophically I agree.".

I will also comment that (1) salaries are not correlated to immigration quotas. (2) Years of experience are not the only qualifier for EB2. (3) No one can make a broad statement that says a college graduate PERM applicant is more urgent that a PhD one (or vice versa) as they are both required and asked for by their respective organizations. In theory, the recruiting process adopted by companies already accounts for that i.e. if there are US applicants why take an immigrant. Also, a true demand-based system is always ideal but not practical to implement when it comes to public policy.

Lastly, I am not an EB2 apologist and I believe in fairness to all categories.

[GhostWriter]

I have no intentions to be confrontational or to hijack the thread, I was just trying to present an argument and have done that in the last two posts. This will be my last one on this topic.


If porting did not happen, you would actually see the whole EB2 current today
Not true, add up the current inventory till April-2010 and PERM numbers between May-2010 and June-2012 and you will understand why.


Immigration should not be dictated by businesses.
My posts were for Employment based visa categories !!


Some of us simply feel that retention of PD across the categories is an absolutely dumb rule - and if you were not a stakeholder and saw this more impartially, you could not arrive at any other conclusion.
For the record i am original EB2 PD 2009 applicant and did not port. My posts were indeed an attempt (unsuccessful one it seems) to be impartial. I understand the anger against retention of PD but what i was trying to highlight was that it is not the complete story. The spillover rules are equally (probably more) unfair for EB3.
My post was not meant to divide, rather to help us in EB2 see the other side. Both EB2 and EB3 need to work together more than ever for HR3012 (and other bills if it does not succeed). There are some rules in the current system that help us at the expense of others and some that help others at our expense. To look at only the latter half and blame the beneficiaries risks dividing us. I know you have nothing against porters, i am saying that given the spillover rules i have nothing against even porting with retention of PD.

Thanks for your patience. I have nothing against anyone at a personal level.

[kd2008]

I am not bogged down by how the system is setup. Yes, it was setup 20 yrs and worked well to meet the needs of employers for a while. What exacerbated an OK system into a really bad one were two things: 1) Increase in H-1B visas during 1999-2002 without corresponding increase in green cards and 2) USCIS & DoL's tardy processing of Labor certification and I-485 resulting in thousands wasted visas.

The second item above has been mostly resolved for all said purposes. But the lingering effect of the first item simply will not go away no matter how wishful we are about it.

EB3 to porting EB2 porting is moot to me. The system is setup to satisfy employers and as long as they can show that they tried to hire a US citizen but were not able to then it is ok.

Please do not invest yourself emotionally thinking about what is ideal/correct and what is not. You simply do not control the process and it is a waste of energy.

Equally skilled immigrants should get a fair chance for a green card irrespective of their country of birth. That is what I am for.

[abcx13]

I am not bogged down by how the system is setup. Yes, it was setup 20 yrs and worked well to meet the needs of employers for a while. What exacerbated an OK system into a really bad one were two things: 1) Increase in H-1B visas during 1999-2002 without corresponding increase in green cards and 2) USCIS & DoL's tardy processing of Labor certification and I-485 resulting in thousands wasted visas.

The second item above has been mostly resolved for all said purposes. But the lingering effect of the first item simply will not go away no matter how wishful we are about it.

EB3 to porting EB2 porting is moot to me. The system is setup to satisfy employers and as long as they can show that they tried to hire a US citizen but were not able to then it is ok.

Please do not invest yourself emotionally thinking about what is ideal/correct and what is not. You simply do not control the process and it is a waste of energy.

Equally skilled immigrants should get a fair chance for a green card irrespective of their country of birth. That is what I am for.

It's not just the increase in H1B visas from 99-02. L1s have no limits or wage minimums and are increasingly being used by companies to transfer employees to the US. Those also lead to GC applications. And you don't have to be in the US to do a GC application so that adds to the demand as well. The quotas need to be increased and the system needs to be reformed to attract the best and brightest instead of those tired engineers willing to wait for decades for a GC.

You all will enjoy this update from our friend Grassley:


Our federal immigration system is badly broken. This broken system has produced dysfunctional outcomes. It has created an unsustainable situation where thousands of people cross our southern border illegally each day while, at the same time, we continue to see shortages in much needed occupations such as doctors, scientists, engineers, and agricultural workers. And, on the flip side, the fact that we do not have good, strong, workable federal immigration laws is now causing states to pass inconsistent laws that create havoc for employers and law enforcement.

That is why I believe we must act as soon as possible to repair our broken immigration system.

The American people have been clear. Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration and support legal immigration. They know that, throughout our history, immigrants have contributed to making this country more vibrant and economically dynamic. Once it is clear that in 20 years our nation will not again confront the specter of another 11 million people coming here illegally, Americans will embrace more welcoming immigration policies. After many meetings with constituents, stakeholders, and other members of Congress, I truly believe that the fundamentals for immigration reform exist if we coalesce around seven key principles that the American people overwhelmingly support.


Illegal immigration is wrong, and a primary goal of immigration reform must be to dramatically curtail future illegal immigration.
Operational control of our borders--through significant additional increases in infrastructure, technology, and border personnel--must be achieved.
A biometric-based employer verification system—with tough enforcement and auditing using a fraud-proof social security card—is necessary to significantly diminish the job magnet that attracts illegal aliens to the United States and to provide certainty and simplicity for employers.
All illegal immigrants present in the United States on the date of enactment of reform legislation must quickly register their presence with the United States Government—and submit to a rigorous 8-year process of earning legal status by submitting to background check, paying taxes, learning English and Civics, and submitting to penalties for their conduct—or face imminent deportation.
Family reunification is a cornerstone value of our immigration system. By dramatically reducing illegal immigration, we will create more room for both family immigration and employment-based immigration.
We must encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but must discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
We must create a legal immigration system that ends the current flow of low-skilled illegal immigrants into the United States and creates a more manageable and controlled flow of legal immigrants who can be absorbed by our economy at times when workers are needed.

[vishnu]

that update was from schumer...

[gs1968]

The Indian media seems more confident about HR 3012 than the US media

http://profit.ndtv.com/News/Article/indian-it-cos-face-annual-h1-b-visa-audits-tighter-rules-307310?pfrom=home-otherstories

[gs1968]

AILA has this on their site today. Hopefully they will accept the compromise and move HR 3012 forward

http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2012/07/03/the-trouble-with-caps-and-limits/

[gs1968]

To fellow forum members
Just keeping this thread alive till everybody returns from their July 4 holiday break

http://www.sfgate.com/business/prweb/article/No-Americans-Need-Apply-Jobs-Ads-Exposed-By-3685467.php#page-2

The only reason that I posted this is because of the reference to H-1B/L-1B reforms from Senators Durbin and Grassley in the form of a Bill "later in the year".Is this the same as the negotiated settlement widely discussed last week or is this completely different? If HR 3012 is linked to this story then the timeframe for passage becomes more uncertain

[jackbrown_890]

It would be nice to have AILA's support for this bill. (mainly the amendments since i think they do support 3012 without amendments).
We do need to contact AILA and ask for their support on compromise. I am assuming ** has probably tried or trying on that. But if someone here knows any AILA members, lets ask them to start a dialogue with AILA on this compromise. or we as an immigrants community should draft a letter and send it to their advocacy committee and Executive committee and HR.



AILA has this on their site today. Hopefully they will accept the compromise and move HR 3012 forward

http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2012/07/03/the-trouble-with-caps-and-limits/

[A_Tech_Softie]

Date: June 28th, 2012
Citilawgroup's update confirming Grassley's latest ammendments & negotiations (hold still remains):
http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2012/06/28/hr-3012-developments-sen-grassley-proposed-increased-h-1b-enforcement-in-exchange-of-removing-per-country-green-card-limits/

Date: June 30th, 2012
http://imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2012-06-30/possible-movement-hr3012.html

[gs1968]

To fellow forum members
I saw this thread on trackitt earlier today and somebody had posted an open note
on prospects for STEM visa Bill-from IEEE USA and is as follows-

"I wanted to send everyone a quick note letting you know that we made significant progress in the past week in our efforts to get a STEM Visa bill passed this year. You wouldn't know that from watching the news, because everything that has happened has been behind the scenes, but things are actually looking good for us.

Last Monday IEEE-USA received a briefing from Rep. Lamar Smith's staff in which the Congressman laid out his plan to introduce a STEM visa bill right after the 4th of July recess (meaning the week of the 9th). Lamar Smith is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and generally sceptical of immigration, so his support is enormous. The proposal is almost exactly what we expected it to be: 51,000 new EB visas for International STEM PhD Students and STEM students receiving a Masters in Computer Science or Engineering. This is a bit more restrictive than we expected, but not much. Some of the limits will be negotiated away during the legislative process, but even if they are not, this is a great bill.

