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

[jackbrown_890]

another interesting thing i noticed was @: link (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HOB-2012/html/HOB-2012-hr3012.htm) - Government Author of this document is "Joint Committee on Printing " and coincidentally Vice Chair of that committee is "Schumer". (Author information shows up in search results under "date published option to narrow your search)
I don't know why the author of this document would be as "Joint Committee on Printing" but as i said it is interesting.
It could be just a mistake or may be we don't understand their document system...may be it has been like this for months...but i noticed these changes today.

[chengisk]

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.

Yes something definitely happened on 18th. Since the day it was placed on the senate calendar (23Jan2012), it has only had 3-4 hits per day. It is almost like on 18th, 15 or senators noted down a reminder about the the bill in their dairies.

[jackbrown_890]

Yes something definitely happened on 18th. Since the day it was placed on the senate calendar (23Jan2012), it has only had 3-4 hits per day. It is almost like on 18th, 15 or senators noted down a reminder about the the bill in their dairies.

Either that or the system moves those files in such a way that most of those files show up automatically as published 1 calendar day before that day....
lets see tomorrow what happens to those files tomorrow.. whether it stays under "July 18" date or moves under "July 19"

[chengisk]

Cross index of general orders - Resolutions and motions over - General Orders - are the three files that are regenerated every (senate) working day with the new date. But 18th and 19th seem to be exceptions. For 19th there is History of Bills and resolutions in addition to the three usual suspects. But tomorrow and the weekend there will generate no files at all. The next ones will be on Monday.

PS: We must be having a really slow day.

[vizcard]

Not many of those 19 articles are really relevant. Its a text-based search- wherever theres "H.R." or "3012", the article is popping up. Case in point - Article #2 is about highways and transportation. Its comes up becaue theres a section 30124 in the pdf document.

Sorted by relevance :P .. these guys do need immigrants to sort their shit out.

[abcx13]

Not many of those 19 articles are really relevant. Its a text-based search- wherever theres "H.R." or "3012", the article is popping up. Case in point - Article #2 is about highways and transportation. Its comes up becaue theres a section 30124 in the pdf document.

Sorted by relevance :P .. these guys do need immigrants to sort their shit out.

Search for "H.R. 3012" (in quotes) to skip those irrelevant results.

I think the records for Senators who've commented on that bill got updated. The stuff in brackets are dates when the comments were made. So [JY11] is the date Grassley lifted his idiotic hold.

[jackbrown_890]

Not many of those 19 articles are really relevant. Its a text-based search- wherever theres "H.R." or "3012", the article is popping up. Case in point - Article #2 is about highways and transportation. Its comes up becaue theres a section 30124 in the pdf document.

Sorted by relevance :P .. these guys do need immigrants to sort their shit out.

most of those files have moved from July 18 to July 19 sometime in last hour...
so sorry,, it seems like there is nothing in there to get excited about...

[immitime]

most of those files have moved from July 18 to July 19 sometime in last hour...
so sorry,, it seems like there is nothing in there to get excited about...

How about this.. some good news.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SecurityOversi

Secretary Janet Napolitano testified at an oversight hearing of the Department of Homeland Security

This is a 2 hour + video just approximately forward until 1:56:51


Rep. Chaftez asked Sec. Napolitano, if the H.R.3012 Fairness for High skilled cap
H.R.3012 is Now waiting action in the senate.. is Administration ok with it???

Napolitano: I have to look in to that, that sounds right, but let me verify that

Be positive..everyone.. we are almost there.

[gs1968]

To immitime
Thank you for the link.I am not quite sure what Rep.Chaffetz was implying about the Administration's viewpoint as this is already well known.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/startup_america_legislative_agenda.pdf

The last section of page 1 recommend removal of per-country caps in employment based Green Cards. I wish he had mentioned that "the Senate is about to take this Bill up" instead of "awaiting action in the Senate"

[immitime]

To gs1968

Awaiting Action in Senate ... meaning.. anytime it can come up.....just unanimous probably!.. that is the most positive word than Senate is about to take this Bill.. that means going for a full floor cloture vote.. so wait for the good news!

[A_Tech_Softie]

".. that means going for a full floor cloture vote.. "

Hold is now removed .. why would cloture rules still apply? Wouldn't a simple majority suffice?

[vizcard]

".. that means going for a full floor cloture vote.. "

Hold is now removed .. why would cloture rules still apply? Wouldn't a simple majority suffice?

Its got nothing to do with "holds". Cloture is something used to limit discussion on a bill...very useful for non-controversial bills. You invoke it when there is a filibuster. The risk is that you need 2/3rds rather than a majority. Technically, in this case, cloture would not be required if the original text stood. But I'm not sure how the process works with amendments to a bill.

Typically the text of the bill has to be read and debated (with no time limit). It was done with the original language but I don't know if they need to do it again with the added language. Maybe that's the reason they are talking about cloture.

[kd2008]

NYT is inviting questions on high skilled immigrants. Please ask your questions graciously.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/bring-your-questions-on-skilled-immigrants/

[Jonty Rhodes]

drop2oceaon thanks but the link is not working.

If true - this is supergr8 news!

Q, this is the link. It does not say anything about HR 3012 being scheduled to be on Senate floor for vote next week. I wish it is scheduled for vote next week but at this point, there is no news officially confirming that. So I would think it is a rumor.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-112scal-2012-07-23/pdf/CCAL-112scal-2012-07-23.pdf

[Jonty Rhodes]

Another article on the bill.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/07/22/high-skilled-immigration-restrictions-are-economically-senseless/

[chengisk]

I am really glad that there is such a great support for H.R. 3012 and that is the way it should be. Elimination of the country cap is the proper way to eliminate a discrimination clause that is found a safe place to lurk for so so long. However I see that opposition to Mr. Grassley's amendment is slowly gaining more opponents, even among the journalists. And that is worrisome. I do see some issues in the amendment, but those can be fixed in the future with executive orders. Somewhere in the back pages of this thread there is a list of lobbyists in favor of H.R. 3012. Many of them are multinational companies and will not be impacted by Mr. Grassley's amendment. I am sure they will not suddenly drop support for the bill. However, the lawmakers who read articles like the one above, will tend to get more answers when the bill is before them. But I do not think those restriction are as vague as it is being portrayed to be - definitely not as vague as what exists for EB1A/B adjudication. Another factor that is worrisome now is that the freakin' clock keeps tickin'. These factors now brings me to make this request. My request is got nothing to do with the lobbying efforts of an(y)other group, yet I wish that members here would write to their state senators (Senator's website does have a web form that can be filled-up) urging support for bill, perhaps even adding their own hardships and long wait. That is if they have not done so yet. It does not matter if you are waiting on the GC or have it already. Thanks.

[kd2008]

Seen this on trackitt


HR 3012 recorded on Senate Calendar and scheduled for next week.

Order No. 293

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-112scal-2012-...

Ummm....sorry drop2ocean you are completely wrong here. HR 3012 was read twice on the Senate floor in Jan 2012 and the third reading was objected to and then it was put on Senate under order no. 293.

It has been on the calendar ever since. It is not scheduled for a vote in Senate yet.

Please folks for the umpteenth time: if it is scheduled for vote it will be known in public well in advance and would be screamed on the roof tops by I V, Oh law firm, trackitt websites.

It is not going to be voted on quietly with out any one knowing about it.

[vickywac]

Grassly's amendment drew lot of controversy lately.
It's gonna be a interesting for next couple of weeks and Looks like AILA is lobbying negatively about the G's amendment .

http://www.indiaabroad-digital.com/indiaabroad/20120727/m3/Page.action?pg=14

[chengisk]

Hi drop2ocean - those calendars and schedules maintained by the gpo.gov can be slightly confusing. They are updated the previous working day evening and basically carries over the text from that day. The exception is the first 2 pages which actually mentions in the subtitle what the senate will take up for that date. In addition the document also holds the list of bills on the calendar, list of bills that have been objected to, bills that were read that day, etc. Ever since the day H.R. 3012 was placed on the calendar in January, the document has carried three mentions of H.R. 3012 every single working day. Hope it helps.

[drop2ocean]

Ummm....sorry drop2ocean you are completely wrong here. HR 3012 was read twice on the Senate floor in Jan 2012 and the third reading was objected to and then it was put on Senate under order no. 293.

It has been on the calendar ever since. It is not scheduled for a vote in Senate yet.

Please folks for the umpteenth time: if it is scheduled for vote it will be known in public well in advance and would be screamed on the roof tops by I V, Oh law firm, trackitt websites.

It is not going to be voted on quietly with out any one knowing about it.

ok, i've seen the date on the pdf as July 23rd 2012 so thought it could be true. Anyways, i was just reporting what I've seen on trackitt, especially since its out of Gov printing press ! not sure if the senate calendar will be known to public well in advance though as they can change it any time.

Admins, please feel free to delete my original post

[drop2ocean]

Hi drop2ocean - those calendars and schedules maintained by the gpo.gov can be slightly confusing. They are updated the previous working day evening and basically carries over the text from that day. The exception is the first 2 pages which actually mentions in the subtitle what the senate will take up for that date. In addition the document also holds the list of bills on the calendar, list of bills that have been objected to, bills that were read that day, etc. Ever since the day H.R. 3012 was placed on the calendar in January, the document has carried three mentions of H.R. 3012 every single working day. Hope it helps.

ok, thanks for clarifying that.

[longgcque]

Not to creare any rumour ..but ... trackitt has some posts of 3012 being voted in senate this week. hope this is true

http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/1030883191/support-hr-3012-bill/page/last_page

[vishnu]

It is just comments on a blog - so i would not accord any crediiblity to it.

[nyquant]

Actually, I did read a member's response from a senator and it sounded positive. It was deleted after a few seconds. Let us keep fingers crossed.

[kuku82]

Actually, I did read a member's response from a senator and it sounded positive. It was deleted after a few seconds. Let us keep fingers crossed.

Not that this means anything but H.R 3012 is among the top-5 bills (#2) on THOMAS

[abcx13]

Not that this means anything but H.R 3012 is among the top-5 bills (#2) on THOMAS

What does Top 5 even mean on THOMAS? I mean how do they rank?

[kuku82]

Can't think of anything other than the # of hits the bill got.....

[gs1968]

Cloture has been filed on S.3412 by Senator Reid today.He was able to do this even before the cloture on Judge Shipp's nomination as the cloture vote on this was vitiated.Unfortunately now only items of unanimous consent can be passed till the cloture on 3412 ripens on Wednesday AM. It is interesting that this Bill was only introduced on July 19th by Senator Reid and has been fast-tracked to this point so quickly. Ironically although this Bill extends the middle class tax cuts for one more year-the cloture is likely to fail as the GOP will oppose it because it increases the deficit and also because the Democrats can claim victory. IF IT FAILS-it is a waste of most of a Senate's work week (remember 3 day weekends!). HR 3012 may pass with unanimous consent yet but if it needs a Floor vote we have to wait till the end of the week when the fate of S.3412 is clear. If by some miracle-this cloture motion succeeds then obviously the rest of the week will be spent on adding amendments/debate etc followed by a cloture on a final vote sometime early next week. Hope this helps but time seems so limited just because cloture is invoked on everything

[nyquant]

Actually, I did read a member's response from a senator and it sounded positive. It was deleted after a few seconds. Let us keep fingers crossed.

Apparently it was the same response was from Sen. McCain 6 months ago. So nothing to be excited I guess. Wonder why ** was all furious about posting it in the forum.

[sp2008]

By the way any one know who is lobbying for this bill. i am wondering if any well known/funded Indian groups involved or not.
Or is it driven generally by silicon valley tech companies? i don't think signing letters or calling senators help a great deal (i am not discouraging it by any means)

[vizcard]

Need to contact Joe Biden (President of the Senate)

[gs1968]

To vizcard

Might actually help! Senator Joe Biden was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1990 which passed the IMMACT 1990 that started the H-1B visa/annual Green card limits/country caps/EB categories/Diversity visa etc. etc. But then Senator Grassley was in that Committee too and this hasn't helped much so far

[chengisk]

By the way any one know who is lobbying for this bill. i am wondering if any well known/funded Indian groups involved or not.
Or is it driven generally by silicon valley tech companies? i don't think signing letters or calling senators help a great deal (i am not discouraging it by any means)

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/billsum.php?id=128399

[qesehmk]

Thanks chengisk.
It would be a good idea for everybody to read this list. Because those are your friends and you don't want to forget them.
Other than corporations, one particular name is quite interesting - American Jewing Committee. Indians and other immigrants will do well to know their friends and support them when the time comes. Sorry for a bit political speech. But I think it's important that all of us are aware of the political environment around especially when there is significant anti-immigrant sentiment for various reasons.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/billsum.php?id=128399

[vishnu]

agreed q - though these lobby lists are both for and against lists...

[chengisk]

True as Vishnu says the list can also include opposing lobbyists. It also does not include some other companies that support (ex. Facebook Inc.). Someone who compiled the list had to actually search (probably obtained thro FOIA) the lobbying disclosure filing with the senate for each company/organization to figure out if they spend anything for this bill. If you click on the number below 'number of reports' and against each organization you may see a gist as well the full filing. It sometimes specifies whether the group supports or opposes. Yes it is interesting that the gist for American Jewish Cmmt, says, "Support for Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011 (S.1857/H.R. 3012)" (Israel being ROW).

[vizcard]

this is a list of those who support the bill. US Chamber of Commerce is on there as well.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3012/money

[chengisk]

That is in fact impressive... more extensive and in-depth than the open secrets. Plus the money trail, especially that of the lawmakers who abstained after that kind of expenditure. But then there is knack behind the abstaining too...

And on top in red it says.. "The easiest way to email your members of congress.......... [Donate Now]"

[bvsamrat]

I am surprised by the negative sentiments expressed by others on the net on issue of HR 3012.

Still the world is topsy-turvey. What Mahatma Gandhi faced did not change a bit. despite modernisation/faster travel/greater communication etc.

Local americans think that it will effect their jobs- On the contrary it is status quo,
140,000 quota is still unchanged!