Helping the process along, a poll was released earlier today from the Partnership for a New American Economy which shows overwhelming public support for the STEM Visa. Results here: [url]http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes...]

IEEE-USA has learned that two other important, but very quiet, things have happened in the past two weeks.

First, the Republican leadership in the House has decided to aggressively back a STEM Visa Bill. Second, very senior leaders from the House and Senate have started personally negotiating a compromise bill that both chambers of Congress and both Parties can agree to.

In other words, everything that needs to be happening for this bill to become law this year is currently happening.

As soon as the bill drops after the 4th, IEEE-USA will be doing a full-court press to get it passed before Congress breaks for the election. Despite the tremendous progress we have made in the past few days, we are still facing long-odds simply because we don't have much time left in the legislative year. But those odds are not nearly as long as they were two weeks ago.

I hope to have more detailed information to you about the STEM Visa Bill early next week.

Please pass this e-mail onto anyone who may be interested.

Thanks.

Russ

Russell T. Harrison
Senior Legislative Representative - Grassroots Affairs
IEEE-USA "

The details are murky but this might be similar to the BRAIN act that Rep.Tim Griffin has been trying to introduce since last November. How this affects HR 3012 or the current backlog is unclear but I have a feeling that 3012 provisions may be blended in as part of a more expansive legislation.

It is Sunday evening and as usual I am predicting some movement this week. There have been numerous hearings on the STEM subject and things can move very fast if the two chambers desire.

[abcx13]

To fellow forum members
I saw this thread on trackitt earlier today and somebody had posted an open note
on prospects for STEM visa Bill-from IEEE USA and is as follows-

"I wanted to send everyone a quick note letting you know that we made significant progress in the past week in our efforts to get a STEM Visa bill passed this year. You wouldn't know that from watching the news, because everything that has happened has been behind the scenes, but things are actually looking good for us.

Last Monday IEEE-USA received a briefing from Rep. Lamar Smith's staff in which the Congressman laid out his plan to introduce a STEM visa bill right after the 4th of July recess (meaning the week of the 9th). Lamar Smith is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and generally sceptical of immigration, so his support is enormous. The proposal is almost exactly what we expected it to be: 51,000 new EB visas for International STEM PhD Students and STEM students receiving a Masters in Computer Science or Engineering. This is a bit more restrictive than we expected, but not much. Some of the limits will be negotiated away during the legislative process, but even if they are not, this is a great bill.

Helping the process along, a poll was released earlier today from the Partnership for a New American Economy which shows overwhelming public support for the STEM Visa. Results here: [url]http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes...]

IEEE-USA has learned that two other important, but very quiet, things have happened in the past two weeks.

First, the Republican leadership in the House has decided to aggressively back a STEM Visa Bill. Second, very senior leaders from the House and Senate have started personally negotiating a compromise bill that both chambers of Congress and both Parties can agree to.

In other words, everything that needs to be happening for this bill to become law this year is currently happening.

As soon as the bill drops after the 4th, IEEE-USA will be doing a full-court press to get it passed before Congress breaks for the election. Despite the tremendous progress we have made in the past few days, we are still facing long-odds simply because we don't have much time left in the legislative year. But those odds are not nearly as long as they were two weeks ago.

I hope to have more detailed information to you about the STEM Visa Bill early next week.

Please pass this e-mail onto anyone who may be interested.

Thanks.

Russ

Russell T. Harrison
Senior Legislative Representative - Grassroots Affairs
IEEE-USA "

The details are murky but this might be similar to the BRAIN act that Rep.Tim Griffin has been trying to introduce since last November. How this affects HR 3012 or the current backlog is unclear but I have a feeling that 3012 provisions may be blended in as part of a more expansive legislation.

It is Sunday evening and as usual I am predicting some movement this week. There have been numerous hearings on the STEM subject and things can move very fast if the two chambers desire.

This is very interesting. It would be a god send for some people. I wonder why they are restricting to CS only.

[Mavrick]

If they say STEM it won't be CS/CE alone. I would be surprised if they eliminate majors like Physics, Math, Chemistry, Biology, etc. - There are not many people who major in these fields.

Weird that this news came out from IEEE guy.

[Jonty Rhodes]

If they say STEM it won't be CS/CE alone. I would be surprised if they eliminate majors like Physics, Math, Chemistry, Biology, etc. - There are not many people who major in these fields.

Weird that this news came out from IEEE guy.

I agree with you. I think it would be extremely unfair to limit STEM only to CS/CE.

I am a physician and have an MD (Doctor of Medicine) in Internal Medicine and MPH (Masters in Public Health) degrees. You can count this as double Masters because MD in Internal Medicine is a 3 year training which I believe is equivalent of doing Masters.

I have a friend who has Masters in Microbiology, MD in Pediatrics and Fellowship in Pediatric Cardiology. You can count that as one Masters degree and one PhD degree since Pediatric residency training (MD) and Pediatric Cardiology fellowship training takes total 6 (3+3) years to complete. Add 2 years of Masters in Microbiology to that. That is 8 years of study.

Me and my friend both are waiting for green card since we fall under EB2I. If they include only CS/CE in STEM bill, many people like me and my friend who have degrees with other majors than CS/CE and who have spent even longer years in training compared to Masters in CS or CE will be left out for no fault of ours.

[justvisiting]

I agree with you. I think it would be extremely unfair to limit STEM only to CS/CE.

The only DV/STEM bill out there (Cornyn bill) clearly says any STEM degree from a reputable university (it has a complex definition of acceptable universities, but they must have at least 10 years of existence, etc...) would count.

[immitime]

Last Paragraph in this article is very important. We are almost there. Please read complete article eventhough it is in a blog gives more and more expectation.

In the next few weeks, the Senate is expected to consider the "Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act." At a time when growing our economy and remaining competitive in the global marketplace is of utmost importance, we should be encouraging highly skilled people to remain in the United States rather than work for our competitors overseas. This legislation will be critical for the U.S. to keep and attract the best and brightest minds, which will in turn fuel growth and innovation here at home.

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/blog/2012/07/10/fairness-high-skilled-immigrants-act-win-us-employers

[openaccount]

Update from ** on HR 3012 hold:http://****************.org/forum/forum16-**-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3070904-we-applaud-senator-grassley-for-lifting-the-hold-from-hr3012.html#post3531888

[jackbrown_890]

It looks like ** has announced that Sen. Grassley has officially lifted the hold on 3012.
Hope the news is correct.

[kd2008]

Update from ** on HR 3012 hold:http://****************.org/forum/forum16-**-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3070904-we-applaud-senator-grassley-for-lifting-the-hold-from-hr3012.html#post3531888

Sen. Grassley apparently has lifted his hold. I am still looking for independent confirmation from third party source. Please post if you find it.

[manubhai]

Not sure whether the following is partially useless or totally useless information:

I just called the senator's office and was informed by the person - "As far as I know the hold is still in place".

Whatever this means, this sure means that as of this moment, the senator's office is not OK in publicly confirming that the hold has been removed. It may be the same or different story an hour/day/week from now.

Good luck. And please don't fight phantoms on message boards.

[kd2008]

I would caution against bothering Sen. Grassley's office. They will only confirm what is out in the media. No media has reported the hold being lifted yet.

[manubhai]

I would caution against bothering Sen. Grassley's office. They will only confirm what is out in the media. No media has reported the hold being lifted yet.

:D What if I am the "media"?

I've called, emailed, and visited them enough to not worry about "bothering" them. It's their job to take these calls and respond as per their plan of giving out information. As of when I called, their plan was to not let the "media" know that the hold has been removed OR, in actuality, the hold had not been removed.

If what's out in the "media" is false, a 10 second call is a pretty decent way to figure out the supposed truth.

[kd2008]

:D What if I am the "media"?

I've called, emailed, and visited them enough to not worry about "bothering" them. It's their job to take these calls and respond as per their plan of giving out information. As of when I called, their plan was to not let the "media" know that the hold has been removed OR, in actuality, the hold had not been removed.

If what's out in the "media" is false, a 10 second call is a pretty decent way to figure out the supposed truth.

Manu, sorry, it wasn't directed at you in particular. But I wanted others on the forum to be conservative in judgement (ehm...pun intended) and not bother the office. I hope the news is true and it trickles down the channels eventually.

[openaccount]

Sen. Grassley apparently has lifted his hold. I am still looking for independent confirmation from third party source. Please post if you find it.
kd,
here it is

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=41746

[April2010]

I am a silent reader of this great forum.

Today I have learned that Sen Grassley lifted the hold on HR3012. I hope this bill passes in congress soon...

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=41746

[kkruna]

If HR 3012 passes, what would dates look like for EB2ROW-IC beginning Oct visa bulletin.

[abcx13]

If HR 3012 passes, what would dates look like for EB2ROW-IC beginning Oct visa bulletin.

Let it pass first, guys! Then once we've uncorked the champagne, guzzled it, slept off the hangover, we can discuss. :p

[kd2008]

kd,
here it is

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=41746

Yay! Great! Thanks!

I do not want to get my hopes up yet. Still wait and watch mode over the developments. Hopefully, we all will work together to get the vote schedules in Senate with the amendment and then in the House and then for the signature of the President. It is a long march ahead with very little time remaining in this Congressional Session. Let us all buckle up and get ready to do action items if any come up.

[abcx13]

Yay! Great! Thanks!

I do not want to get my hopes up yet. Still wait and watch mode over the developments. Hopefully, we all will work together to get the vote schedules in Senate with the amendment and then in the House and then for the signature of the President. It is a long march ahead with very little time remaining in this Congressional Session. Let us all buckle up and get ready to do action items if any come up.\

Yeah, I'm hoping that given the timing of lifting the hold, everything is lined up for it to pass before the recess. No point lifting the hold otherwise right...

Lots of behind the scene stuff happening I think. I think the Qualcomm article yesterday wasn't just a coincidence.

[pch053]

abcx13,
Just for my curiousity, can you point me to the Qualcomm article that you are referring in your above post? Thanks!

[TorreyPines]

abcx13,
Just for my curiousity, can you point me to the Qualcomm article that you are referring in your above post? Thanks!

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/blog/2012/07/10/fairness-high-skilled-immigrants-act-win-us-employers

[openaccount]

Not meant to bring down anybody's excitement. There might be one more hurdle to pass in form of Irish E-3 Visa Bill I am sure they will try to sneak it along.

[pch053]

So, the expectation is that the bill will be placed in the Senate in the next few weeks. I guess, if the bill passes in the Senate, it should be ready for approval, right?

[gs1968]

I am so happy for immitime and others who have been so anxiously following the progress of this Bills. Hopefully everybody can plan their lives better and finally enjoy the freedom. No more going to Indian restaurants and looking at the family at the next table and wondering about their priority date/EB category etc. (We have all done it!!)
On a different note these provisions would have passed if not as 3012.The momentum was in its favor. The idea itself has been around since 2007-2008 when first introduced by Ms.Lofgren although Mr.Chaffetz/Mr.Smith will take the credit now

http://lofgren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=438&Itemid=130

I sincerely hope that this Bill is only the first step towards a stream of meaningful reforms in the coming months.Please refer to my rant from a few weekends ago.
Again my congratulations to immitime,Manubhai,kd,SaiBabaAug2010,Jonty and everybody else who must be rejoicing today.Maybe the Bill will pass on Friday the 13th (Oh No-it won't as the Senate always gets 3 day weekends!!)

Since there does not seem to be an increase in visas (no updates on the potential STEM Bill from Lamar Smith's Office) there is no way for Spectator/Q/Veni/vizcard etc getting away from the daily/weekly/monthly predictions exercise.

As long as there is a limit on annual numbers,EB categories and a priority date-this Blog will live long!

[gs1968]

To pch053
If amended-will need to be approved by the House again prior to President's Signature

[Jonty Rhodes]

I am so happy for immitime and others who have been so anxiously following the progress of this Bills. Hopefully everybody can plan their lives better and finally enjoy the freedom. No more going to Indian restaurants and looking at the family at the next table and wondering about their priority date/EB category etc. (We have all done it!!)
On a different note these provisions would have passed if not as 3012.The momentum was in its favor. The idea itself has been around since 2007-2008 when first introduced by Ms.Lofgren although Mr.Chaffetz/Mr.Smith will take the credit now

http://lofgren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=438&Itemid=130

I sincerely hope that this Bill is only the first step towards a stream of meaningful reforms in the coming months.Please refer to my rant from a few weekends ago.
Again my congratulations to immitime,Manubhai,kd,SaiBabaAug2010,Jonty and everybody else who must be rejoicing today.Maybe the Bill will pass on Friday the 13th (Oh No-it won't as the Senate always gets 3 day weekends!!)

Since there does not seem to be an increase in visas (no updates on the potential STEM Bill from Lamar Smith's Office) there is no way for Spectator/Q/Veni/vizcard etc getting away from the daily/weekly/monthly predictions exercise.

As long as there is a limit on annual numbers,EB categories and a priority date-this Blog will live long!

Agree with you. The idea of eliminating the country caps for employment categories has been around since some time. The country caps in employment categories seem so outdated in today's times. Laws need to change with the changing times. That is exactly what we will see happening if this bill becomes a law.

Finally, I am glad today that at least the hold is gone. Now, I hope the bill passes quickly through Senate with the amendment so it can be re-voted upon in the House again before ending up on President's desk to become a law. When that happens if it happens, we in real meaning will celebrate this welcome change.

Amen.

[Jonty Rhodes]

http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/07/12/senate-floor-schedule-for-thursday-july-12-2012/

Senate Floor Schedule is updated for tomorrow. HR3012/S1857 does not appear on the schedule yet. Hoping the bill to be scheduled for senate vote early next week.

[vizcard]

Let it pass first, guys! Then once we've uncorked the champagne, guzzled it, slept off the hangover, we can discuss. :p

LOL .. that's exactly what i would do.

BUT, going by the wording in that letter it appears that HR3012 is amended and hence will need to back to the House to pass.

[immitime]

http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/07/12/senate-floor-schedule-for-thursday-july-12-2012/

Senate Floor Schedule is updated for tomorrow. HR3012/S1857 does not appear on the schedule yet. Hoping the bill to be scheduled for senate vote early next week.

Senate floor Schedule can be changed any minute.. so hoping this bill will be ready to be signed by the President by nextweek same time! Better to pass asap. otherwise Guncle can think otherwise is it not???

[vizcard]

Senate floor Schedule can be changed any minute.. so hoping this bill will be ready to be signed by the President by nextweek same time! Better to pass asap. otherwise Guncle can think otherwise is it not???

I will say this again. Looks like the bill has been amended based on the news release. So it will need to go back to the House. So it will be a while before it gets signed.

[gs1968]

To immitime
Was just about to post to find out where you were on an evening like this.i have no idea about your personal situation but I have always admired how you stayed positive throughout.I am trying to go through the senate rules but not able to find the duration after publication of amendment for review by other senators before floor vote.BTW Matthew Oh is speculating about Irish E-3 on his website

[abcx13]

I will say this again. Looks like the bill has been amended based on the news release. So it will need to go back to the House. So it will be a while before it gets signed.

Yeah, it will have to go back but hopefully they've already agreed on a deal and it can be done before the recess in August.

[immitime]

GS,

Thanks for the appreciation. May GOD Bless all of us to have GC, we all have been suffering due to backlogs. Senate Schedule is usually changed frequently by Majority Leader if my info is correct.

One of the condition Sen.Grassley agreed upon was not to include E-3 provision with H.R.3012. Irish site said they are moving the E-3 visa seperately. Even Irishecho site reported this. The Irish faction themsevles have difference of opinion about E-3 introduced by Sen.Brown and Sen.Schumer(regarding documented and undocumented Irish workers!) so no chance for E-3 to be tagged along with this bill.

On an evening like this, I am praying.... let all our boats reach the shore safely. Its a long wait..... may be we are almost seeing the light house! just 10 miles to navigate more. Hangon and enjoy this great Political show!

[lalaji]

I agree with immitime, Irish E3 will not be part of Grassley amendment.

[immitime]

I agree with immitime, Irish E3 will not be part of Grassley amendment.

Lalaji,

Proof here :D

But any progress towards firm legislation now means a new standalone measure with House support and no holds on any House-approved bill that reaches the Senate.

Read Further:

http://irishecho.com/?p=71868

[rockybaba]

Hello y'all...

I have been absent for a while, since i got my GC approved...but been reading posts here..and was quite depressed to see all the gloom and doom from all the analysis from the gurus and the readers here...

Well guess what? Let me be the bearer of BOOM here....

Grassley has finally smoked the grass and lifted the hold on HR3012.

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=41746

It is clear to now pass the senate and hopefully will be signed into law.

What does that mean if HR3012 becomes law?

It means EB-IC will be current with the ROW on October 1st 2012.

Hurray....everyone preadjudicated from 2007 & 2008 and possibly 2009 & 2010 from EB2-IC will be cleared in the first and 2nd quarter of FY 2013....before they start talking retrogression......

EB3 IC should also get a huge relief and a big bump, while EB3-ROW retrogresses to meet EB3-IC midway

Ok y'all...start partying now...!!

Keep the faith and the hope!!

"dhinka chika chinka chika hey hey hey hey hey!!!