People from other countries think that Indians/Chinese are being favored in HR3012
On the contrary, with HR3012, Indian/Chinese will be treated equal and same as other nationals
Every immigrant irresptive of race/nationality/caste/ will be treated as equal and follow the Queue.

Why Brazilian/Napalese or any of the other ROW should be favored and placed ahead in the queue?




That is in fact impressive... more extensive and in-depth than the open secrets. Plus the money trail, especially that of the lawmakers who abstained after that kind of expenditure. But then there is knack behind the abstaining too...

And on top in red it says.. "The easiest way to email your members of congress.......... [Donate Now]"

[vizcard]

bvsamrat - I'd like ot make a correction to your post. Brazilian / Nepalese are not placed ahead in the queue. They are in a different queue. The negativity stems from the fear (insert any other sentiment) of being placed in the same queue as us.

[amulchandra]

I know that this is extremely hypothetical question. If the bill passes in the senate this week, I know that it has to go back to house. Is the house also going on recess in August? How does the lame duck session affect the bill's chance to be picked up in the house?

Any take on this.

Thank you

Amul

[vizcard]

I know that this is extremely hypothetical question. If the bill passes in the senate this week, I know that it has to go back to house. Is the house also going on recess in August? How does the lame duck session affect the bill's chance to be picked up in the house?

Any take on this.

Thank you

Amul
Yes. The House is also going on recess in August and most of Sept. You can google the Congress calendar to find out exact dates they are in session.

As far as the second part of your question, I'll say it depends. If the sponsors of the bill are re-elected, nothing will get done. I expect them to try to garner support if there are significant changes to the make up of the House. If they don't then they will try to push for it to go through with the current make up. Going by the overwhelming majority the first go around, I expect getting support won't be an issue but who knows.

Note: The entire second paragraph is guesswork.

[amulchandra]

Yes. The House is also going on recess in August and most of Sept. You can google the Congress calendar to find out exact dates they are in session.

As far as the second part of your question, I'll say it depends. If the sponsors of the bill are re-elected, nothing will get done. I expect them to try to garner support if there are significant changes to the make up of the House. If they don't then they will try to push for it to go through with the current make up. Going by the overwhelming majority the first go around, I expect getting support won't be an issue but who knows.

Note: The entire second paragraph is guesswork.

Thank you vizcard. Hope this passes both the houses during these two weeks and there will be an end to this painful wait.

Amul

[immitime]

some encouragement by Schumer see the third Para ----below link
http://blog.visabureau.com/post/us-immigration-update---24-07-2012.aspx
the bill should come to the floor this week or next week

[chengisk]

some encouragement by Schumer see the third Para ----below link
http://blog.visabureau.com/post/us-immigration-update---24-07-2012.aspx
the bill should come to the floor this week or next week

That link does not seem convincing enough. Rather it is like someone made up a news that sounds like the bill is passed in the senate. Plus the writer might have problems differentiating the senate and the house. However, when someone posted it on the 'other' forum, it got deleted. <james bond theme music> Now I got to go back to my Miss Marple (I decided to re read all Marples and Poirots after 2 decades since I left school). That will make me feel young again.

[vizcard]

some encouragement by Schumer see the third Para ----below link
http://blog.visabureau.com/post/us-immigration-update---24-07-2012.aspx
the bill should come to the floor this week or next week

How did you get this from the article?

[jackbrown_890]

looks like, still no update on the bill from any reliable source.
people from New York,, call Schumer's office in the morning and see what they have to say about the bill..

[jackbrown_890]

http://blogs.ilw.com/nurse_immigration/2012/07/big-government-grassley.html
another blog update but more like rumors thn reliable source

[gs1968]

Very disappointing to see the Senate schedule for tomorrow and the Senate Judiciary Committee schedule for Thursday. The fact remains that at this time there is no published Bill for the Senate to vote upon. Senator Grassley's proposed amendments are proposals only so far and there is no published/printed amendments anywhere in the Congressional Record as of this PM. The Senators may have no objection to the amendments but atleast will need to know what they are voting on.HR 3012 being already placed on the Senate calendar can only be amended using Floor amendments after the Bill has been scheduled and this can potentially become an open free-for-all and restricting amendments usually is difficult. The easier option is to take S.1857 (identical language to HR 3012) in the judiciary committee and add the proposed H-1B amendments with the language perfected amongst the Committee members and report it to the Senate as a substitute and vote on it standalone to avoid other amendments.
There may be some obstruction in the Senate at this time to either the 3012 or H-1B provisions because it has almost been 2 weeks since the hold was lifted and if there was unanimous consent,the Bill would have been disposed off by now and sent to the House. Just my opinion and I hope all this drivel will amount to nothing and 3012 will pass easily in Senate

BTW things are also quiet with no audible chatter on the other part of the deal-the Irish E-3 provisions.None of those Bills have been called up either. I hope Sen.Schumer ois not waiting for those Bills to pass before bringing up 3012

[Jonty Rhodes]

Very disappointing to see the Senate schedule for tomorrow and the Senate Judiciary Committee schedule for Thursday. The fact remains that at this time there is no published Bill for the Senate to vote upon. Senator Grassley's proposed amendments are proposals only so far and there is no published/printed amendments anywhere in the Congressional Record as of this PM. The Senators may have no objection to the amendments but atleast will need to know what they are voting on.HR 3012 being already placed on the Senate calendar can only be amended using Floor amendments after the Bill has been scheduled and this can potentially become an open free-for-all and restricting amendments usually is difficult. The easier option is to take S.1857 (identical language to HR 3012) in the judiciary committee and add the proposed H-1B amendments with the language perfected amongst the Committee members and report it to the Senate as a substitute and vote on it standalone to avoid other amendments.
There may be some obstruction in the Senate at this time to either the 3012 or H-1B provisions because it has almost been 2 weeks since the hold was lifted and if there was unanimous consent,the Bill would have been disposed off by now and sent to the House. Just my opinion and I hope all this drivel will amount to nothing and 3012 will pass easily in Senate

BTW things are also quiet with no audible chatter on the other part of the deal-the Irish E-3 provisions.None of those Bills have been called up either. I hope Sen.Schumer ois not waiting for those Bills to pass before bringing up 3012

I agree. It is disappointing to see nothing happening when only little time is left. It seems that we will probably have to wait for lame duck session. The way the US Congress functions and the way any Senator can screw any bill for any reason by putting infinite holds on it, it is not surprising that things come to stand still in Washington all the time. It becomes even worse especially when both chambers of Congresses are extremely divided and partisan i.e. House having Republican majority and Senate having Democratic majority.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Just to clear the air about Facebook not being in the official list of lobbying organizations for HR 3012, I am posting this link. Facebook has done lobbying for HR 3012. The article does not mention whether it was pro or anti-HR 3012 but there are enough reasons to believe that Facebook is pro-HR 3012.

Here goes the article

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57477457-93/facebook-breaks-its-lobbying-record-in-q2-2012/

[chengisk]

Just to clear the air about Facebook not being in the official list of lobbying organizations for HR 3012, I am posting this link. Facebook has done lobbying for HR 3012. The article does not mention whether it was pro or anti-HR 3012 but there are enough reasons to believe that Facebook is pro-HR 3012.

Here goes the article

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57477457-93/facebook-breaks-its-lobbying-record-in-q2-2012/

I see that my previous post (#1879) sounds like Facebook is not a supporter. I just meant that it is not included in the open secretes.org list. Other than the Cnet news, it is also included in the list of signatories at,
http://www.technet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Tech-Industry-Letter-in-Support-of-Repealing-the-Per-Country-Limit-JUN-27-2012.pdf

[gs1968]

To Jonty

The congressional daily digest has some wiggle room left for a possibility for the Bill to be considered

"Cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 3412, Middle Class Tax Cut Act. If no agreement is reached, the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill will occur on Wednesday.
During the balance of the week, Senate may consider any cleared legislative and executive business. "

I read somewhere that Sen.Reid may take another stab at the cyber-security Bill this week. Personally I feel that there is not much time left for discussion for this Bill before the recess but unanimous consent passage is possible and more likely

[Jonty Rhodes]

I see that my previous post (#1879) sounds like Facebook is not a supporter. I just meant that it is not included in the open secretes.org list. Other than the Cnet news, it is also included in the list of signatories at,
http://www.technet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Tech-Industry-Letter-in-Support-of-Repealing-the-Per-Country-Limit-JUN-27-2012.pdf

Sorry, I missed to see that link earlier. Thanks for pointing out that letter.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Thanks gs1968. I hope your words are right.

[vizcard]

If this tax cut bill doesn't get resolved, that will continue to be a distraction in the media and we know senators and congressmen are going to love getting some air time before the elections.

[chengisk]

If this tax cut bill doesn't get resolved, that will continue to be a distraction in the media and we know senators and congressmen are going to love getting some air time before the elections.

I do not think this bill will get resolved in the senate. With just 53 members, Democrats will never be able to sell it, whatever sort of persuasion they may impose. So they will just sit and bicker about class warfare well up till the next week. But then the Senate, I suppose, works till next Thursday. If only they can do something about HR3012 this week, they can vote on it next Monday/Tuesday. But then on Tuesday they have caucus luncheon. Stuff it in Senators, please stuff it in. If the Japanese can do it, you too can do it - www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4LG5k9xkRo

[jackbrown_890]

yes i agree, (this) tax bill is not gonna be solved, this is just political drama. most probably they won't even get enough votes on Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed. so there won't be any debate but there will be just speeches from both sides on what should be the tax bill. dems will continue on their speeches about letting tax break expire for income of 250k or more for people make that kinda money,,and reps are going to block it since dems bill does not give tax breaks for those people who they think will hire more people if they get to keep their tax break from January. I still haven't heard about any deals on tax bill and even if it passes in the senate,,it will be hard to pass it in the house..
surprisingly no news from Schumer on vote on this bill...he is the one who is going to push for the vote on this bill...

[chengisk]

I was also kinda disappointed with what Se. Reid talked about today morning. Before the end of the month he wanted the cybersecurity bill passed (Sen. McCain expressed his displeasure, so this will also drag on). He also wanted a legislation on new Iran sanctions before they quit (http://www.republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floor-updates). Of course he started with a lecture about the Tax bill (what some republicans call as 'DEmocrat's Bill for Tax increase - DEBT). Yes Sen. Schumer can raise up any time and submit a bill for reading, but then I suppose he will not do it unless the hold statement is removed from the schedule (where it still lurks - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-112hcal/pdf/CCAL-112hcal-pt8.pdf).

[chengisk]

yes i agree, (this) tax bill is not gonna be solved, this is just political drama. most probably they won't even get enough votes on Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed.

Nothing related to 3012, but Sen.McConnell actually says he will let the tax bill pass. And I say do it fast... but then it goes to the Congress. We will see what is their next business... cybersecurity, Iran, H.R.3012?

[immitime]

I was also kinda disappointed with what Se. Reid talked about today morning. Before the end of the month he wanted the cybersecurity bill passed (Sen. McCain expressed his displeasure, so this will also drag on). He also wanted a legislation on new Iran sanctions before they quit (http://www.republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floor-updates). Of course he started with a lecture about the Tax bill (what some republicans call as 'DEmocrat's Bill for Tax increase - DEBT). Yes Sen. Schumer can raise up any time and submit a bill for reading, but then I suppose he will not do it unless the hold statement is removed from the schedule (where it still lurks - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-112hcal/pdf/CCAL-112hcal-pt8.pdf).

Please read this, lifting hold on H.R.3012, congressional record on gpo website.

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

[chengisk]

Yes I am aware of that document as well. That means that Grassley's latter is officially on record. Yet GPO does not remove the bill from it daily publication on the 'resolutions and motions under the rule'. That seems odd to me. Perhaps that is the way it is done, and this hold record will be there until the bill is passed. Thanks.

PS: Not trying to harp on the same issue, I am just trying to comprehend it. Thanks again.

[immitime]

Yes I am aware of that document as well. That means that Grassley's latter is officially on record. Yet GPO does not remove the bill from it daily publication on the 'resolutions and motions under the rule'. That seems odd to me. Perhaps that is the way it is done, and this hold record will be there until the bill is passed. Thanks.

PS: Not trying to harp on the same issue, I am just trying to comprehend it. Thanks again.

No problem, there are lot of politics going on, which is not transparent to us, but it will all be sustained soon, since the whole tech lobby is behind this bill. And this is the only bill which have lot of support in the Senate, hope fully after passing senate it will go to the conference committee instead of going for voting on Congress again! (which is a waste of time) As per un-authorised bloggings and other news coming out this bill should at least be in the Senate floor(if not unanimously passed one silent evening, just talking about possiblility.) before Senate goes to summer recess.;)

[jackbrown_890]

tax bill passed,,"wow",,
but seems like Cyber Security is next...

[skpanda]

Spec and others...

Somebody in Ron's forum was arguing and quoting this forum (may be Spec's post) that after the 3 year transition period, EBIC will get 100% of the green cards (which is absurd and stupid in my opinion).

So I did the following calculations: Can you guyz let me know if I missed something fundamental?

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


My point is that in a FIFO system, India will consume a much larger share of green cards versus all others. We already knew that they account for 50% of LCAs right now and, with China, it is hard to imagine a scenario where FIFO can continue on in the long-term without country caps or an increase in the absolute numbers of GCs. As far as I know and have read, it is impossible right now to predict if the back-log will be cleared in 3 years. Even the guys over at Qs blog, who are the experts on this, have not yet crunched the numbers. I'm waiting, but will quote Oracle over at the Q forum:

"There are roughly 21K EB2-I and 4.5K EB2-C pending applications till end of 2008. If EB2-I/C gets 30K - 34K SOFAD in 2013, the PDs will move well into 2009. For 2009, there are ~13.5K EB2-I and ~3K EB2-C applications and the COD will be somewhere in 2009. But, I think there are too many assumptions & uncertainties involved with HR3012 now to make any reasonable prediction at this point of time"


I have used 3rd May 2012 485 Inventory for my calculations:

EB3:

Backlog (till July 2007):
EB2IC - 51,868
ROW - 34,276 (Including Mexico and Philipines)

Assume that HR3012 becomes law and it is applied effective October 2012.

a. FY 2013 -
EB3IC will get 34K and ROW will get 6K (85% and 15%)
BACKLOG: EB3IC 17,868 ROW 28,276

b. FY 2014 -
EB3IC will get 36K and ROW will get 4K (90% and 10%)
BACKLOG: EB3IC 0 ROW Uncertain (definately less than 28,276)
Somehwere in the middle of the year, EB3IC backlog becomes zero and FIFO is followed. Clearly NOT 100% for EB3IC unless you can prove that nobody applied from ROW July 2007 onward.

c. FY 2015 -
EB3IC will get 36K and ROW will get 4K (90% and 10%).
BACKLOG: 0
Somewhere in the middle of the year all countries backlog till July 2007 is cleared and FIFO is followed. Clearly NOT 100% for EB3IC unless you can prove that nobody applied from ROW July 2007 onward.