[vishnu]

This is from ** forum. Questions & Answers relating to the amendment. Definitely far less draconian that what the lawyers make it seem. Also interesting that FY12 is the effective date.

Q - How will the DOL’a auditing role differ from the current procedure if the
amendment becomes law?
A - Currently, DOL only checks for completeness of an H1B LCA application and does
not have authority to act on obvious signs of fraud and/or misrepresentation.
It conducts audits of employers only on receiving a complaint and gives the
employer an advance notice of audit.
With the amendment, DOL may conduct audits as noted above in the summary. If it
deems that an advance notice might allow companies to bury any evidence or audit
findings, it may conduct the audit without advance notice.
Section 3 (b) (7) amends clause a clause in the INA by describing the notice of intent
to conduct an investigation. There is a reference that the determination by the DoL
under that specific clause will not be subject to judicial review. This means that the
decision regarding intent to conduct an investigation cannot be subject to judicial
review i.e. the audit will be conducted as determined and the decision to conduct the
same cannot be challenged in court. However, other parts of the investigation/audit,
including any adverse results/decision of the investigation, can be subject to judicial
review as with current audits.
Q – What does not change from the current system?
A_- There is much left unchanged by the proposed Grassley Amendment. Among
policies not affected are:

The audit process and the information that DOL may request from a company
during an audit does not change. The resources and budget of DOL are not
being changed by this amendment either.

The penalties/process/remedies to be imposed if a company is found in
violation of the law and the test of whether a company is found to be in
violation of the law DOES NOT change from what it is today. (For both of the
above, please note that the amendment refers back to existing sections in the
Immigrant and Nationality Act.)

The definition of fraud and misrepresentation does not change. A fraudulent
company today will be deemed equally fraudulent with the amendment
provisions. The only difference is that the company has an increased
probability of getting caught under the new law due to the higher likelihood of
getting audited.

If the audit reveals no findings, just like today, there will be absolutely no
impact on the LCA application other than a processing delay. There is
absolutely no indication that the processing delays due to potential audits will
be any more than what is seen today in audit of immigrant applications in
other visa categories.
Q - Does the amendment change anything about the original per-country limit
removal bill language of HR3012? What is the effective date of the amendment?
A – No. The original per country limit removal language as passed by the House is
intact and is effective from FY 2012.
The amendment is an addition and is only related to audits of employers who employ
H1B employees. The amendment says nothing about the per country issue.
Q - How is an employee affected by the audit of an employer?
A – The amendment targets employers, not employees. As under current law,
however, an employee with an LCAs that is disallowed will have to file a new H1B
application through a different employer.
Under the proposed amendment, employers will be audited if there are clear
indicators that certain details in the LCA are misrepresented (e.g., dubious employer
profile or employee job details). If an employer is audited and the audit finds the
employer in the clear, the employees’ H1B application is not affected in any way. If
the employer is found to be engaging in misrepresentation and fraud, the Labor
certification (LCA) required for an H1B will be denied and the H1B application will be
rejected.
Q – If my company is found to be fraudulent, will the amendment impact existing
H1Bs and approved I -140s and Green Cards?
A – No. The amendment is not retroactive, so it will not impact any existing H1Bs.
Secondly I-140s are under the prerogative of USCIS, and DOL does not have the
authority to rescind I-140s and Green Cards. This amendment does nothing to
change that.
Perm Labor certification and H1B Labor certification are completely different
processes. The amendment gives authority to DOL to audit companies during the
filing of H1B LCA, NOT during the filing of PERM LCA.
The bottom line is that the provisions in this amendment are not retroactive and will
have no impact on any past applications/petitions.
Q – Does the amendment mean that employers will limit H1B workers or let go of
H1b workers to be under the 15% limit?
A – The provisions only outline audit requirements. There is no limitation on the
number of H1B employees that an employer can hire. There is no
requirement/condition at all that employers stay below than 15% H1B employee
level, as is being suggested on some forums.
Q – Will the possibility of getting audited by DOL make employers wary of hiring H1B
workers, especially the large companies with a high number of H1b workers?
A – Over 350 technology companies have signed and expressed their support for
this bill and the amendment, including large companies who routinely have more
than 15% of their workforce on H1B, like Microsoft, Intel, Google, Apple, Cisco and
HP. If the amendment were a draconian anti-H1B law as suggested by some lawyer
groups, these reputable companies that depend on the H1B program would not
support it. Companies will continue to hire workers as needed. Companies not
engaged in fraud have no reason to change their policies at all.
Criticism of the amendment has been based largely on far-fetched, subjective and
hypothetical assumptions and misinterpretation of the INA. Immigration Voice
believes that this amendment is good for immigrants, as it weeds out the bad
employers in the system who are engaged in fraud and employee exploitation. Only
such employers, whose business model is based on exploiting their workers and
holding them back, will be impacted by this amendment’s provisions. It will be a
deterrent to employers who willfully engage in discrepancies in wages, jobs and any
other kind of misrepresentations.
This amendment is the result of compromise between the various key stakeholders
in high-skilled Immigration. Among the most important of these stakeholders are
Immigration Voice members across the country who are stuck in application backlogs
for many years and desperately require the per country cap removal proposed by
H.R.3012.

[suninphx]

Vishnu - thanks for useful information.

Yesterday's event is a huge step forward. Good luck all.

[longgcque]

Q/Spec/Teddy/Other Experts,
Assuming the bill signs off before recess, what will be the starting point for EB2 India come Oct 1st 2012... how it will play out ... if this is already discussed then point me to the thread. Thanks

[vishnu]

its a very fair question longgcque - especially since the effective date is FY12. So that implies 34000 EB2 numbers should go to India and China (pre-spillover) just before September 2012. and Another 34,000 will be available in the new fiscal year, October 2012 to cover the period until September 2013. Dates should surely move well into end 2010 for EB2 I and current for EB2 C. Or am I missing something? I probably am...

[Kanmani]

Congrats to all of us and a big Thanks to the effort behind this bill.

Vishnu, the bill will be effective from FY2013 and the law makers will change the effective date accordingly before it becomes law. There is no chance of retrieving the visa numbers already used :)

[vishnu]

That makes sense Kanmani and what I thought as well. But was surprised that in the ** FAQs, the effective date was reconfirmed to be FY2012. I guess that would be modified when it goes back to house.

[vizcard]

That makes sense Kanmani and what I thought as well. But was surprised that in the ** FAQs, the effective date was reconfirmed to be FY2012. I guess that would be modified when it goes back to house.

Also, I believe a change in "effective date" is not considered an amendment.

[kd2008]

Q/Spec/Teddy/Other Experts,
Assuming the bill signs off before recess, what will be the starting point for EB2 India come Oct 1st 2012... how it will play out ... if this is already discussed then point me to the thread. Thanks

We don't like to count our chickens before the eggs hatch. :D

Given how slow things move in the Senate -About 8 months to just get the hold removed - it is unlikely that things will start moving at break neck speed and be done within 2 weeks. It would be great if it happened so but we are realists here.

That said, the starting point will be the same that Mr. CO divulged few weeks ago. Of course, the movement after it would be much faster thanks to HR 3012 if it is a law by then.

[suninphx]

=That said, the starting point will be the same that Mr. CO divulged few weeks ago. Of course, the movement after it would be much faster thanks to HR 3012 if it is a law by then.

Wondering why do you think that starting point would be the same?

[vizcard]

Kd is right. It is unlikely the bill will get passed before Oct/Nov given summer recess schedules for the Senate and House. The House in particular is barely working for 2-3 weeks between July-end to Sep-end.

[vizcard]

Suninphx,
Because the bill probably won't be passed in this FY, the starting point will be the same.

[suninphx]

Congrats to all of us and a big Thanks to the effort behind this bill.

Vishnu, the bill will be effective from FY2013 and the law makers will change the effective date accordingly before it becomes law. There is no chance of retrieving the visa numbers already used :)

Effective date of FY2012 infers that this year would be counted as first year for 15% cap limit. I am just guessing.

[Kanmani]

I guess the starting point would be Jan 2009 IC and WW and move forward assuming the bill becomes law before oct'12

[suninphx]

Suninphx,
Because the bill probably won't be passed in this FY, the starting point will be the same.

Ok- I thought KD was responding to possible opening date if HR3012 is a law by that time. May be I understood it differently.

[suninphx]

I guess the starting point would be Jan 2009 IC and WW and move forward assuming the bill becomes law before oct'12

I tend to agree. CO has no reason to be defensive if its a law by that time.

PS: I understand its long way to go but then again we got some positive news after a while :).

[Kanmani]

Sun, DoS has already distributed the EB and Family visa numbers asper existing set of rules . How could they alter the issued numbers? 140K additional GCs ? Which may require a new bill , instead they will simply change 2 to 3 .

[suninphx]

Sun, DoS has already distributed the EB and Family visa numbers asper existing set of rules . How could they alter the issued numbers? 140K additional GCs ? Which may require a new bill , instead they will simply change 2 to 3 .

What I meant is they can not take back visas already given (ofcourse) but wondering if this year will be counted as first year as more than 15% visas have already been given. Its just optimistic guess work, nothing more :)

[vizcard]

It will most likely be a FY13 effective date.

[gs1968]

To Vishnu

Thank you for the earlier post detailing the FAQs on the Grasley Amendment. My feeling is that the column underplays the audit component of the amendment for H-1B dependent employers.I am not sure if this link has been provided here before but I would direct attention to Item no 5 where it says that the audits are mandatory for all H-1B dependent employers

http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2012/06/28/hr-3012-developments-sen-grassley-proposed-increased-h-1b-enforcement-in-exchange-of-removing-per-country-green-card-limits/

Sen.Grassley also mentions this in his statement in paragraph 4
"There is also agreement to include a provision allowing the Federal Government to do annual compliance audits of employers who bring in foreign workers through the H-1B visa program."
As everybody else in this forum has already mentioned these are good faith amendments and a step to ensure that the H-1B program works as intended.To be pointed out also is that Sen.Grassley was part of the senate judiciary committee in 1990 that originated the H-1B visa and understands the original intent of the visa and the subsequent misuse/abuse albeit by a small fraction.The challenge always is ensuring that the offenders are trapped without placing undue burden on employers who are clean and playing by the rules. Of course the final language may be diluted after being processed through the legislative mill.
I agree that it is much easier to preserve the language and change the date of enactment to avoid confusion. I am just surprised at the relatively sombre tone of posts on this forum (except for one post in the middle of the night!!). I am only assuming that everybody has seen so many promises come and go that they probably will wait till it shows up on the White House website that the Bill has been signed by President Obama
Interestingly no mention of this development yet on the AILA website

[kd2008]

I am just surprised at the relatively sombre tone of posts on this forum (except for one post in the middle of the night!!).

If you look at the priority date thread, you will see most members of this forum have PDs of 2007 to 2009 and have their EADs by now. Those with 2010 and onward haven't realized the wait ahead of them. Hence the lukewarm response.

[immitime]

To Vishnu

Thank you for the earlier post detailing the FAQs on the Grasley Amendment. My feeling is that the column underplays the audit component of the amendment for H-1B dependent employers.I am not sure if this link has been provided here before but I would direct attention to Item no 5 where it says that the audits are mandatory for all H-1B dependent employers

http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2012/06/28/hr-3012-developments-sen-grassley-proposed-increased-h-1b-enforcement-in-exchange-of-removing-per-country-green-card-limits/

Sen.Grassley also mentions this in his statement in paragraph 4
"There is also agreement to include a provision allowing the Federal Government to do annual compliance audits of employers who bring in foreign workers through the H-1B visa program."
As everybody else in this forum has already mentioned these are good faith amendments and a step to ensure that the H-1B program works as intended.To be pointed out also is that Sen.Grassley was part of the senate judiciary committee in 1990 that originated the H-1B visa and understands the original intent of the visa and the subsequent misuse/abuse albeit by a small fraction.The challenge always is ensuring that the offenders are trapped without placing undue burden on employers who are clean and playing by the rules. Of course the final language may be diluted after being processed through the legislative mill.
I agree that it is much easier to preserve the language and change the date of enactment to avoid confusion. I am just surprised at the relatively sombre tone of posts on this forum (except for one post in the middle of the night!!). I am only assuming that everybody has seen so many promises come and go that they probably will wait till it shows up on the White House website that the Bill has been signed by President Obama
Interestingly no mention of this development yet on the AILA website

We should never take seriously whatever written on any Attorney sites regarding H.R.3012 almost half of the Attorneys and a big part of AILA, including Ron Gotcher is against H.R.3012 (with Guncle's amendment) why because they miss the $$$ to sue Government agencies like DOL.

And as of now the effective date is Fiscal year 2012, unless it is changed in the final form. Bothering about the dates now is too early!;) "Anything is possible in the Land of Make-Belief"

[redsox2009]

Do you know when it might come on to senate floor for voting.

[gs1968]

To Kd
I understand that mindset with EB2 professionals but I was hoping that EB3 would be rejoicing more

[IsItWorthTheTrouble]

I guess cautious optimism is being practiced by EB3 - I/C to be more specific - folks.

[vizcard]

Do you know when it might come on to senate floor for voting.

No one knows for sure. But they essentially have 3 weeks before Summer recess and then 3 weeks in Sept if they want to get it in before Oct. Ofcourse, after they approve it (assumption here), it will go back to the House for a re-vote and who knows how long it will sit there or if it gets re-amended. After that it has to be signed in by the President and that's another issue by itself (especially with the Presidential elections). I'm hoping it will reach total resolution one way or another by Dec 2012.

[gs1968]

To fellow forum members

This from the National Journal today

http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/big-step-forward-on-highskille.php?mrefid=site_search

[feedmyback]

I liked the Comment on the link you provided. Probably from an Attorney. But looks an unbiased one in the current situation. Here it is......

Those from India who are thanking Sen. Grassley have their facts wrong. Sen. Grassley is not the hero of this bill as the article seems to imply.

The initial bill, the one that got rid of the per country cap, was not Sen. Grassley's bill. It was Rep. Jason Chaffetz's bill. You should thank Rep. Chaffetz.

Sen. Grassley was the one who held up the bill as it originally was. In order to get Sen. Grassley to take the hold off the bill the groups supporting this bill made a deal with Sen. Grassley to add some conditions to the bill to buy his support for the bill. The additions to the bill are 1) an increase in the power of the DOL to audit LCA's and 2) additional audits for company's that have more than 100 employees and have more than 15% of their employees on H-1B visas.

While it sounds wonderful for the DOL to catch those who are filing fraudulent LCA's, the reality of it is that it will be the individual foreign national employees who pay the price for these additions, not the employers. Additional audits will result in lots of innocent potential H-1B employees (many of them Indian) not being able to get the H-1B visas because the H-1B visa quota ran out before their LCA was approved. It will also mean that LCAs will need to be applied for much earlier to account for the increased possibility of an audit and delay, which will mean that initial H-1B petitions under the cap will be for less than 3 years.

Als, before you cheer giving the DOL more power to audit companies, you should realize that the penalty for a company that is found to have committed fraud is disbarment from being able to sponsor H-1B's. Which means that when fraud is found it is not the company that is punished. The company will be able to continue on without its H-1B employees. It is the company's H-1B employees, who now find themselves working for a company that will have to eventually fire them because they can't renew their H-1B's.

I am not saying that this is a bad bill. It does correct a fundamental inequity in the immigration laws. But Sen. Grassley certainly does not deserve the credit for it or the thanks of the Indian community.


To fellow forum members

This from the National Journal today

http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/big-step-forward-on-highskille.php?mrefid=site_search

[bvsamrat]

But H1 B controls are a must to get rid of the fraud that may happen. Even the employers may get affected if caught as they will loose their revenue from H1B. I am sure many EVC companies have their main revenue from H1B only



I liked the Comment on the link you provided. Probably from an Attorney. But looks an unbiased one in the current situation. Here it is......

Those from India who are thanking Sen. Grassley have their facts wrong. Sen. Grassley is not the hero of this bill as the article seems to imply.

The initial bill, the one that got rid of the per country cap, was not Sen. Grassley's bill. It was Rep. Jason Chaffetz's bill. You should thank Rep. Chaffetz.

Sen. Grassley was the one who held up the bill as it originally was. In order to get Sen. Grassley to take the hold off the bill the groups supporting this bill made a deal with Sen. Grassley to add some conditions to the bill to buy his support for the bill. The additions to the bill are 1) an increase in the power of the DOL to audit LCA's and 2) additional audits for company's that have more than 100 employees and have more than 15% of their employees on H-1B visas.

While it sounds wonderful for the DOL to catch those who are filing fraudulent LCA's, the reality of it is that it will be the individual foreign national employees who pay the price for these additions, not the employers. Additional audits will result in lots of innocent potential H-1B employees (many of them Indian) not being able to get the H-1B visas because the H-1B visa quota ran out before their LCA was approved. It will also mean that LCAs will need to be applied for much earlier to account for the increased possibility of an audit and delay, which will mean that initial H-1B petitions under the cap will be for less than 3 years.

Als, before you cheer giving the DOL more power to audit companies, you should realize that the penalty for a company that is found to have committed fraud is disbarment from being able to sponsor H-1B's. Which means that when fraud is found it is not the company that is punished. The company will be able to continue on without its H-1B employees. It is the company's H-1B employees, who now find themselves working for a company that will have to eventually fire them because they can't renew their H-1B's.