EB2:

Backlog (till April 2012):

EB2IC - 93,000 (Adjusted from Original 47,914 - see note below)
ROW - 12,976 (Including Mexico and Phillipines)

Note on EB2IC numbers: It is widely agreed that the inventory numbers for EB2IC may not be upto date in the inventory. Historically the number of applications from India and China have never exceeded 20K per year. So going by that, I added 55,000 (15K till Apr 2010 and 20K each for Apr 2011 and April 2012 - even though i know that is too high). If you do not agree with this assumption, pretty much there is no point in looking at EB2 calculations. However most important thing is that I was able to prove that EB3IC definately will not get 100% at any point of time)

Assume that HR3012 becomes law and it is applied effective October 2012.

a. FY 2013 -
EB2IC will get 34K and ROW will get 6K (85% and 15%)
BACKLOG: EB2IC 49,000 ROW 6,976

b. FY 2014 -
EB2IC will get 36K and ROW will get 4K (90% and 10%)
BACKLOG: EB2IC 13,000 ROW 2,976

c. FY 2015 -
EB3IC will get 36K and ROW will get 4K (90% and 10%).
BACKLOG: 0
Somewhere in the middle of the year all countries backlog till April 2012 is cleared and FIFO is followed. Clearly NOT 100% for EB2IC unless you can prove that nobody applied from ROW April 2012 onward.


Conclusion:
Clearly at no point EBIC will get more than 100%. If you think I have missed something fundamental, I appreciate constructive feedback so that we can fine tune the above.

[abcx13]

You are missing the fact that ROW backlog will grow after 2012 if HR3012 passes.

[skpanda]

The point of the argument is that - will EBIC get 100% green cards after 3 year period?

Note the data is as of July 2007 for EB3 and Apr 2012 for EB2. Once they reach those dates.. it is FIFO.

In my calculations i have proven that PD will reach July 2007 for EB3 and Apr 2012 for EB2 (with some assumptions) around the 2nd/3rd Year of the transition period after which it will be FIFO.

So when does EBIC get 100% of green cards?


You are missing the fact that ROW backlog will grow after 2012 if HR3012 passes.

[abcx13]

The point of the argument is that will EBIC get 100% green cards after 3 year period?

In my calculations i have proven PD will be reach July 2007 for EB3 and Apr 2012 for EB2 around the 2nd/3rd Year of the transition period after which it will be FIFO.

Note the data is as of July 2007 for EB3 and Apr 2012 for EB2. Once they reach those dates.. it is FIFO.

So when does EBIC get 100% of green cards?

Not under your numbers, but it doesn't matter. As unfair as country quotas are to us, the EB pool will be dominated by IT workers from India. The country of origin is not the problem; it is the industry concentration and the fact that there is indeed a lot of wage arbitrage happening (partly due to country quotas and the long wait IC faces). It's hard to say if a large influx of questionably-skilled IT workers, at the cost of others such as doctors, other engineers, etc., will be a net benefit to the economy.

And to be honest, EB2IC will probably get 100% of GCs at some point unless the standards are tightened. The demand shows no signs of abating and my guess is that once GCs are allocated in FIFO and the wait goes down, more people from IC will be willing to wait 5 years and the numbers will swell.

My views are contrarian and most people here don't like/agree with them so take it for what it's worth.

[skpanda]

I agree to what you are saying... but unless they come with rules of quota in industry... it cannot be avoided. may be a points system may help.

Back to my calcualtions.. You cited EB2IC may get 100%... that can happen only when not a single person applies from ROW. I doubt that will be ever be the case. Your thoughts..


Not under your numbers, but it doesn't matter. As unfair as country quotas are to us, the EB pool will be dominated by IT workers from India. The country of origin is not the problem; it is the industry concentration and the fact that there is indeed a lot of wage arbitrage happening (partly due to country quotas and the long wait IC faces). It's hard to say if a large influx of questionably-skilled IT workers, at the cost of others such as doctors, other engineers, etc., will be a net benefit to the economy.

And to be honest, EB2IC will probably get 100% of GCs at some point unless the standards are tightened. The demand shows no signs of abating and my guess is that once GCs are allocated in FIFO and the wait goes down, more people from IC will be willing to wait 5 years and the numbers will swell.

My views are contrarian and most people here don't like/agree with them so take it for what it's worth.

[abcx13]

I agree to what you are saying... but unless they come with rules of quota in industry... it cannot be avoided. may be a points system may help.

Back to my calcualtions.. You cited EB2IC may get 100%... that can happen only when not a single person applies from ROW. I doubt that will be ever be the case. Your thoughts..

A points system would undoubtedly solve this issue once and for all. But you have idiots like Roberto Menendez who thinks it is stupid because his parents (a carpenter and seamstress) would not be able to migrate to the US under it. (as if they could now with the backlog for unskilled people) And I suspect a lot of IC immigrants won't support it if it considers Indian non-engg degrees inferior to a proper 4 yr degree like the Danish points system does.

Re 100%, I see what you are saying and I think you are right. But ROW will be backlogged due to high demand from IC (mostly I), which they will consider unfair. Country quotas were stupid in the first place, and if they are abolished, at least all immigrants will be on the same side for arguing for true reform like a points system or higher quotas. Right now, ROWers don't care. Only ICers do. IC has undoubtedly made the situation worse for themselves, but you might see more calls for a points system once it becomes clear that IT is creating backlogs at the expense of other equally valuable STEM occupations. Right now, it's really not an issue because most IT immigrants are from India and they are back-logged, but immigrants from anywhere else, who are not as concentrated in IT, can get in. The ratio of IT to non-IT immigrants will change markedly if HR 3012 passes.

[gs1968]

Same ploy again from the Senate-File cloture on the motion to proceed on the cybersecurity Bill and instead of Friday they will reach agreement tomorrow followed by a 3 day weekend again.File cloture on the main Bill tomorrow after agreeing to proceed and invite amendments with a final vote Monday or Tuesday

On a different note-the Senate passed a Bill for the relief of Sopuruchi Chukwueke to enable him to get a Green card. His story is remarkable and most of us have not gone through anything in our lives like he has

http://victorshope.org/

[GhostWriter]

Points based system has its own issues as it is not a labor market (demand-supply) based system.
The link below does a comparison between Employment based (US) and Points based (Canada) systems, page 3 mentions issues with points based systems (and page 4 mentions issues with the other one).

(In my opinion) The current US system needs a reform but to fix areas where demand-supply equation is being artificially tampered with (H1-B caps, Green card caps, country limits).
A points based system leaves more in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians instead of letting labor market determine the areas with skills shortage.

Even if we account for some manipulation (5-10%) Labor Certification step quite effectively tries to fill a valid open position that can not be filled with domestically available talent pool.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/rethinkingpointssystem.pdf



A points system would undoubtedly solve this issue once and for all. But you have idiots like Roberto Menendez who thinks it is stupid because his parents (a carpenter and seamstress) would not be able to migrate to the US under it. (as if they could now with the backlog for unskilled people) And I suspect a lot of IC immigrants won't support it if it considers Indian non-engg degrees inferior to a proper 4 yr degree like the Danish points system does.

[immitime]

US, needs reform on immigration, this wording is going on for at least a decade now, but with the present laws nothing is happening in Washington. The first thing, which should be changed is the Fillibuster law. They should reform the filibuster law in such a way that one can fillibuster if 63 Senators are supporting it, the one Sentor fillibuster law should be abolished, ( think of it. majority is agreeing but one Senator is blocking!), at least in this political situation.

[vizcard]

US, needs reform on immigration, this wording is going on for at least a decade now, but with the present laws nothing is happening in Washington. The first thing, which should be changed is the Fillibuster law. They should reform the filibuster law in such a way that one can fillibuster if 63 Senators are supporting it, the one Sentor fillibuster law should be abolished, ( think of it. majority is agreeing but one Senator is blocking!), at least in this political situation.

This should give you some hope
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/

[immitime]

This should give you some hope
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/

LOL... hope after listening to a Politician! that to a Career politician like Sen.Reid! common... this is like writing in Water! Do you believe If I say he is the main hindrance now for our H.R.3012, because he thinks republican Bil.... hope you got it.. call his office requesting for unanimous vote in the Senate.

[jackbrown_890]

There must be some negotiations going on behind closed doors.
I wonder if they would combine 3012 & S.3245 (eb-5 bill) and pass em en'bloc. 3245 is proposed by leahy and co-sponsored by Schumer & Grassley. 3245 is stuck in Judiciary committee but if they want to continue Eb-5 program they will have to re-authorize that program before Sept. end. (just curious, Has any1 heard any news/rumors?)

[chengisk]

There must be some negotiations going on behind closed doors.
I wonder if they would combine 3012 & S.3245 (eb-5 bill) and pass em en'bloc. 3245 is proposed by leahy and co-sponsored by Schumer & Grassley. 3245 is stuck in Judiciary committee but if they want to continue Eb-5 program they will have to re-authorize that program before Sept. end. (just curious, Has any1 heard any news/rumors?)

Absolutely, there is every chance for that. I will not be surprised if STEM components are also added as enhancement to the bill as well. Plus currently 3012 is also in the judiciary committee as is the 3245.

[gs1968]

To JackBrown
Hope your wishes are true as we are now down to educated guesses in the absence of any official word on 3012.The Senate leaders according to C-Span are working on an agreement to bring the cybersecurity bill forward.
In terms of the EB-5 program,there is no urgency for them to finish next week as they will be back in session in September to sort this out. The S.3245 Bill is for permanent reauthorization of the EB-5 and other programs. However Sen.Leahy has already included a 3 year extension of the Program under the Senate Version of the DHS Appropriations Bill which will most likely pass in September and will be reconciled in Conference with the already passed House Version of DHS Appropriations.

http://www.millermayer.com/content/view/eb-5-legislative-update.html

[gcseeker]

Absolutely, there is every chance for that. I will not be surprised if STEM components are also added as enhancement to the bill as well. Plus currently 3012 is also in the judiciary committee as is the 3245.

I thought the STEM bill had negotiations break down last week...not entirely sure .


Also no word on HR3012 so far...A bill with this much support will surely get passed ...but looks like the timeline is going to be post Sep session.

Senate leaves for recess on August 6th(Monday) so 4th next friday will be the last working day.

[jackbrown_890]

house is already done for the week and won't be back till Tuesday....lets see what else senate does today..(other thn cyber security)

[chengisk]

Senate is agreed to invoke cloture on cybersecurity (on Lieberman's request) and now McConnell wants a Burmah Sanction Bill. I think it would be Schumer who might ask for a cloture on 3012... but God only knows when.

[gs1968]

Senate is probably done for the week also

"Senator Reid filed cloture on Executive Calendar #759, the nomination of Robert E. Bacharach, of Oklahoma, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit. We expect the vote to occur at 5:30pm Monday."
There is probably going to be no other business conducted till this cloture ripens and the Senators are likely already heading home

[jackbrown_890]

check this out,,
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54567129-90/immigration-bill-chaffetz-cards.html.csp
http://dev.utahbusiness.com/news/view/chaffetz_bill_would_help_immigrant_entrepreneurs
http://conyersinthehouse.blogspot.com/2012/07/conyers-introduces-bipartisan-bill-to.html
new bill right now from Chaffetz? lets see what s included when we get details...
i wish Chaffetz would work on passing 3012 before working on new bill right now..

[vizcard]

check this out,,
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54567129-90/immigration-bill-chaffetz-cards.html.csp
http://dev.utahbusiness.com/news/view/chaffetz_bill_would_help_immigrant_entrepreneurs
http://conyersinthehouse.blogspot.com/2012/07/conyers-introduces-bipartisan-bill-to.html
new bill right now from Chaffetz? lets see what s included when we get details...
i wish Chaffetz would work on passing 3012 before working on new bill right now..

Not much he can do if the bill is in the Senate. Besides he can't put all his political eggs in the 3012 basket.

[immitime]

Never analyze too much, on this political maneavers. It always happens on one side. Like the coin has two sides, each and every political issue also have its pros and cons, it might take some time, imagine the rough sea and a huge storm coming(election). The boat has to reach the shore. It has to go through tough time on its final spell to reach the shore because of the rough waves!. Hold on to your positivism. Delay is only to make the result more sweeter. I am sure that Sen.Majority Leader already scheduled in his plan H.R.3012, the moment Sen Grassuncle lifted the hold! so it is only the question of timing.

As I indicated in the earlier posts, if this bill is passed, it will favour republican party to some extent politically, or in another words that itself is a counter weapon for republicans for the election campaign against BO, so the Majority Leader want to delay H.R.3012 as much as possible, But there are resistance for his hesitation. Please keep the positive vibes as always. A Day will come when this bill will be the Law of the Land!

Good luck to all, Praying for all.

[chengisk]

http://politico.com/morningtech/


Now that Sen. Chuck Grassley has lifted his hold, Rep. Jason Chaffetz is hopeful his immigration bill — which would remove the per-country visa cap but not increase the overall number of visas available for highly-skilled workers — can advance. "I’m more optimistic that it will actually move in the Senate now than I have ever been," Chaffetz told MT on Thursday. "Sen. Grassley had some serious concerns, we addressed those, he made a fix and it made the bill better. Now it’s time to move on."


Not much, just Sen. Chaftez's hope. Well my hope too. And a hope many of us share too.

[immitime]

Hello All,

Following was posted on another forum. I just cut and paste that here, Just if some one is happy hearing it let it be.