I am not saying that this is a bad bill. It does correct a fundamental inequity in the immigration laws. But Sen. Grassley certainly does not deserve the credit for it or the thanks of the Indian community.

[abcx13]

But H1 B controls are a must to get rid of the fraud that may happen. Even the employers may get affected if caught as they will loose their revenue from H1B. I am sure many EVC companies have their main revenue from H1B onlyYes, as could many Indian IT companies. But the statute is problematic because the DoL is quite frankly very stupid and they often make mistakes. Legitimate people will get caught in this as well and better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail. At least that's my personal jurisprudential philosophy (or Blackstone's really).

[gs1968]

To immitime
Your point is taken about the biased views of immigration attorneys regarding the Grassley amendment but Greg Siskind sounds reasonable in his blog today

http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2012/07/grassley-removes-hold-on-3012.html

To abcx13

Champagne on hold for now! As I mentioned before-the senate always gets 3 day weekends! I think now that the cloture was invented so that it can be filed and senators can skip town till it matures

[gcq]

feedmyback,

Well covered. Presumption that small employers are fraudsters is self serving for many on this forum and elsewhere.

[vishnu]

but very small employers, <100 employees are anyway not covered by the amendment

[gs1968]

To Vishnu
The smaller employers are already covered under the H-1B dependent employers definition which is pre-existing.

http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2009/10/02/definition-and-duties-of-h-1b-dependent-employers/

The larger employers are also included now. Irrespective of the size of the organization,the amendment gives sweeping powers to the DOL to trigger audits at zero notice of any H-1B employer without the audit being complaint-driven which is the case now.The aim is to nip the H-1B process at the LCA level itself without letting the USCIS come in and lengthy judicial reviews being conducted.

Please review my post yesterday where I had pasted a link from Greg Siskind's blog about what the effects of the potential delay might be

In any case-at this point a more effective deterrent than Senator Grassley and his amendment is the ridiculous dollar-INR exchange rate (INR 55.2 yesterday). Wage costs are the highest items on the expenditure side of large consulting firms and their business model depends on earning in dollars and spending in rupees.Onshoring may not be very attractive at this time. Also the smaller US based outfits depend on recruiting via H-1B transfers from these larger companies and a reduction in new arrivals may decrease the available pool of candidates

As always corrections and comments welcome

[vishnu]

Ha! ya economics triumphs everything else. Tough times indeed for the IT services companies, though wage inflation in India is slightly cooling, so that would be a benefit.

[girish989]

Just read this on immigration-law.com:

07/14/2012: Unconfirmed Rumor of Additional Holds on H.R. 3012 Other Than Sen. Grassley's

There is a rumor of other holds on H.R. 3012 by some Senators other than Sen. Grassley's. This rumor has yet to be confirmed through the search of Senate records. If this information is confirmed, these holds will have to be lifted first before H.R. 3012 can be taken up on the Senate floor as otherwise these Senators can filibuster against the bill.

[girish989]

From **'s Admin: so may be everything resolved already ?

We have known about the other two holds since March. These holds were put on the bill to prevent adding Irish E-3 to HR3012.

As part of the deal with the two sides, there is no attempt to add Irish E-3 to HR3012. As part of the agreement, Irish E-3 will be a standalone bill and it will get Up/Down vote i.e. 50 vote threshold and not the usual 60 vote threshold in the Senate. As part of the deal, Irish E-3 bill will not allow undocumented to be eligible to for E-3.And 1/3rd E-3 visas will require minimum Bachelor’s degree, 1/3rd visas will require high school and 1/3rd visas will not require any minimum qualification.


Again, since these holds were put in place to prevent adding Irish E-3 into HR3012. And we expect to see these holds release in a reasonable manner.

The agreement between Sen. Schumer and Sen. Grassley for the amendment to HR3012 was a significant step. This was followed by Senator Grassley releasing the hold on HR3012. Our voices are being heard and we are getting positive feedback from Senate offices. We request all members to focus on Action Items and not worry about anything else.

[gs1968]

To girish 989
The other 2 holds were placed by Senators David Vitter and Senator Jeff Sessions but as their names were not mentioned in any active discussions-I thought they had released their hold already.But according to the message you provided-it probably does not matter anymore

[immitime]

From **'s Admin: so may be everything resolved already ?

We have known about the other two holds since March. These holds were put on the bill to prevent adding Irish E-3 to HR3012.

As part of the deal with the two sides, there is no attempt to add Irish E-3 to HR3012. As part of the agreement, Irish E-3 will be a standalone bill and it will get Up/Down vote i.e. 50 vote threshold and not the usual 60 vote threshold in the Senate. As part of the deal, Irish E-3 bill will not allow undocumented to be eligible to for E-3.And 1/3rd E-3 visas will require minimum Bachelor’s degree, 1/3rd visas will require high school and 1/3rd visas will not require any minimum qualification.


Again, since these holds were put in place to prevent adding Irish E-3 into HR3012. And we expect to see these holds release in a reasonable manner.

The agreement between Sen. Schumer and Sen. Grassley for the amendment to HR3012 was a significant step. This was followed by Senator Grassley releasing the hold on HR3012. Our voices are being heard and we are getting positive feedback from Senate offices. We request all members to focus on Action Items and not worry about anything else.

No other hold was recorded in Senate records other than Sen.Grassley's hold, so take the rumour of attonrey's dirty mind as rumour...! Relax! and enjoy the weekend!

[SaibabaAug2010]

gs1968,

I know you have very good knowledge about the legislative process. Looks like Senator can place a secret hold on the bill. Can this secret hold record any where? How do you know that these Senators were placed a hold on this bill?

What do you think is going happen with this bill?

I am so disappointed after I saw this news...If it’s not clear the senate in next 2 to 3 weeks, I think it's better to forget about this bill and move on and plan our life’s accordingly…These days are so stressful and can’t sleep with all these news.

[gs1968]

To SaibabaAug2010

There was an article on Irish Central back in February where the names of these 2 senators were mentioned as being opposed to the Irish E-3 Bill which at the time was attached to HR 3012 provisions by Sen.Schumer.Please see the last paragraph of this article

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Pressure-mounts-on-Senator-Scott-Brown-to-deliver-on-Irish-visas-139349003.html

As far as holds go-the process is generally informal and off the record Senators can tag team and hold as noted in the last paragraph of this link

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

My feeling is that if either Senator Schumer or Brown's Bill moved past Senator Grassley then they would have openly opposed. I don't think their objection matters as the HR 3012 provisions appear to have been detached from the Irish provisions

As far as the HR 3012 Bill is concerned, we should all share immitime's optimism and relax and let the legislative process work itself out

[SaibabaAug2010]

This link says that there are no more secret holds...

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/resolution-to-end-secret-holds-overwhelmingly-passes-the-senate

Looks like our old uncle does not like secret holds :-)

If the holds were true, I think it should be in the Congressional Record, within two legislative days of an objection being made by any senator. I believe these are Attorney tactics to just create confusion between us... I still believe God with us.

[SaibabaAug2010]

gs1968,

Thank you. As always I really enjoy reading your posts, and you are up to the point.
Have a great rest of the weekend.

[gs1968]

To SaiBabaAug2010

Thanks for the link.I had forgotten about that amendment to the Senate Rules.I remember that it was part of Sen. Reid and the Democrats' grand attempt to undertake a major revision of Senate Rules (modification of filibuster etc.) and this is all they could achieve

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-s-returning-democrats-unanimously-favor-filibuster-reform-20101222


However I think I would trust ** on this one and believe that these holds were for a different purpose and would not affect freestanding HR 3012.

[sreddy]

I know it is very complicated process, and not easy to predict the progress of this bill especially in the election year. Do you have any pesimistic and optimistic projection of this bill becoming law based on movement of any similar bills in the past?

[gs1968]

To sreddy

I am very optimistic that the Bill will pass this year. The standalone provisions of HR 3012 have no real opposition in either chamber and if not for Senator Grassley's hold for leverage on other reforms-this would have passed by now.

The advantage of this Bill as opposed to the Irish E-3 is that there is no explicit beneficiary country although India and China stand to gain by this at least in the short term. Future filing patterns which are bound to change with the Bill are hard to predict and even the imposition of a cut-off date for ROW is a wake-up call for other country nationals to not waste time and get on track with their GC process.

There is no visible opposition to Senator Grassley's amendment in the Senate.I am confident that the 3012 provisions are also popular among Senators as these provisions have been included in numerous Bills. Apart from the trio of Schumer,Grassley and Durbin,the other Senators have never been vociferous about the program and if these amendments are presented as improvements to the H-1B program then they will surely agree

If the Bill passes the Senate then it will head back to the House where again the major players are going to be in the Judiciary Committee especially Reps.Lamar Smith and Zoe Lofgren. I read somewhere in the early stages of the Bill that this was actually Rep Lofgren's idea (she had unsuccessfully introduced this Bill in 2008) and Rep Chaffetz who is a second term Congressman was roped in as a front man to secure Republican support.

The amended Bill should have no problems in the House Judiciary committee.In fact the amendments are very similar to reforms proposed by Rep Smith back in 2004

http://lamarsmith.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=196580

I am confused somewhat because the language was included as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill signed by President Bush in 2004. The Bill is H.R 4818 and it is in Section J Title 4

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:6:./temp/~c108hAlxcJ:e1755622:

I am not able to find evidence that this language was repealed in a future Congress. Even if Rep.Smith's language was not severe,in principle,he should not have objection to a similar amendment by Sen.Grassley.If the House JC OKs it then the House should concur and it will become law. I am not sure that the lack of legislative time will impact this Bill at all

A few wild cards

1.AILA-Their silence on this matter is concerning. Either they have resigned to acceptance or are trying to still influence the Bill's progress. The only connection I can think of is Rep.Lofgren who as a former immigration lawyer is probably affiliated with the AILA

2.Irish E-3.-If Sen.Schumer's concessions were to obtain passage of the Irish E-3 Bill,then the Senate Democratic Majority will wait for this to be passed and approved by the House before moving amended 3012

Relax and enjoy the summer!

[sreddy]

Thanks for the detailed explaination. Hope bill will become law this year.


To sreddy

I am very optimistic that the Bill will pass this year. The standalone provisions of HR 3012 have no real opposition in either chamber and if not for Senator Grassley's hold for leverage on other reforms-this would have passed by now.

The advantage of this Bill as opposed to the Irish E-3 is that there is no explicit beneficiary country although India and China stand to gain by this at least in the short term. Future filing patterns which are bound to change with the Bill are hard to predict and even the imposition of a cut-off date for ROW is a wake-up call for other country nationals to not waste time and get on track with their GC process.

There is no visible opposition to Senator Grassley's amendment in the Senate.I am confident that the 3012 provisions are also popular among Senators as these provisions have been included in numerous Bills. Apart from the trio of Schumer,Grassley and Durbin,the other Senators have never been vociferous about the program and if these amendments are presented as improvements to the H-1B program then they will surely agree

If the Bill passes the Senate then it will head back to the House where again the major players are going to be in the Judiciary Committee especially Reps.Lamar Smith and Zoe Lofgren. I read somewhere in the early stages of the Bill that this was actually Rep Lofgren's idea (she had unsuccessfully introduced this Bill in 2008) and Rep Chaffetz who is a second term Congressman was roped in as a front man to secure Republican support.

The amended Bill should have no problems in the House Judiciary committee.In fact the amendments are very similar to reforms proposed by Rep Smith back in 2004

http://lamarsmith.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=196580

I am confused somewhat because the language was included as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill signed by President Bush in 2004. The Bill is H.R 4818 and it is in Section J Title 4

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:6:./temp/~c108hAlxcJ:e1755622:

I am not able to find evidence that this language was repealed in a future Congress. Even if Rep.Smith's language was not severe,in principle,he should not have objection to a similar amendment by Sen.Grassley.If the House JC OKs it then the House should concur and it will become law. I am not sure that the lack of legislative time will impact this Bill at all

A few wild cards

1.AILA-Their silence on this matter is concerning. Either they have resigned to acceptance or are trying to still influence the Bill's progress. The only connection I can think of is Rep.Lofgren who as a former immigration lawyer is probably affiliated with the AILA

2.Irish E-3.-If Sen.Schumer's concessions were to obtain passage of the Irish E-3 Bill,then the Senate Democratic Majority will wait for this to be passed and approved by the House before moving amended 3012

Relax and enjoy the summer!

[mniwas]

Per The OH Law firm:
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html

07/14/2012: Unconfirmed Rumor of Additional Holds on H.R. 3012 Other Than Sen. Grassley's

There is a rumor of other holds on H.R. 3012 by some Senators other than Sen. Grassley's. If this information is confirmed, these holds will have to be lifted first before H.R. 3012 can be taken up on the Senate floor as otherwise these Senators can filibuster against the bill.

[A_Tech_Softie]

@mniwas:
Anything posted on OH Law needs to be taken with grain of salt. For what I care, they may be actively reading this thread and then posting the updates.. :)

[PD2008AUG25]

Per The OH Law firm:
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html

07/14/2012: Unconfirmed Rumor of Additional Holds on H.R. 3012 Other Than Sen. Grassley's

There is a rumor of other holds on H.R. 3012 by some Senators other than Sen. Grassley's. If this information is confirmed, these holds will have to be lifted first before H.R. 3012 can be taken up on the Senate floor as otherwise these Senators can filibuster against the bill.

Don't know how accurate ** is about it, but they say it's known since March. These holds are about preventing E-3 Irish visa from being added to HR 3012. Since, Irish stuff is no longer part of agreement between Senators, these two holds will be lifted in due time.

[gs1968]

Interesting write-up on HR 3012 by Mr.Cyrus Mehta.

http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2012/07/hr-3012-good-bill-saddled-with-bad.html

Maybe the delay in the Bill is to clarify the language better before being voted on as Mr.Mehta clearly points out pertinent questions about process/procedure that have not been answered yet.

[mniwas]

Interesting write-up on HR 3012 by Mr.Cyrus Mehta.

http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2012/07/hr-3012-good-bill-saddled-with-bad.html



If you look at most bills they are passed this way. Then the details are clarified by relevant authorities.

ACT 21 still has many unanswered questions.
So, there is no reason to delay the bill because there are some unanswered questions.

[Kanmani]

There is a chance the bill may go to Conference Committee first to resolve the differences between house and Senate versions and then get passed . My guess is Senate is waiting for CC report.

[bvsamrat]

It appears that the attorneys like the status quo only . With reforms they may loose revenue. But if no reforms in time, may kill the golden goose and shift all the traffic to other countries.

US universities have lost their charm and other countries have caught up but do not have enough infrastructure

It is only a time, when China will start international universities with all facilties/research etc, to attract students all over the world.



If you look at most bills they are passed this way. Then the details are clarified by relevant authorities.

ACT 21 still has many unanswered questions.
So, there is no reason to delay the bill because there are some unanswered questions.

[vishnu]

Mniwas - exactly my thoughts - even the policy change on EAD for undocumented had tons of details to be clarified but that didnt prevent them from issuing the directive publicly

[cbpds1]

Minwas, BO wanted to lock the latino community for their votes, hence they made the announcement first and details later.


Mniwas - exactly my thoughts - even the policy change on EAD for undocumented had tons of details to be clarified but that didnt prevent them from issuing the directive publicly

[gs1968]

I have seen no signs of any amendment to either HR 3012 or S 1857 published for the record. There is a time duration for which it needs to be published (48 hours in most instances) before it can be brought to the Floor and voted upon. Also as Senator Reid has filed for cloture on the Small Business Tax Bill for a vote on Friday, the only Bills that can pass are those by unanimous consent. At this time the only things that can be passed by unanimous consent are ridiculous resolutions like the one from today

S. Res. 483 (A resolution commending efforts to promote and enhance public safety on the need for yellow corrugated stainless steel tubing bonding). Agreed to by unanimous consent.

What is the meaning of this?

[vizcard]

I have seen no signs of any amendment to either HR 3012 or S 1857 published for the record. There is a time duration for which it needs to be published (48 hours in most instances) before it can be brought to the Floor and voted upon. Also as Senator Reid has filed for cloture on the Small Business Tax Bill for a vote on Friday, the only Bills that can pass are those by unanimous consent. At this time the only things that can be passed by unanimous consent are ridiculous resolutions like the one from today

S. Res. 483 (A resolution commending efforts to promote and enhance public safety on the need for yellow corrugated stainless steel tubing bonding). Agreed to by unanimous consent.

What is the meaning of this?

Congress' equivalent of checking Facebook at work.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Found this on computerworld. Basically it talks about the STEM bill but than in the end, it says,

Before this week, the tech-related immigration bill that was seen as having the best odds for passage was a bill to eliminate the per-country cap on green cards. The House voted 389-to-15 late last year to eliminate the per-country cap.

The U.S. makes 140,000 employment-based green cards available each year, but it limits each country to 7% of the total. Visa applicants in China and India face a multiyear wait because of demand. Eliminating the cap would have created one global, first-come, first-serve line.

But the bill was stuck in the Senate after Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put a hold on it. He wanted restrictions on H-1B use attached to it.

Elimination of per-country caps was widely seen as having a chance at passage this year. But the proposal drew opposition from the private sector because of Grassley's changes, and its passage is now in doubt.