Keep our positive Vibes as always. Praying for all.

Quote

Just wanted to let all HR 3012 supporters that our time has come and that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Our efforts have finally come to fruition thanks to thousands of ** supporters and donors. So, brothers and sisters, do not despair. We shall be victorious next week.

I know for a fact from ** Core that HR 3012 will pass the Senate next week and will very soon become LAW OF THE LAND. Since I am not allow to publish any news as it strictly forbidden as per ** core, I'll just give you guys some hints. Those who know how to read it will know the truth of how 3012 will happen. The haters and antis can say whatever they wish.

....




Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he’s open to having amendments to the cybersecurity bill and hopes to vote on them next week.

“There’s plenty of room for changes,” Reid said on the floor Thursday. “Let’s have as many amendments as people feel appropriate.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/24...
http://www.politico.com/morningtech/
CHAFFETZ HOPEFUL ON IMMIGRATION — Now that Sen. Chuck Grassley has lifted his hold, Rep. Jason Chaffetz is hopeful his immigration bill — which would remove the per-country visa cap but not increase the overall number of visas available for highly-skilled workers — can advance. "I’m more optimistic that it will actually move in the Senate now than I have ever been," Chaffetz told MT on Thursday. "Sen. Grassley had some serious concerns, we addressed those, he made a fix and it made the bill better. Now it’s time to move on."

Unquote:

[abcx13]

Wow, they're going to tack it on to the Cybersecurity bill as an amendment? Gutsy. But it will still have to be reconciled with the House version, no? I thought there were more contentious issues with the two versions of the cybersecurity bill.

I guess next week will be it.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Wow, they're going to tack it on to the Cybersecurity bill as an amendment? Gutsy. But it will still have to be reconciled with the House version, no? I thought there were more contentious issues with the two versions of the cybersecurity bill.

I guess next week will be it.

I hope they don't add HR 3012 on cybersecurity bill, my friend.

Sen. Reid has asked Senators to come up with amendments and add it to this bill. In response to that, Sen. Schumer is adding a gun-control amendment to the cybersecurity bill.

I don't know the details of his amendment but do you think the Republicans will let it pass with gun-control amendment added on it? I highly doubt it.

I am sure this bill will be killed if amendments like these are added on it. I think we have to wait for more amendments to be added on cybersecurity bill to have some idea about bill's fate. But I feel that HR 3012 should not be added on that bill as an amendment if the bill is going to have any other controversial amendments.

I think this bill probably won't pass and will die in the Senate but you never know if they pull out a surprise. Even if it passes the Senate, the House may be a major obstacle. Lets keep a close eye on it. We don't know what kind of backdoor deals are going on. Lets keep the hope alive.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/schumer-adds-gun-control-amendment-to-cybersecurity-bill/

[vizcard]

I doubt they will add immigration to a cyber security bill. Just doesn't make sense.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Firstly, let's not give too much credibility to these "I have inside information that I'm not supposed to share but here is a hint" kind of posts.

Secondly, even if this dude has some inside info, I don't think he was suggesting that they'll add this to the cybersecurity bill. I think he was bringing attention to the 'vote next week' part of the quote, with the idea that once that's done they'll take up 3012. Long stretch, but adding 3012 as an amendment to the cybersecurity bill seems a longer stretch to me.

[chengisk]

Same O Same O...

http://www.murthy.com/2012/07/30/h-r-3012-update-still-a-legislative-proposal/

A long article to say nothing more... but does once again mention additional holds, and amendments

[immitime]

No wonder Murthy is an attorney. who now oppposes H.r.3012. any attorney site bluffs nowadays. Ron, Murthy, OH etc etc... so take the above article as false.

[qesehmk]

Agree Jonty. That's why I am skeptical about Harry Reid's comments. They almost look like a codeword about - we don't really want to do this.
...
I am sure this bill will be killed if amendments like these are added on it.

[A_Tech_Softie]

HR3012 would be passed only after the Nov elections. Otherwise, we would have received update by now.

[bvsamrat]

It appears so. I am having doubts if this ever could become law.


HR3012 would be passed only after the Nov elections. Otherwise, we would have received update by now.

[chengisk]

It appears so. I am having doubts if this ever could become law.

<sigh> There is a lot of headwind against the bill now. It had virtually none in the house. The opposition took cognizance after Grassley did his hold. Opposition just blossomed after he undid his hold and is now a rushing flood with his amendments. Yet all seems serene in the world of senate.

[rupen86]

If it is not passed before the election, the momentum will be lost and it is hard to tell if and when it would pass. Every time we thought this bill is dead, it has come back and surprised us. It seems difficult to stay positive though. There is absolutely no new news coming out. Last week, someone suggested it could be added to Cyber Security. Although this seems weird, weird seems to be the norm in senate. Schumer was planning to introduce gun control amendment to cyber security. He could as well add HR 3012 to it.

[chengisk]

If it is not passed before the election, the momentum will be lost and it is hard to tell if and when it would pass. Every time we thought this bill is dead, it has come back and surprised us. It seems difficult to stay positive though. There is absolutely no new news coming out. Last week, someone suggested it could be added to Cyber Security. Although this seems weird, weird seems to be the norm in senate. Schumer was planning to introduce gun control amendment to cyber security. He could as well add HR 3012 to it.

NOw the talk is to add it to senator Leahy's EB5 bill.

[rupen86]

NOw the talk is to add it to senator Leahy's EB5 bill.

That being the case, they can introduce it in late September when EB5 is about to expire. That will create some urgency to pass it but I had read that EB5 is already added to appropriation bill. May be, they do not take up that appropriation bill which will create some kind of urgency to pass 3012 along with EB5. That being the case, we have to rest till September which seems to be the case now as I think chances of passing it before August recess seems very bleak now. Do we know Senate's September schedule ?

[vishnu]

According to Bloomberg article today, House & Senate leaders said to agree on stopgap bill. House Speaker John Boehner may announce the agreement as soon as today, they said. A Senate Democratic leadership aide also said House and Senate negotiators are nearing an agreement on a six-month stopgap funding bill at the level agreed to in the August 2011 Budget Control Act, which also increased the nation’s debt ceiling.

I think EB5 extention gets included in this, and my gut (and based on nothing else) says HR 3012 could be included in this bill too.

[rupen86]

That being the case, they can introduce it in late September when EB5 is about to expire. That will create some urgency to pass it but I had read that EB5 is already added to appropriation bill. May be, they do not take up that appropriation bill which will create some kind of urgency to pass 3012 along with EB5. That being the case, we have to rest till September which seems to be the case now as I think chances of passing it before August recess seems very bleak now. Do we know Senate's September schedule ?

Their September schedule is from Sept 10-14 and 19-21.

[rupen86]

According to Bloomberg article today, House & Senate leaders said to agree on stopgap bill. House Speaker John Boehner may announce the agreement as soon as today, they said. A Senate Democratic leadership aide also said House and Senate negotiators are nearing an agreement on a six-month stopgap funding bill at the level agreed to in the August 2011 Budget Control Act, which also increased the nation’s debt ceiling.

I think EB5 extention gets included in this, and my gut (and based on nothing else) says HR 3012 could be included in this bill too.

I doubt they will do that. Reid has cautioned against including unrelated amendments. I think if this is to be done, this would be done as a separate bill combined with EB5 bill.

[cbpds1]

ur point is very valid, Dems do not want to give in to Repub on immigration


If it is not passed before the election, the momentum will be lost and it is hard to tell if and when it would pass. Every time we thought this bill is dead, it has come back and surprised us. It seems difficult to stay positive though. There is absolutely no new news coming out. Last week, someone suggested it could be added to Cyber Security. Although this seems weird, weird seems to be the norm in senate. Schumer was planning to introduce gun control amendment to cyber security. He could as well add HR 3012 to it.

[rupen86]

I doubt they will do that. Reid has cautioned against including unrelated amendments. I think if this is to be done, this would be done as a separate bill combined with EB5 bill.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/reid-boehner-announce-stopgap-spending-184551028.html

The details of this will be ironed out in August recess. We have to see what gets included in this.

[PD2008AUG25]

ur point is very valid, Dems do not want to give in to Repub on immigration

It is probably naive but I think they didn't hold negotiations and put effort in convincing Grassley to lift the hold for nothing. If they really didn't want to or never really cared, why do all that drama? Not that drama will help boost their image and would be easy to let Grassley take blame for its death.

There are some people in the Senate who think it is good idea and want to get it done. That's our only hope.

[immitime]

ur point is very valid, Dems do not want to give in to Repub on immigration

This is what exactly mentioned in earlier posts, so H.R.3012 is going to be only after the Senate recess, or for sure after November elections

Probably this is what happening.

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. Depends on Harry Reid's decision. that means (White house advisory). mostly after elections!

[rupen86]

This is what exactly mentioned in earlier posts, so H.R.3012 is going to be only after the Senate recess, or for sure after November elections

Probably this is what happening.

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. Depends on Harry Reid's decision. that means (White house advisory). mostly after elections!

I am not sure how much political mileage one can get with this bill. This is not something that general public would be aware of. It is not discussed in mainstream media. Those who support this are not voters. Those who oppose this are not voters.

[chengisk]

http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2012-07-31/hr3012-update-july-31.html

Lots of people have posted on their blog that they know nothing in 1500 words or less.... and Ron's joined the ranks.

[immitime]

I am not sure how much political mileage one can get with this bill. This is not something that general public would be aware of. It is not discussed in mainstream media. Those who support this are not voters. Those who oppose this are not voters.

Its all Politics, at least if this bill passes Republicans can claim credit when subject of immigration comes up, at least during Presidential debate.

Think of Republican canditate scoring points by saying that our immigration bill initiated by our Congress rep, passed Congress & Senate and we can do bipartisan. And this is the matter of Real Legal Immigration. A sensitive issue like immigration score votes. They will show in such a way that at the same time President has given back door amnesty to children of Illegal Mexicans! overcoming congress decision that is a great point during this elections.

[rupen86]

http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2012-07-31/hr3012-update-july-31.html

Lots of people have posted on their blog that they know nothing in 1500 words or less.... and Ron's joined the ranks.

Before lame duck, in September, putting this as part of EB5 might be doable thing. At this point, unless some magic happens, passing it before August recess seem negligible.

[chengisk]

Check page 71 (Under rules... etc)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-112scal-2012-08-01/pdf/CCAL-112scal-2012-08-01.pdf

[longgcque]

OK. Thanks for sharing. So what is next ?


Check page 71 (Under rules... etc)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-112scal-2012-08-01/pdf/CCAL-112scal-2012-08-01.pdf

[rupen86]

Its all Politics, at least if this bill passes Republicans can claim credit when subject of immigration comes up, at least during Presidential debate.

Think of Republican canditate scoring points by saying that our immigration bill initiated by our Congress rep, passed Congress & Senate and we can do bipartisan. And this is the matter of Real Legal Immigration. A sensitive issue like immigration score votes. They will show in such a way that at the same time President has given back door amnesty to children of Illegal Mexicans! overcoming congress decision that is a great point during this elections.

I agree that it is politics. But that being the case, there was no need to negotiate. They could have allowed hold to remain until the election was over. Then democrats could claim that Republicans are holding the bill. I would think that after the hold was lifted, new situation might have emerged as some people are suggesting about silent holds or that there is a plan to make it a bigger bill may be in September.

[chengisk]

OK. Thanks for sharing. So what is next ?

I doubt if even the Hon. Senators know the answer to that question. Today and tomorrow they will wrangle with S.3414 as cloture was filed for that bill yesterday. However I see that it contains nearly 150 amendments to it. That includes EB-5 and Conrad 30 (which was a separate bill - S.3245). But what is going to be an issue is an amendment on ammunition control from Sen. Lautenberg that is being attached to 3414. Unless someone negotiates the removal of ammunition amendment, S.3414 is a dead bill. I believe they got till tomorrow to do this. I am 99% sure there is no amendment that includes the H.R.3012 language in it among the list of amendments to S.3414.

[jackbrown_890]

Check page 71 (Under rules... etc)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-112scal-2012-08-01/pdf/CCAL-112scal-2012-08-01.pdf

I think HOLD was officially removed on July 11. most probably the GPO website was finally updated on 1st day of August.

[rupen86]

I doubt if even the Hon. Senators know the answer to that question. Today and tomorrow they will wrangle with S.3414 as cloture was filed for that bill yesterday. However I see that it contains nearly 150 amendments to it. That includes EB-5 and Conrad 30 (which was a separate bill - S.3245). But what is going to be an issue is an amendment on ammunition control from Sen. Lautenberg that is being attached to 3414. Unless someone negotiates the removal of ammunition amendment, S.3414 is a dead bill. I believe they got till tomorrow to do this. I am 99% sure there is no amendment that includes the H.R.3012 language in it among the list of amendments to S.3414.

Reid is suggesting that he does not like unrelated amendment. Don't know why that does not apply to gun control amendment as that has been proposed by Schumer. Going by that logic, EB5 should also not be part of it. Let's see whether this passes and with which amendments.

[redsox2009]

Is this is True?

Just now Trackitt posted HR3012 was passed in senate. Is this is true.

[chengisk]

Is this is True?

Just now Trackitt posted HR3012 was passed in senate. Is this is true.

You rely on trackitt forum? :o
It is replete with madmen...

[gcseeker]

You rely on trackitt forum? :o
It is replete with madmen...

:D Lol good one. Redsox buddy you would have seen tons of articles erupt on the national media if HR3012 got passed. It will not happen so silently.

Anywaz I agree with many of the posters who have posted above, most probably the best chance would be in September.I do not see the senate getting beyond S3414 today or tomorrow.

[gcseeker]

Reid is suggesting that he does not like unrelated amendment. Don't know why that does not apply to gun control amendment as that has been proposed by Schumer. Going by that logic, EB5 should also not be part of it. Let's see whether this passes and with which amendments.

In other words Reid is stalling ...all his statements so far have been intrepreted by the masses as being favourable. Gun control is a favourite topic for the democrats, EB5 is another favourite topic for both parties since it is related to setting up businesses and generating jobs ( that's the spin ) . So both of them will be allowed to piggy back on rest of the bills.

[redsox2009]

There is a possibilty of this Bill getting voted.

Based on this article, Bill is introduced as Hotline bill.
http://www.immigrateme.com/senator-grassley-kills-h-r-3012/

Hotline bill doesn't come to senate floor for voting, below article.

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=HoldingSpending

Crossing my fingers.............Hope voting occured and bill passed.................:confused:

[longgcque]

Wont I V broadcast this already if it would have happen ... only t r k i t t is abuzz with this news .. as someone started a thread there that 3012 has passed.


There is a possibilty of this Bill getting voted.

Based on this article, Bill is introduced as Hotline bill.
http://www.immigrateme.com/senator-grassley-kills-h-r-3012/

Hotline bill doesn't come to senate floor for voting, below article.

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=HoldingSpending

Crossing my fingers.............Hope voting occured and bill passed.................:confused:

[A_Tech_Softie]

Based on this article, Bill is introduced as Hotline bill.
http://www.immigrateme.com/senator-grassley-kills-h-r-3012/



The first article link is not dated and look at the statements it is referring to the first Sen. Grassley's amendment back in Dec 2011. "To release his hold Grassley wants dramatic changes including: reducing the employment based per-country limit to 15% and eliminating the family per-county limit increase."

Anyways, I don't know how you interpreted that the bill as Hotline bill?

[redsox2009]

The first article link is not dated and look at the statements it is referring to the first Sen. Grassley's amendment back in Dec 2011. "To release his hold Grassley wants dramatic changes including: reducing the employment based per-country limit to 15% and eliminating the family per-county limit increase."

Anyways, I don't know how you interpreted that the bill as Hotline bill?


First few lines from article............

"Rep. Chafetz’ bill (H.R. 3012) which would phase out the per-country limit for employment-based immigrants and increase the limit for family-based passed the House. It was put into the “hotline” process in the Senate, which means that the bill can be halted if any member objects. And, not surprisingly Senator Grassley put a hold on it."

[rupen86]

First few lines from article............

"Rep. Chafetz’ bill (H.R. 3012) which would phase out the per-country limit for employment-based immigrants and increase the limit for family-based passed the House. It was put into the “hotline” process in the Senate, which means that the bill can be halted if any member objects. And, not surprisingly Senator Grassley put a hold on it."

This hotline news had come in December. That's when it might have been put on hotline. But there is no news of hotline now.

[redsox2009]

This hotline news had come in December. That's when it might have been put on hotline. But there is no news of hotline now.

This news did not come as hotline news, it clearly says Bill is placed in Hotline Process. I don't know if the bill in senate will change if hold is placed or it will no more holds good as Hotline process.

Anyway lets cross our fingers and hope for the best..........................

[rupen86]

This news did not come as hotline news, it clearly says Bill is placed in Hotline Process. I don't know if the bill in senate will change if hold is placed or it will no more holds good as Hotline process.

Anyway lets cross our fingers and hope for the best..........................

It says it was put on hotline process but does not tell when. It is most likely referring to December.

[kuku82]

I don't think the senate rules allow hotlining a bill that is going to be amended....unless ofcourse 'uncleji' is now willing to let it pass without his LCA changes.

[gcseeker]

I don't think the senate rules allow hotlining a bill that is going to be amended....unless ofcourse 'uncleji' is now willing to let it pass without his LCA changes.

There is no hotlining going on. All the hoopla was based on some crazy comments on Trackitt. Even if the bill is hotlined ( first of all big if ) it is brought up to be voted at the end of the day. Also hotline is reserved for non controversial bills.

It is the stress causing all this...first there was the rumour that it is getting attached to Cybersecurity...then it was that it is being clubbed with EB5....then that it has become part of the 70 amendments on S3414.

And now Hotlining.

[gcseeker]

Ron also posted in his forum that heard Reid's interview today morning and that Reid,Speaker and President had just finished discussions about some important bills and one of them was about continuing government funding for programs like EB5 through March.

It now takes the pressure off congress to stay in session and most of the Senators will be leaving early on Friday for the month long recess.

HR3012 would have to be taken up in September.

[gcseeker]

Senate concluded its business for today.No mention of HR3012 tomorrow either .If you were watching CSPAN Reid sounded off on a ton of things including more discussion on Cybersecurity and sanctions.

Friday is the last working day.

[Jonty Rhodes]

We shall wait and see what happens in September when Senate reconvenes for a short time. Frankly speaking, I don't have lot of hopes for this bill to make it during September session since they may be talking about funding the Government for next six months which may eat up all of their time.

Lame duck could be possible. But it will again depend on election results.

I am not losing hopes though because I feel that there is something cooking back door. I feel when Sen. Grassley released the hold, it would have been for some reason. He did not need to lift the hold if he just wanted to kill the bill. My gut feeling says that there is something going on. Lets keep the hope alive.

[abcx13]

^Agreed. No point lifting the hold if it was going to die anyway. And if someone else wanted to kill it, I suspect they would have voiced their concern/view to Grassley.

[gcseeker]

I am not losing hopes though because I feel that there is something cooking back door. I feel when Sen. Grassley released the hold, it would have been for some reason. He did not need to lift the hold if he just wanted to kill the bill. My gut feeling says that there is something going on. Lets keep the hope alive.

I hope it passes in Sep .The reason Grassley lifted his hold was because he has been trying to pass stringent Audit laws for the past decade.With this bill he sensed a opportunity to get that done and then a compromise was reached with the group lobbying for the bill.

If not for altruistic reasons, hope atleast out of this give and take they get back to the negotiating table in Sep.

[vishnu]

On ** site, one of the senior members posted asking members to write to companies to request them to write to senators to pass bill. So looks like advocacy efforts are still ongoing... That dashes any hopes for senate passage today. We have to wait for September.

[vizcard]

Hopefully all of the below especially Chaffetz get re-elected. Plus all the key Senators supporting the Bill. Immigration is the only area where I'm a "righty".

Rep Chaffetz, Jason
Rep Flake, Jeff
Rep Goodlatte, Bob
Rep Griffin, Tim
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V.
Rep Holt, Rush D.
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr.
Rep Lofgren, Zoe
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B.
Rep Moran, James P.
Rep Smith, Lamar
Rep Thompson, Glenn

[rupen86]

On ** site, one of the senior members posted asking members to write to companies to request them to write to senators to pass bill. So looks like advocacy efforts are still ongoing... That dashes any hopes for senate passage today. We have to wait for September.

That seems like a negative thing to me. At this stage, if you have to ask again for lobbying that means it is stuck somewhere. If that is indeed the case, chances of passing this in September does not seem high.

[IsItWorthTheTrouble]

That seems like a negative thing to me. At this stage, if you have to ask again for lobbying that means it is stuck somewhere. If that is indeed the case, chances of passing this in September does not seem high.

or I guess they are starting early on their lobbying efforts with the next congress!! Last few weeks were really interesting but it did turn out to be a anti-climax & I guess its R.I.P. for HR 3012.

[rupen86]

or I guess they are starting early on their lobbying efforts with the next congress!! Last few weeks were really interesting but it did turn out to be a anti-climax & I guess its R.I.P. for HR 3012.

That could be right. It is really disappointing to see year long effort being wasted, but I guess that is how the life is. If simple bills like this can not pass, I do not see anything on legal immigration getting passed.

[chengisk]

That could be right. It is really disappointing to see year long effort being wasted, but I guess that is how the life is. If simple bills like this can not pass, I do not see anything on legal immigration getting passed.

Got to agree with some of the assessments reg. this bill made in the above posts. The prospects now are extremely extremely dim. The humongous support base it had prior to the lifting of the hold, I believe, does not exist now. For one, AILA will not support the bill with amendments. They just abhor Grassley. I am not sure if US Chamber of Commerce is interested in it any longer either. That is basically due to the amendment being perceived as not business friendly.

[devi_pd]

If a simple technical bill like this cannot pass congress, I don't know what will. There is no point introducing immigration related legislations like STEM when there is absolutely no chance of passing.

[Jonty Rhodes]

If a simple technical bill like this cannot pass congress, I don't know what will. There is no point introducing immigration related legislations like STEM when there is absolutely no chance of passing.

I second that. The Senate is deeply mired in electoral politics usually and more so during election year and that is why you see a stand-still in Washington. I mean, if the cybersecurity bill which is actually a bill of national interest and importance could not make it through Senate, we should just forget about HR 3012 going through the Senate which is of least importance to the Senators.

For things to improve in Senate, they need to have some major constitutional amendments and change rules of holding the bills, limiting the debate time, change rules of adding amendments, banning anonymous holds and rules of filibustering. Right now, it is too easy for any Senator to kill the bill without any proper reason by holding it publicly or anonymously or endlessly debating it and filibustering or adding unrelated controversial amendments. Things will improve only when Senators' powers are curtailed. Otherwise don't expect the situation to change much. But than why the Senators would bring these changes giving up their own powers to kill the bills and play partisan politics? That is the irony of the situation so chances of anything changing in future is quite low in my opinion.

On the other hand, I still feel that HR 3012 is not dead yet. As I have said in my previous posts, something must be cooking backdoor that only ** members and the advocacy group know. Until the official word is out, I would not consider the bill dead.

President Obama can get rid of this problem once and for all by passing the executive order if he wants to, like he did for Deferred Action on certain DREAMers earlier. The sad part is, he won't do it because there is no electoral benefit in doing that since Asians don't constitute a major vote bank in US yet unlike Hispanics. So the wait continues.

[rupen86]

I second that. The Senate is deeply mired in electoral politics usually and more so during election year and that is why you see a stand-still in Washington. I mean, if the cybersecurity bill which is actually a bill of national interest and importance could not make it through Senate, we should just forget about HR 3012 going through the Senate which is of least importance to the Senators.

For things to improve in Senate, they need to have some major constitutional amendments and change rules of holding the bills, limiting the debate time, change rules of adding amendments, banning anonymous holds and rules of filibustering. Right now, it is too easy for any Senator to kill the bill without any proper reason by holding it publicly or anonymously or endlessly debating it and filibustering or adding unrelated controversial amendments. Things will improve only when Senators' powers are curtailed. Otherwise don't expect the situation to change much. But than why the Senators would bring these changes giving up their own powers to kill the bills and play partisan politics? That is the irony of the situation so chances of anything changing in future is quite low in my opinion.

On the other hand, I still feel that HR 3012 is not dead yet. As I have said in my previous posts, something must be cooking backdoor that only ** members and the advocacy group know. Until the official word is out, I would not consider the bill dead.

President Obama can get rid of this problem once and for all by passing the executive order if he wants to, like he did for Deferred Action on certain DREAMers earlier. The sad part is, he won't do it because there is no electoral benefit in doing that since Asians don't constitute a major vote bank in US yet unlike Hispanics. So the wait continues.

That seems correct analysis. Holding a bill is like getting some other thing done for you which you could not get it done otherwise. The hold can be for any purpose which may not have to do anything with the bill. Expecting Obama to do anything is useless. He has proven to be the most anti-legal immigration president ever. I hope my negative sentiment is proven wrong and something comes out positive.

[vizcard]

That seems correct analysis. Holding a bill is like getting some other thing done for you which you could not get it done otherwise. The hold can be for any purpose which may not have to do anything with the bill. Expecting Obama to do anything is useless. He has proven to be the most anti-legal immigration president ever. I hope my negative sentiment is proven wrong and something comes out positive.

harry reid has "promised" that he will work on the whole "hold" concept if they are re-elected. So we'll see what happens. Also, I wouldn't call Obama anti-legal immigration. At worst he is neutral. He has already given his support to removing per-country limits. Further, there's nothing he can do if its stuck in Congress.

Obviously its not on the top of his list of priorities as it won't give him any political mileage. Besides there are other more pressing issues that need to be dealt with as well. Paying for the goverment and taxes being two of them.

[gs1968]

From today's senate wrap-up

"Discharged the Judiciary Committee and passed S.3245, reauthorization of the EB-5 Regional Center Program, the E-Verify Program, the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program, and the Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Waiver Program with a Leahy-Grassley substitute amendment and a Leahy-Grassley title amendment."

This eliminates HR 3012 provisions as an addition to this Bill which was widely expected. However as I have previously mentioned,this Bill is for PERMANENT re-authorization of this Program and my guess is that only a temporary extension will pass this year after negotiations.Hence there is still some room for manouver.
Senate adjourned till Sept 10 and only one judicial nomination scheduled for that day

[gs1968]

Hopefully all of the below especially Chaffetz get re-elected. Plus all the key Senators supporting the Bill. Immigration is the only area where I'm a "righty".

Rep Chaffetz, Jason
Rep Flake, Jeff
Rep Goodlatte, Bob
Rep Griffin, Tim
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V.
Rep Holt, Rush D.
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr.
Rep Lofgren, Zoe
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B.
Rep Moran, James P.
Rep Smith, Lamar
Rep Thompson, Glenn

Agree with you.The more important point is for the Republicans NOT to take back the Senate because if that happens,Sen.Grassley is in line to take over as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Sen.Hatch has already served in this position) and such Bills will never see the light of day

[Jonty Rhodes]

Agree with you.The more important point is for the Republicans NOT to take back the Senate because if that happens,Sen.Grassley is in line to take over as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Sen.Hatch has already served in this position) and such Bills will never see the light of day

I partially agree. Republicans are usually considered pro-legal immigration but usually the far right Republicans (Tea Party Members) are totally anti-immigrant. Democrats in general are pro-immigration but always want illegal immigration included on any immigration reform. It is true that if Republicans gain majority in Senate than it may be difficult to move immigration bills, especially those bills which may include visa recapture, giving EADs to H4 spouses, not counting dependents in the quota and increasing the number of overall employment based green cards. But I am pretty sure that even if Sen. Grassley becomes a Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, HR 3012, if reintroduced will not have much problem as he already had lots of negotiations and talks on the issue. So as long as his H1B amendments are addressed, he should not have a problem unless he has a change of heart and goes in to his usual anti-immigrant stance.