Not sure if the author is talking about Grassley's new diluted amendment or old one which was way more draconian?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229244/Tech_giants_urge_passage_of_STEM_green_card_bill_

[chengisk]

@Jonty_Rhodes: Looks like the article talks about the new amendment. Well I guess with my 2010 PD I will be greened in 2016 if I am not hit by a meteorite or my heart palpation gets worse. Good night. [9.47.32 17JUL2012]

[vizcard]

I think that the tech community would take an amended HR3012 over nothing at all. Just my opinion.

[immitime]

Found this on computerworld. Basically it talks about the STEM bill but than in the end, it says,

Before this week, the tech-related immigration bill that was seen as having the best odds for passage was a bill to eliminate the per-country cap on green cards. The House voted 389-to-15 late last year to eliminate the per-country cap.

The U.S. makes 140,000 employment-based green cards available each year, but it limits each country to 7% of the total. Visa applicants in China and India face a multiyear wait because of demand. Eliminating the cap would have created one global, first-come, first-serve line.

But the bill was stuck in the Senate after Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put a hold on it. He wanted restrictions on H-1B use attached to it.

Elimination of per-country caps was widely seen as having a chance at passage this year. But the proposal drew opposition from the private sector because of Grassley's changes, and its passage is now in doubt.

Not sure if the author is talking about Grassley's new diluted amendment or old one which was way more draconian?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229244/Tech_giants_urge_passage_of_STEM_green_card_bill_

The above is only author's opinion, the real reason is Politics. from Harry Reid and Democrats, if this bill passes now ( I mean before elections) Republicans have some red meat for election campaign, and that too this bill is from a Tea party member of congress. So Mr.Reid will maximum try not to take this bill before elections! but Schumer wants this passed ASAP, due to pressure from NY based Tech lobbyists. If this comes to Senate floor unanimous voting/floor voting, this will pass without much issues, Then this will go to conference committe of Congress and Senate and the clearence from the committee is also sure. But depends on Harry Reid's decision. that means (White house advisory). We need to concentrate on sending letters physical letters to BO at White House, Sen.Harry Reid and Sen.Schumer now. No media will report the above Truth.

[chengisk]

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=37451

AILA seems to indicate in the last paragraph that more senators might object to the bill.

[druvraj]

Why don't the senators get it on the floor and vote. Up and Down vote would suffice. This stupidity of putting a hold is just wrong. Anyways I am preparing for the worst case scenario of waiting without any legislative relief.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Here goes another one.

http://www.siliconprairienews.com/2012/07/grassley-releases-committee-hold-on-bill-with-tech-industry-support

The bill now has just 12 days left to pass the Senate or it will be held until next year.

I don't know why they are not considering lame duck session this year or are they talking about Fiscal Year.

We all know that Sen. Grassley already removed the hold from the bill but the senate calendar still shows the hold. It appears that they may be still negotiating to attach some other bills on this one.

The silence is deafening.

[cool_mj007]

The article is probably referring to the fiscal year that ends in September. All bills that are not passed by end of September are lapsed. Thus the process will have to start over. Although given the recent amendments the bill will have to go to the House anyways.


Here goes another one.

http://www.siliconprairienews.com/2012/07/grassley-releases-committee-hold-on-bill-with-tech-industry-support

The bill now has just 12 days left to pass the Senate or it will be held until next year.

I don't know why they are not considering lame duck session this year or are they talking about Fiscal Year.

We all know that Sen. Grassley already removed the hold from the bill but the senate calendar still shows the hold. It appears that they may be still negotiating to attach some other bills on this one.

The silence is deafening.

[abcx13]

The article is probably referring to the fiscal year that ends in September. All bills that are not passed by end of September are lapsed. Thus the process will have to start over. Although given the recent amendments the bill will have to go to the House anyways.
you mean it will have to go back to the house after September?

[cool_mj007]

Scenario 1: bill passes this fiscal year (by Sept 30)
Key next steps:
Bill is voted and approved by Senate
Bill goes back to House and get voted and approved on Senate amendments (H1B regulation etc.)
Bill is sent to president for his signature thus turning it into law.

Scenario 2: bill fails to pass this fiscal year but lawmakers decide to bring it back after Oct 1
Key next steps:
The bill will be introduced in both House and Senate as a new bill, completely independent of the previous bill
Senate and House will have to vote and send out for president's approval.



you mean it will have to go back to the house after September?

[Kanmani]

The article is probably referring to the fiscal year that ends in September. All bills that are not passed by end of September are lapsed. Thus the process will have to start over. Although given the recent amendments the bill will have to go to the House anyways.

US Congress follows the calendar year but not the fiscal year. Current 112th session ends on Jan 3, 2013.

The problem is that 2012 being an election year, right after the results the politicians may or may not be in the power to support or oppose the bill between oct to dec 2012.(lame duck session)

[cool_mj007]

Thanks for the clarification Kanmani. So technically we have till Jan 3rd. What gets done in a lame duck session is a different scenario as you said. Thanks!


US Congress follows the calendar year but not the fiscal year. Current 112th session ends on Jan 3, 2013.

The problem is that 2012 being an election year, right after the results the politicians may or may not be in the power to support or oppose the bill between oct to dec 2012.(lame duck session)

[vizcard]

Starting Jan everyones pet projects will start coming out. Basically we need the sponsors of the bill to be reelected and it'll be back in play.

[A_Tech_Softie]

Removing the hold now provides a political play where the ball is back in the bill sponsor's court to bring it up .. thus the original holder of the bill no longer gets the blame of not letting this bill pass...

[immitime]

Removing the hold now provides a political play where the ball is back in the bill sponsor's court to bring it up .. thus the original holder of the bill no longer gets the blame of not letting this bill pass...

Don't worry too much thomas.loc.gov updated that the hold is lifted.. so things are happening in due cours, with out much publicity. no need to worry about AILA rumour mongering, and worry about Ron Gotcher's sayings.. They look for their business, we need to look after our business!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query ----if this comes to search page search for H.R. 3012

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2012-07-11/pdf/CREC-2012-07-11-pt1-PgS4889-4.pdf#page=1

So never loose mind.. Praying makes difference, and also contacting Senators.. especially Majority Leader Harry Reid!---Sen Schumer ----The President.

Everything loses, the day we stop trying!

[jackbrown_890]

I found this two links on GPO s website under July 18 date, and i am not sure what do they mean
Link 1: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HOB-2012/html/HOB-2012-hr3012.htm
it says "to the Committee on the Judiciary" after the bill name. doe anyone else know why it says that? or it is just GPO's website typo?
Link 2: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRI-2012/html/CRI-2012-FAIRNESS-FOR-HIGH-SKILLED-IMMIGRAN-B5A72A.htm
there is remark from DOS: about Irish visa and also says "Enact (H.R. 3012) - not sure why DOS would say that?

[vizcard]

I found this two links on GPO s website under July 18 date, and i am not sure what do they mean
Link 1: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HOB-2012/html/HOB-2012-hr3012.htm
it says "to the Committee on the Judiciary" after the bill name. doe anyone else know why it says that? or it is just GPO's website typo?
Link 2: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRI-2012/html/CRI-2012-FAIRNESS-FOR-HIGH-SKILLED-IMMIGRAN-B5A72A.htm
there is remark from DOS: about Irish visa and also says "Enact (H.R. 3012) - not sure why DOS would say that?

Im not sure how you got those links.

For link 1, note the semi colon.it seems like its a "delivery order" ie print HR3012 blah blah blah and send to the Judiciary cmte. This was done prior to the House vote.

Not sure about link 2. But without context, it's a guessing game anyway.

[jackbrown_890]

Im not sure how you got those links.

For link 1, note the semi colon.it seems like its a "delivery order" ie print HR3012 blah blah blah and send to the Judiciary cmte. This was done prior to the House vote.

Not sure about link 2. But without context, it's a guessing game anyway.

I got it from printing office's digital system. I ran a search for H.R. 3012. and these two pages show up under date: July 18, 2012 along with 17 others.
I also noticed, July 18, 2012 has the highest # of search results for H.R. 3012. Some of them are just remarks from different senators like durbin, grassley, reid, etc. and 3 are usual search results from Senate Calendar (which shows up for every day since it was placed in senate calendar)

[vizcard]

interesting. i tried searching and got "no site search results".

[chengisk]

interesting. i tried searching and got "no site search results".

Try within this link,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/advanced/advsearchpage.action

Select a date on top and enter 3012 in the bottom search field.

[jackbrown_890]

interesting. i tried searching and got "no site search results".

Try this link
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action

in search type "H.R. 3012" and hit search
after you do that, on the left of the screen you will see "Date Published"
Click on "+" sign next to "2012" and then "July" and then "18"
you will see 19 some results.
I am not sure how the search engine software works but "19" results show up for July 18 date for some reason.