Democrats may not act on this bill till elections are over because as I said before, there is no electoral benefit for them. Latino votes for Republicans is a lost cause. Latinos favor Obama over Romney by a whooping 67%-23% margin. Unless Republicans take a major step on illegal immigration, they won't be gaining significantly from Latinos. But, they may lose their conservative votes if they try to do that. So they will not be acting in haste either.

But as I said, I will not consider the bill dead until the official word is out. We will see what happens.

[jackbrown_890]

I agree with you Jonty,...
btw, i don't know if anyone noticed last night, senate did pass EB5 re-authorization bill by unanimous consent.

[chengisk]

I agree with you Jonty,...
btw, i don't know if anyone noticed last night, senate did pass EB5 re-authorization bill by unanimous consent.

Not just that,

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/floor_activity/08_02_2012_Senate_Floor.htm

They work hard, very very hard.

[vizcard]

Not just that,

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/floor_activity/08_02_2012_Senate_Floor.htm

They work hard, very very hard.

That's kind of my level of engagement when I'm so close to a vacation :P

[rupen86]

harry reid has "promised" that he will work on the whole "hold" concept if they are re-elected. So we'll see what happens. Also, I wouldn't call Obama anti-legal immigration. At worst he is neutral. He has already given his support to removing per-country limits. Further, there's nothing he can do if its stuck in Congress.

Obviously its not on the top of his list of priorities as it won't give him any political mileage. Besides there are other more pressing issues that need to be dealt with as well. Paying for the government and taxes being two of them.

If he really wanted, he could have easily done something to pass this bill. All was required was to pass motion to proceed. I do not think it would have been hard to find 60 votes. But obviously, this is not on his agenda. I feel that on legal immigration, he talks the talk but does not walk the talk. Another blatant example is EAD for H4. That was announced in earlier this year but that is not even in DHS's agenda. He has made H1 and green card process harder than ever before. Below link gives good analysis.

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0716-Bier.shtm

I doubt anything would happen on "hold" concept. If Reid really wants to do something about it, he needs majority in house, senate and democrat president. I do not think that will be the result of the election. And even if that does happen, I am doubtful on his intentions.

Now that they have agreed on six months spending program, I doubt that there will be lame duck session. That leaves only September and I do not have high hopes for that. Now, EB5 is also gone. 3 year extension takes out the urgency part. So, 3012 has lost that advantage. If I have to bet, I will bet that 3012 will not pass this year. If there are reservations about Grassley's amendments by US chamber of commerce, then I would think that the bill would not be taken up next year also. Either Grassley or companies have to budge. And at this point, it is hard to imagine why any of them would budge because budging won't give them any benefit.

I hope all of the above analysis is wrong and something positive happens as soon as possible.

[bvsamrat]

I read eslewhere from ROW point of view !- HR3012- 'Advantage to India rule' - LOL

[cbpds1]

good points, O can just pass an executive order and remove country limits :)

Moreover Congress will be in campaigning mode as the Prez, half senate and all house members are up for reelection.






If he really wanted, he could have easily done something to pass this bill. All was required was to pass motion to proceed. I do not think it would have been hard to find 60 votes. But obviously, this is not on his agenda. I feel that on legal immigration, he talks the talk but does not walk the talk. Another blatant example is EAD for H4. That was announced in earlier this year but that is not even in DHS's agenda. He has made H1 and green card process harder than ever before. Below link gives good analysis.

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0716-Bier.shtm

I doubt anything would happen on "hold" concept. If Reid really wants to do something about it, he needs majority in house, senate and democrat president. I do not think that will be the result of the election. And even if that does happen, I am doubtful on his intentions.

Now that they have agreed on six months spending program, I doubt that there will be lame duck session. That leaves only September and I do not have high hopes for that. Now, EB5 is also gone. 3 year extension takes out the urgency part. So, 3012 has lost that advantage. If I have to bet, I will bet that 3012 will not pass this year. If there are reservations about Grassley's amendments by US chamber of commerce, then I would think that the bill would not be taken up next year also. Either Grassley or companies have to budge. And at this point, it is hard to imagine why any of them would budge because budging won't give them any benefit.

I hope all of the above analysis is wrong and something positive happens as soon as possible.

[vizcard]

If he really wanted, he could have easily done something to pass this bill. All was required was to pass motion to proceed. I do not think it would have been hard to find 60 votes. But obviously, this is not on his agenda. I feel that on legal immigration, he talks the talk but does not walk the talk. Another blatant example is EAD for H4. That was announced in earlier this year but that is not even in DHS's agenda. He has made H1 and green card process harder than ever before. Below link gives good analysis.

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0716-Bier.shtm

I doubt anything would happen on "hold" concept. If Reid really wants to do something about it, he needs majority in house, senate and democrat president. I do not think that will be the result of the election. And even if that does happen, I am doubtful on his intentions.

Now that they have agreed on six months spending program, I doubt that there will be lame duck session. That leaves only September and I do not have high hopes for that. Now, EB5 is also gone. 3 year extension takes out the urgency part. So, 3012 has lost that advantage. If I have to bet, I will bet that 3012 will not pass this year. If there are reservations about Grassley's amendments by US chamber of commerce, then I would think that the bill would not be taken up next year also. Either Grassley or companies have to budge. And at this point, it is hard to imagine why any of them would budge because budging won't give them any benefit.

I hope all of the above analysis is wrong and something positive happens as soon as possible.

When you say "he", I not sure if you mean Harry Reid or Obama. On introducing a motion, Harry Reid can do it - not Obama. On immigration Reid doesn't talk much at least not that loudly and the only way for him to walk the talk is by introducing bills. its not on anyones agenda to get this bill passed given the timing but no action at this point in time doesn't mean one is pro or anti immigration. Its politics.

Also, keep in mind that the President does not (and by law cannot) drive Congressional matters. There is a reason the Office of the President and the Congress are in different branches of the government. Obviously on important policy matters, he makes his opinion known but cannot drive legislature until it comes to his desk (at which he can veto or sign in to law). CIR is the next big agenda item so if he gets re-elected, I full expect this to be addressed. The EAD for illegal immigrants is a "policy directive" aka "executive order", not a "law". For all intents and purposes they are the same but the path used is different. It was done because Congress sat on the DREAM Act AND for the latino voters (a political game).

Bottom line is that the Democrats are not going to do anything that will not gain them political mileage between now and November .... and just because we think HR3012 is a big deal, doesn't mean Congress or the President does too.

As for the "lame duck" session. Congress has to be around till their term ends. So there will be a session. Whether or not anything is done is a different issue. The 6-month spending thing is only to get through the elections. This will come up again as will taxes.

[vizcard]

good points, O can just pass an executive order and remove country limits :)
I think (hope?) you were being sarcastic here.

[cbpds1]

I am not kidding dude, He can just do waiver of the country limits for a period of time just the same way he is allowing 1million illegal kids to be legal for 2 years......what he did abt the illegal children waiver may be an abuse of his executive power, but it is legal.

Can you reason why he cannot waive the country limit for 2 years?


I think (hope?) you were being sarcastic here.

[Spectator]

I think (hope?) you were being sarcastic here.vizcard,

I totally agree with you.

The 7% per Country numerical limits and exceptions to them are hard coded in the law. Only Congress can alter the law by passage a of a Bill. Previous examples would include the recapture of visas in the AC21 Bill and another Bill which recaptured visas for Schedule A workers in 2005.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (www.uscis.gov/childhoodarrivals), on the other hand, is just the exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion, which is within the remit of the Executive branch. Another fairly recent example of this would be the instruction (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html) to DOJ to no longer defend DOMA.

There can be no magic "waving of the hand" through an Executive Order as far as the 7% limit is concerned. Only a Bill, duly passed by Congress and signed by the President can change the law of the land.

Similarly, as discussed above, the same applies to visa recapture. It would also apply to not counting dependents IMO, since the law would need updating to add them to the categories exempt from numerical limits.

[vizcard]

I am not kidding dude, He can just do waiver of the country limits for a period of time just the same way he is allowing 1million illegal kids to be legal for 2 years......what he did abt the illegal children waiver may be an abuse of his executive power, but it is legal.

Can you reason why he cannot waive the country limit for 2 years?

See Specs comments


vizcard,

I totally agree with you.

The 7% per Country numerical limits and exceptions to them are hard coded in the law. Only Congress can alter the law by passage a of a Bill. Previous examples would include the recapture of visas in the AC21 Bill and another Bill which recaptured visas for Schedule A workers in 2005.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (www.uscis.gov/childhoodarrivals), on the other hand, is just the exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion, which is within the remit of the Executive branch. Another fairly recent example of this would be the instruction (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html) to DOJ to no longer defend DOMA.

There can be no magic "waving of the hand" through an Executive Order as far as the 7% limit is concerned. Only a Bill, duly passed by Congress and signed by the President can change the law of the land.

Similarly, as discussed above, the same applies to visa recapture. It would also apply to not counting dependents IMO, since the law would need updating to add them to the categories exempt from numerical limits.


To all - there is a process as Spec describes and there are reasons for having it even if it doesn't suit us at this time. Its about checks and balances. How would you feel if the President (whoever it is) issued an executive order to take away EAD for pending dependent 485s? It is by no means a perfect system but it is a very good system. There is no doubt that practices like "Hold" are abused but if you look at the history of why it was instituted, it makes sense.

Don't get frustrated. hope and pray that, if not now, the new Congress picks HR3012 up and pushes it through.

[cbpds1]

Got it Vizcard and Spec, I totally like the check and balances system, it does not give the free hand to the Prez to do whatever he/she pleases to..... how did BO allow or give waiver to undocumented students to work for 2 years based via deferred action while there is law that states only legal folks can work, isnt the legal abiding law violated overridden by executive order?

[qesehmk]

Spec - I too agree. An executive order has to be within the bounds of the law. It can't surpass or bypass the law. Doing that would be a good way to be impeached or worse kicked out of the office - nixonesque way!
vizcard,

I totally agree with you.

The 7% per Country numerical limits and exceptions to them are hard coded in the law. Only Congress can alter the law by passage a of a Bill. Previous examples would include the recapture of visas in the AC21 Bill and another Bill which recaptured visas for Schedule A workers in 2005.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (www.uscis.gov/childhoodarrivals), on the other hand, is just the exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion, which is within the remit of the Executive branch. Another fairly recent example of this would be the instruction (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html) to DOJ to no longer defend DOMA.

There can be no magic "waving of the hand" through an Executive Order as far as the 7% limit is concerned. Only a Bill, duly passed by Congress and signed by the President can change the law of the land.

Similarly, as discussed above, the same applies to visa recapture. It would also apply to not counting dependents IMO, since the law would need updating to add them to the categories exempt from numerical limits.

[Spectator]

Got it Vizcard and Spec, I totally like the check and balances system, it does not give the free hand to the Prez to do whatever he/she pleases to..... how did BO allow or give waiver to undocumented students to work for 2 years based via deferred action while there is law that states only legal folks can work, isnt the legal abiding law violated overridden by executive order?I am not going to say I am wild about it either, given the fact that dependents in lawful status for several categories cannot obtain an EAD.

Who is eligible for an EAD is covered in 8CFR 274a.12(a) Several of the eligible categories couldn't actually be described as "lawful" in the sense you mean.

8CFR 274a.12(a)(11) seems to cover it.


(11) An alien whose enforced departure from the United States has been deferred in accordance with a directive from the President of the United States to the Secretary. Employment is authorized for the period of time and under the conditions established by the Secretary pursuant to the Presidential directive

[justvisiting]

I am not going to say I am wild about it either, given the fact that dependents in lawful status for several categories cannot obtain an EAD.

Who is eligible for an EAD is covered in 8CFR 274a.12(a) Several of the eligible categories couldn't actually be described as "lawful" in the sense you mean.

8CFR 274a.12(a)(11) seems to cover it.

For the record, defered action is not codified in the INA, but is an "equitable relief", part of the legal tradition of the United States, which was inherited from England.

In the US, there are two sources of law:
-Positive Law - Laws that have been passed by congress and affirmatively say something is allowed or prohibited. Most immigration laws are this kind of law.
-Common Law - Legal traditions inherited from England, and precedents of the Supreme Court (or other courts). This is when the courts have to interpret a law, or fill a gap that a law has not explained.

The INA leaves a gap: what to do when the US government has limited resoruces to enforce the INA? Common law has an answer: deferred action.

I do have to disagree with Spec on one thing: I think excluding dependentes from the cap can be done without touching the INA. The INA has a gap there, and the DOS regulations have filled the gap by saying they are included. However, DOS can go through the rule-making porcess again and change that. It can't be done by executive order though, it has to be done through formal rule-making.

[rupen86]

From,

http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17688&page=37

So, going back to actual updates... A certain group claiming to represent immigrants, but really representing backlogged applicants, is going to have a rally in support of H.R. 3012 in the home district of their friend Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who first introduced legisalation to remove per country caps in 2008. Of course, her bill was part of a larger package that included recapture. Why hold the rally in her district is a mystery. In following their traiditonfor secrecy, their announcement made no mention that they were having the rally in her district.

I think this again shows that the bill is stuck and it seems change of strategy to make the bill more visible and bring it out in open.

[vishnu]

ya, at the point they are trying to organize rallies makes me think the chances of passage are slim to none... unfortunately :(

credit to ** for taking it so far though...not an easy effort in such a tangled environment for issues such as immigration

[Spectator]

For the record, defered action is not codified in the INA, but is an "equitable relief", part of the legal tradition of the United States, which was inherited from England.

In the US, there are two sources of law:
-Positive Law - Laws that have been passed by congress and affirmatively say something is allowed or prohibited. Most immigration laws are this kind of law.
-Common Law - Legal traditions inherited from England, and precedents of the Supreme Court (or other courts). This is when the courts have to interpret a law, or fill a gap that a law has not explained.

The INA leaves a gap: what to do when the US government has limited resoruces to enforce the INA? Common law has an answer: deferred action.

I do have to disagree with Spec on one thing: I think excluding dependentes from the cap can be done without touching the INA. The INA has a gap there, and the DOS regulations have filled the gap by saying they are included. However, DOS can go through the rule-making porcess again and change that. It can't be done by executive order though, it has to be done through formal rule-making.justvisiting,

Thanks for an interesting post.

I know that a number of people feel that excluding dependents form the cap could be achieved via rule making. I don't completely discount that, but what is already contained in the INA complicates it.

A dependent (spouse or child) of an EB primary applicant can be said to be an "Immediate Relative".

Section 201(b) of the INA contains a list of categories that are outside caps or numerical limitations.

Included in that list are Immediate Relatives including a definition.


(2)(A) (i) Immediate relatives. - For purposes of this subsection, the term "immediate relatives" means the children, spouses, and parents of a citizen of the United States, except that, in the case of parents, such citizens shall be at least 21 years of age. .........

I think this would have to be updated to include dependents of EB primary LPR, possibly something like this:


(2)(A) (i) Immediate relatives. - For purposes of this subsection, the term "immediate relatives" means the children, spouses, and parents of a citizen of the United States, except that, in the case of parents, such citizens shall be at least 21 years of age, or for the existing children and spouse of an applicant granted Legal Permanent Residence under Section 203(b) of the Act. .........

where 203(b) refers to Employment Based Immigrants.

Had Immediate Relatives not been defined and excluded from caps in the INA and the current exclusion for Immediate relatives of US Citizens had been granted by rule making, I would share your view.

Alternatively, an entirely new paragraph is needed dealing solely with EB dependents.

I don't think there is a definitive answer and it is an interesting subject. Certainly several attempts to exclude EB dependents have been made previously, all via a Bill. The last one I remember was in the H.R.2161 IDEA Act, introduced in this Congress.

PS I have paused composing this message to look at the language used to exclude EB dependents from the caps in the Bill above. It actually added an extra sub-category under 201(b)(1). That does seem to be a better way to do it.


(b) Spouses and Minor Children- Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(G) Aliens who are the spouse or child of an alien admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).’.

[rupen86]

ya, at the point they are trying to organize rallies makes me think the chances of passage are slim to none... unfortunately :(

credit to ** for taking it so far though...not an easy effort in such a tangled environment for issues such as immigration

Ya, but I still quite can't understand the reason though. If Grassley's amendment was a problem, then would not it have been negotiated with all the concerned parties ? If election year was a problem, then what was the need to negotiate and lift the hold ?

[immitime]

This EB immigration mess is created by none other than **. So they have the responsibility to make it alright. I always wonder how come just before the VB is out, ** predict the date movement and add a line that we proposed to USCIS to do such and such thing.

[chengisk]

I always wonder how come just before the VB is out, ** predict the date movement and add a line that we proposed to USCIS to do such and such thing.

Is that sarcastic? Or is it really so? Or am I reading it wrong?

[geterdone]

I don't know what's going on behind the scenes and I don't know what ** is really doing. I would imagine that if you want to get it passed in the senate then you will try to get atleast one senator to represent it. I do not see any senator who we can say will try to bring it on the floor.

Sending emails, posting flyers in indian grocery shops etc may be good to show that something is being done but I doubt it will get the real thing done.

[chengisk]

I would imagine that if you want to get it passed in the senate then you will try to get atleast one senator to represent it. I do not see any senator who we can say will try to bring it on the floor.

Exactly. I think that is the problem. Senate support for the bill is just about lacking. Someone has to step up and ask for consideration of the bill. I think they were expecting Sen. Schumer, but he was only interested in this bill so can get some 'Irish' into it. So was Sen. Brown. Sen. Reid has no compulsions for a 'piece-meal' bill. Sen. Leahy and Sen. Conrad on the very last day got up talked and asked for EB-5/Conrad 30 and they got it. No one did that for H.R. 3012.

[rupen86]

Exactly. I think that is the problem. Senate support for the bill is just about lacking. Someone has to step up and ask for consideration of the bill. I think they were expecting Sen. Schumer, but he was only interested in this bill so can get some 'Irish' into it. So was Sen. Brown. Sen. Reid has no compulsions for a 'piece-meal' bill. Sen. Leahy and Sen. Conrad on the very last day got up talked and asked for EB-5/Conrad 30 and they got it. No one did that for H.R. 3012.

I do not think it is no one asking for it kind of a problem. ** would have surely tried to push it together with other immigration bills on the last day but somewhere it is stuck. When they have gone as far as negotiating with Grassley for lifting the hold, just getting someone to push it on the floor does not look like a bigger problem than lifting the hold. We are not getting any news on where it is stuck so we have to keep guessing and we might never know.

[rupen86]

The rally's date is decided to be Aug 25 probably to push this in September. I think instead of doing nothing, we should spread the word and push people to join this who are in bay area. ** Administrator has called this be make or break moment. Without doing nothing, this is dead. We might as well do something about it.

[justvisiting]

justvisiting,

I don't think there is a definitive answer and it is an interesting subject. Certainly several attempts to exclude EB dependents have been made previously, all via a Bill. The last one I remember was in the H.R.2161 IDEA Act, introduced in this Congress.

PS I have paused composing this message to look at the language used to exclude EB dependents from the caps in the Bill above. It actually added an extra sub-category under 201(b)(1). That does seem to be a better way to do it.

I can't find it now, but the ILW blog had an extensive anlaysis of how the INA did not expresselycpount dependents either as immediate relatives no as quota-subject immigrants. It had to do with the 1990 reorganization of the INA and the creation of the current system. Basically, you are correct. The INA does not count dependents as immediate relatives. But it doesn't expressely say the are subjet to the quota. This is simply a reasonable (but not the only possible) interpretation of the INA, and the DOS could adopt another interpretation.

The fact Congress has tried to pass a bill would not impede administrative action - because Congress could be trying to clarify or fill a gap in the INA. But the other 2 branches of government can also fill in a gap like this one.

[gs1968]

To justvisiting
This is probably the article you are looking for

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm

Pay special attention to the footnotes esp #8

[vizcard]

Exactly. I think that is the problem. Senate support for the bill is just about lacking. Someone has to step up and ask for consideration of the bill. I think they were expecting Sen. Schumer, but he was only interested in this bill so can get some 'Irish' into it. So was Sen. Brown. Sen. Reid has no compulsions for a 'piece-meal' bill. Sen. Leahy and Sen. Conrad on the very last day got up talked and asked for EB-5/Conrad 30 and they got it. No one did that for H.R. 3012.

There are two similar / companion bills in the Senate (S1857 and S1983) that have Senator sponsorship (not in Committee review). Technically those can still be moved post committee review even if the House version of the Bill gets killed.

[chengisk]

There are two similar / companion bills in the Senate (S1857 and S1983) that have Senator sponsorship (not in Committee review). Technically those can still be moved post committee review even if the House version of the Bill gets killed.

What do you estimate are the chances for these companion bills to pass in September or lame-duck? As far as I can see, the senate majority leader has the authority to discharge the committee by unanimous consent - which is what he did for Leahy's EB5 bill. I think 1857 was introduced in the senate by a senator from Utah, so there must have been some understanding between him and Chaffetz.

[kd2008]

Please make the best use of the town halls happening during this break. Show up. tell your plight and ask if they will pass HR 3012. Simple as that.

I did my part. Have you?

[neduguy]

** is organising a rally on Aug 25 in San Jose. Let all make it a success and show our support to HR 3012 by attending

[bvsamrat]

Why not August 15th?

[chengisk]

Why not August 15th?

They might end up with the wrong flag ! :)

[qesehmk]

Anybody who claims they are doing something and asking donations - people really need to ask and understand what exactly kind of advocacy efforts are being done by them. ** to me is a fake arrogant organization that really knows how to claim credit for things that they didn't really do. Enough said .... but anybody supporting such pricks should really ask for transparency in everything. An organization that is not transparent with its "supposed" constituents can't be trusted to be truly working effectively for those constituents. My 2 cents and my last on this.


** is organising a rally on Aug 25 in San Jose. Let all make it a success and show our support to HR 3012 by attending

[vizcard]

Anybody who claims they are doing something and asking donations - people really need to ask and understand what exactly kind of advocacy efforts are being done by them. ** to me is a fake arrogant organization that really knows how to claim credit for things that they didn't really do. Enough said .... but anybody supporting such pricks should really ask for transparency in everything. An organization that is not transparent with its "supposed" constituents can't be trusted to be truly working effectively for those constituents. My 2 cents and my last on this.

I totally second this. ** takes more credit than they deserve.

[GhostWriter]

I would have agreed to parts of what you say an year ago (mostly out of ignorance), but the way ** has truly given EB-IC community a voice and stayed committed to the cause, i have tremendous respect for them.
I think one needs to understand that it is not just a forum for exchange of information, it is also an action-oriented group. The latter requires top-down leadership to an extent just like any other company. Regarding their forum, yes it is not comparable to this one in terms of openness and quality but that is also a reflection on us (EB-I community) besides the moderators. People (we) are always ready to fight on EB1 vs EB2 or EB2 vs EB3 or IT vs. non-IT divisions (and even this forum vs that forum :)) even without any provocation.
It is sad that we forgot the most valuable lesson from our history that it was our divisions that resulted in us being ruled by British.
** has in spite of many challenges at least provided a common objective and taken it to a level where there is hope for passage of a bill. It strongly stood against the lawyer community (if nothing else, that was worthwhile in itself :)). Could it be more transparent, yes, but lack of transparency in this case does not necessarily imply misuse of funds (in my opinion).
Just wanted to present an alternative view point (in spirit of this forum).


Anybody who claims they are doing something and asking donations - people really need to ask and understand what exactly kind of advocacy efforts are being done by them. ** to me is a fake arrogant organization that really knows how to claim credit for things that they didn't really do. Enough said .... but anybody supporting such pricks should really ask for transparency in everything. An organization that is not transparent with its "supposed" constituents can't be trusted to be truly working effectively for those constituents. My 2 cents and my last on this.

[Nov2010]

Ghost,

I agree with you.
Sometimes in the interest of the bill they might not be revealing all the details which is understandable, also when Congressman introduced the bill in the House ** name was mentioned I think that should be good enough on the credibility question.
Most of the time here we are discussing and predicting based on the existing law, atleast ** is trying to change something which is arguably something we all have to accept.

[qesehmk]

Just to make clear, what I wrote above is quite a matter of fact rational statement. There is no provocation nor fight. Our key goal here is clarity and self education. Orgs that "claim" leadership but provide little transparency are in fact a disservice to eb community.
People (we) are always ready to fight on EB1 vs EB2 or EB2 vs EB3 or IT vs. non-IT divisions (and even this forum vs that forum :)) even without any provocation.

[iamdeb]

Hi All,

While watching Olympics one idea provoked me.Compare the Olympic participation for all the countries. Let China remain as China and USA replaces India.
So if we apply the existing 7% per country limit to the Olympic criteria then USA wont be able to send 530 athletes to Olympics this year and neither would China be able to send such large contigent in every Olympics. I am sure it would raise many eyebrows if that happens.But in Sports it doesn't matter which country you belong from as long as you make the cut. HR 3012 can make that happen in the immigration process too.

So if someone could explain this point to the American senators it might make more sense to them.

Thanks!
Deb

[Spectator]

Hi All,

While watching Olympics one idea provoked me.Compare the Olympic participation for all the countries. Let China remain as China and USA replaces India.
So if we apply the existing 7% per country limit to the Olympic criteria then USA wont be able to send 530 athletes to Olympics this year and neither would China be able to send such large contigent in every Olympics. I am sure it would raise many eyebrows if that happens.But in Sports it doesn't matter which country you belong from as long as you make the cut. HR 3012 can make that happen in the immigration process too.

So if someone could explain this point to the American senators it might make more sense to them.

Thanks!
DebActually. the Olympics is a better analogy for the current system.

Most, if not all events have a maximum number of competitors who can represent their Country. The rule is equally applied to every Country.

In the women's gymnastics, only two could enter the all-around individual competition, meaning the world champion did not take part. In the track cycling, only one competitor could take part in the sprint competition, so the Olympic champion did not take part.

Some of the best competitors are not even at the Olympics because they failed to qualify through their Countries qualification events.

The reason some Countries have larger teams is that they participate in more events.

If it were not so, the likes of USA, China and Russia would send far larger teams because they have many more competitors who can reach the Olympic qualifying mark and some Countries would be unable to send any competitors as a result.

I think that would be a very sad day indeed.

[rupen86]

I totally second this. ** takes more credit than they deserve.

Do we have any other better alternative? Whatever it is doing, it is doing something that is going to benefit us. There is no other organization which would advocate us and make effort to advance the bill that will benefit us.

[rupen86]

Hi All,

While watching Olympics one idea provoked me.Compare the Olympic participation for all the countries. Let China remain as China and USA replaces India.
So if we apply the existing 7% per country limit to the Olympic criteria then USA wont be able to send 530 athletes to Olympics this year and neither would China be able to send such large contigent in every Olympics. I am sure it would raise many eyebrows if that happens.But in Sports it doesn't matter which country you belong from as long as you make the cut. HR 3012 can make that happen in the immigration process too.

So if someone could explain this point to the American senators it might make more sense to them.

Thanks!
Deb

If such quota limit law would have to be passed today, it won't and it would be counted as discrimination. Common sense would tell that quota system is not fair. But life is not about fairness. They know that. They do not care whether it is fair or not. All they are interested in is vote. Can this give them vote ? NO.

[Kanmani]

Except for very few events like gymnastics, the per country limitation is imposed before the athelets and players depart from their country for the olympiad. The olympic committee slelects the finalists from each country carefully after conducting trials comparing their ability to compete in the respective events . They are not simply rejected for the reason being born in a certain country except for these one or two mishaps. Olympic committee is even admitting wild card entrants for the first timers participating from a particular country in a particular event, like recent Qatar female track competitor to skip preliminary trials.

It is horrible to practice per country limitation discrimination after bringing them into the olympic statium , just like we are here in US.

US olympians have already raised their voice to bring to an end to this kind of per country limitation .

[Spectator]

Kanmani,

I like you too much to respond.

I will not be pulled into an argument on this subject.

I've yet to see a good analogy.

[Kanmani]

Spec,

I am not ready for an argument on this either. In general I differ from you in comparing Olympic rules with that of the current system. In my opinion they have more fairness for sure.

[Spectator]

Spec,

I am not ready for an argument on this either. In general I differ from you in comparing Olympic rules with that of the current system. In my opinion they have more fairness for sure.Kanmani,

I was only responding to the initial post, which made a poor analogy in my mind and failed to understand why some Countries have larger teams than others.

The End

PS I, like a lot of people here have taken to watching the BBC coverage, since the NBC alternative is so excruciatingly bad.

[qesehmk]

...I heard a saying in a movie "Uske Dushman bahot hai; aadmi achcha hoga"

That is originally from Mirza Galib. He is many many times quoted in Hindi movies and songs ..... including ... e.g. Dil Dhondhata hai phir wohi phurasat ke raat din.

[chengisk]

That is originally from Mirza Galib. He is many many times quoted in Hindi movies and songs ..... including ... e.g. Dil Dhondhata hai phir wohi purasat ke raat din.

I can see words like enemy, man, good, and that is it. A translation would be nice. If you use devanagiri, then I can use google translate too. :)

[qesehmk]

Will post it in poetry!
I can see words like enemy, man, good, and that is it. A translation would be nice. If you use devanagiri, then I can use google translate too. :)

[immitime]

Just to make clear, what I wrote above is quite a matter of fact rational statement. There is no provocation nor fight. Our key goal here is clarity and self education. Orgs that "claim" leadership but provide little transparency are in fact a disservice to eb community.

Yes, ** is not transparent at all, as far as EB community is concerned. If anybody asks questions which touches the truth immediate effect is he/she is banned from ** and his IP is permanently banned (not alone his IP, the domain even).

Nothing against people working (if at all they are working) in the name of **. but the policy of ** the ideology they stand for, they split the EB community into divisions, The EB2 egos are poked and nurtured, EB-3 has been totally damaged.( all along they have the answer for EB-3 India was--Port Port and Port) their selfishness never considered there are people in circumstances which they can never port, even if they are qualified, EB-ROW not to talk about them, lappu was tortured on Trackit.. he won't even mention trackit name on his posts The spillover law interpretation change added salt to the wound of EB-3. Majority of the EB-3 applicants have EAD, that is the only one reason ** still survives by collecting money. I have doubts that they are bribing top officials of USCIS for the visa date movement. Otherwise why a non-profit organisation have meetings with a government agency for visa data movements and favours only one particular category?

The EB community is totally split by this so called Non-profit organisation. Suppose... GOD forbid.. it won't happen ... by any chance H.R.3012 is never taken up in the Senate. the messiha lappu or Adamant2 of ** will appear with his usual bamboo stick blaming EB community.. like a school teacher he will post. The reason for failure is You!!! and no unity blah blah etc...

First of all why ** created this division, only for the selfishness of a group of useless Id****, and where the money goes?? no one knows exactly. visit **sucks.blogspot.com there should be some truths on it...even though 2 years old blog

[GhostWriter]

Spec i agree Olympic is a country based sports competition and a poor choice of analogy.
Nobel prizes (even with all their controversies) probably represent a better choice. They do not have country based limitations, so if an American physicist wins the award it does not mean that an American Chemist or Biologist can not. Even for selection of best physicist there is no limitation that all the top contenders can't be from a single country. The idea is to pick the best physicist.

There is an alternate (and interesting) way to look at Olympics as well. Even Olympics does not limit the number of Golds (or medals) a country can win. Let us apply current USCIS policy to Olympics and see how it will look.
Assume only three games - Tennis, Swimming and Volleyball. USCIS will allow any number of entries from a country in each game (unlike the current Olympic policy), but it will cap the golds a country can win. So if US wins Swimming and Tennis its Volleyball team will be denied a medal even if it were the best.

Compare a GC (and the underlying job offer) to a medal (only for driving the point, i know the difference in stature !!!). There are three organizations - Intel, Boston Medical center and Citigroup. Any number of people from any of the countries can apply for these jobs. But if Intel and Citigroup have hired an Indian, then Boston Medical Center is forbidden from having an Indian doctor even if he is the best for the job.

Logic can often be twisted to arrive at results that we beleive in anyway :).

Keeping diversity as an immigration objective is not necessarily wrong but its impact on skills based categories certainly does not seem right.





I've yet to see a good analogy.

[qesehmk]

This actually is a good anology. I know spec thinks differently. And that's how we all will be. Which is why I really believe that no quota is the right thing. If a company is willing to hire skilled labor let them do.it. and tax that labor 50k and have the company pay for it. This will avoid abuse.

Any quota is unfair to the basic principle of economic benefit - both for the individual and for the host.



Spec i agree Olympic is a country based sports competition and a poor choice of analogy.
Nobel prizes (even with all their controversies) probably represent a better choice. They do not have country based limitations, so if an American physicist wins the award it does not mean that an American Chemist or Biologist can not. Even for selection of best physicist there is no limitation that all the top contenders can't be from a single country. The idea is to pick the best physicist.

There is an alternate (and interesting) way to look at Olympics as well. Even Olympics does not limit the number of Golds (or medals) a country can win. Let us apply current USCIS policy to Olympics and see how it will look.
Assume only three games - Tennis, Swimming and Volleyball. USCIS will allow any number of entries from a country in each game (unlike the current Olympic policy), but it will cap the golds a country can win. So if US wins Swimming and Tennis its Volleyball team will be denied a medal even if it were the best.

Compare a GC (and the underlying job offer) to a medal (only for driving the point, i know the difference in stature !!!). There are three organizations - Intel, Boston Medical center and Citigroup. Any number of people from any of the countries can apply for these jobs. But if Intel and Citigroup have hired an Indian, then Boston Medical Center is forbidden from having an Indian doctor even if he is the best for the job.

Logic can often be twisted to arrive at results that we beleive in anyway :).

Keeping diversity as an immigration objective is not necessarily wrong but its impact on skills based categories certainly does not seem right.

[GC-Utopic]

I think Track and Field would be a better analogy than Gymnastics.

what if, an athlete who clears heats (PERM) and semifinal (I-140) is not allowed to participate in the finals(I-485) based on his country of origin? or not allowed the medal(greencard) even after finishing finals (preadjudication).

I wonder how many Usain Bolt's dint win a medal in this idiotic country quota green card limbo,,,,,,




Spec i agree Olympic is a country based sports competition and a poor choice of analogy.
Nobel prizes (even with all their controversies) probably represent a better choice. They do not have country based limitations, so if an American physicist wins the award it does not mean that an American Chemist or Biologist can not. Even for selection of best physicist there is no limitation that all the top contenders can't be from a single country. The idea is to pick the best physicist.

There is an alternate (and interesting) way to look at Olympics as well. Even Olympics does not limit the number of Golds (or medals) a country can win. Let us apply current USCIS policy to Olympics and see how it will look.
Assume only three games - Tennis, Swimming and Volleyball. USCIS will allow any number of entries from a country in each game (unlike the current Olympic policy), but it will cap the golds a country can win. So if US wins Swimming and Tennis its Volleyball team will be denied a medal even if it were the best.

Compare a GC (and the underlying job offer) to a medal (only for driving the point, i know the difference in stature !!!). There are three organizations - Intel, Boston Medical center and Citigroup. Any number of people from any of the countries can apply for these jobs. But if Intel and Citigroup have hired an Indian, then Boston Medical Center is forbidden from having an Indian doctor even if he is the best for the job.

Logic can often be twisted to arrive at results that we beleive in anyway :).

Keeping diversity as an immigration objective is not necessarily wrong but its impact on skills based categories certainly does not seem right.

[vizcard]

I-V rally moved to Sept 8.

[gs1968]

The news release also says that "key lawmakers" are scheduled to attend and the date was moved for this reason. The Republican and Democratic Conventions run back to back from Aug 25 to Sep 6 and availabilty of lawmakers/attention of media might have been a concern.Also arranging the rally closer to the resumption of Congress proceedings might help.

[rupen86]

The news release also says that "key lawmakers" are scheduled to attend and the date was moved for this reason. The Republican and Democratic Conventions run back to back from Aug 25 to Sep 6 and availabilty of lawmakers/attention of media might have been a concern.Also arranging the rally closer to the resumption of Congress proceedings might help.

That seems like some positive news. I did not expect that lawmakers will be attending that. If that is indeed the case, this might be a setup to get some credit to pass this one. Others, any thoughts ?

[GhostWriter]

On a lighter note :)

ELAINE (amused): So. Mom and Pop's plan was to move into the neighborhood...establish trust...for 48 years. And then, run off with Jerry's sneakers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwnanPuuCwk


That seems like some positive news. I did not expect that lawmakers will be attending that. If that is indeed the case, this might be a setup to get some credit to pass this one. Others, any thoughts ?

[gs1968]

I came across this article and as the summer recess in congress is drawing to a close,I felt we should revive this thread which has been inactive for a few weeks

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/8/prweb9823392.htm

It does mention Ms.Lofgren which we expected given her support for the Bill and the fact that she represents the constituency in San Jose. But no other lawmakers names attending this summit are available especially Senators.

Also no discussion in this forum yet about the proposed LCA changes for which the public comment period is about to end.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/376205/20120822/new-work-visa-regulations-limit-recruitment-flexibility.htm

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/tougher-us-visa-regime-to-hurt-indian-it-firms/483993/

These are independent of the proposed amendments from Sen.Grassley.Kd had brought this up briefly on one of the threads but went no further. It is tough to decide which of these sets of proposals are bad but in combination,the effect on Indian immigration would be devastating

[vizcard]

I came across this article and as the summer recess in congress is drawing to a close,I felt we should revive this thread which has been inactive for a few weeks

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/8/prweb9823392.htm

It does mention Ms.Lofgren which we expected given her support for the Bill and the fact that she represents the constituency in San Jose. But no other lawmakers names attending this summit are available especially Senators.

Also no discussion in this forum yet about the proposed LCA changes for which the public comment period is about to end.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/376205/20120822/new-work-visa-regulations-limit-recruitment-flexibility.htm

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/tougher-us-visa-regime-to-hurt-indian-it-firms/483993/

These are independent of the proposed amendments from Sen.Grassley.Kd had brought this up briefly on one of the threads but went no further. It is tough to decide which of these sets of proposals are bad but in combination,the effect on Indian immigration would be devastating

Devastating might be too strong. It will be painful from an administrative standpoint but if there's demand, ppl will figure out a solution. There might be a lot more off-shoring which is not good for the US economy and if Obama has his way, there will be penalties, which might be an incentive to deal with the issues. It will also expose some questionable practices that these firms use which is always a good thing.

[rupen86]

Good to see some post after a long time. Do these changes not require any house or senate approval ? If not, I wonder why Grassley had to fight so hard. He could have easily done this through backdoor. This is indeed going to have bad impact on firms who work on EC or EVC model. In a way, H1B LCA is becoming like PERM.


Devastating might be too strong. It will be painful from an administrative standpoint but if there's demand, ppl will figure out a solution. There might be a lot more off-shoring which is not good for the US economy and if Obama has his way, there will be penalties, which might be an incentive to deal with the issues. It will also expose some questionable practices that these firms use which is always a good thing.

[gs1968]

I am not sure how credible this story is but this was posted by a forum member on trackitt

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

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

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

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

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

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

Sincerely,"

The name of the Senator was not mentioned

[Jonty Rhodes]

I am not sure how credible this story is but this was posted by a forum member on trackitt

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

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

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

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

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

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

Sincerely,"

The name of the Senator was not mentioned

If this story is real, than it would probably be the end of the road for this bill for this year. There is complete uncertainty about what will happen next year with the new Congress. Whoever wins, I just wish that they control both House and Senate instead of a House controlled by Republicans and Senate controlled by Democrats or vice versa. Almost everything has been stalled in last 4 years in Washington because of this situation.

I wish the sanity prevails in the end so we can get out of this backlog.

Lets see what happens in the September session, especially after the ** rally in San Jose. Frankly, I don't have much hopes unless a miracle happens.

[professor]

If this story is real, than it would probably be the end of the road for this bill for this year. There is complete uncertainty about what will happen next year with the new Congress. Whoever wins, I just wish that they control both House and Senate instead of a House controlled by Republicans and Senate controlled by Democrats or vice versa. Almost everything has been stalled in last 4 years in Washington because of this situation.

I wish the sanity prevails in the end so we can get out of this backlog.

Lets see what happens in the September session, especially after the ** rally in San Jose. Frankly, I don't have much hopes unless a miracle happens.

For all that it is worth, I got a similar response to a canned email petition on HR3012 that I sent to a bunch of senators about a month or so ago.

[immitime]

I am not sure how credible this story is but this was posted by a forum member on trackitt

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

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

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

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

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

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

Sincerely,"

The name of the Senator was not mentioned

The below three lines are fake and added by some ROW guys. No Senator will reply with so much details. Until and unless you got a reply from the Senator.. never believe this false letters.

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

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

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

[vishnu]

Immitime - i thought initially that this was fake... no senator would be so commital in an email that something will or will not be taken up...likely they will just state their stance on the bill. but the poster was an indian and not someone who just recently created an id...so got me thinking... anyway i hope you are right

[immitime]

Immitime - i thought initially that this was fake... no senator would be so commital in an email that something will or will not be taken up...likely they will just state their stance on the bill. but the poster was an indian and not someone who just recently created an id...so got me thinking... anyway i hope you are right

There are lot of infiltration.. like Bangladeshis infilterate in India,(and govt just closes their eyes, providing rationcard and voting rights) people have multiple id's probably with each category and country.. Fear mongering and false news are the techniques to engage on un-necessary fights in that forum. One should be really insane or ignorant to believe that this is really from a Senator!

[vishnu]

agreed immitime, but this character who posted was pro hr 3012 in prior posts... anyway, as i mentioned, I HOPE you are right...

[Sandeep2011]

The above mentioned note is correct. I had sent a note to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison using ** link to support HR 3012. I got the same response. Following is the full text of message that i received -

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

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

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

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

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

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

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator"

[justvisiting]

At Chinese website mitbbs they are reporting the same letter, again from Senator Hutchinson from Texas.


The above mentioned note is correct. I had sent a note to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison using ** link to support HR 3012. I got the same response. Following is the full text of message that i received -

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

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

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

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

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

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

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator"

[bvsamrat]

This is one of those where Chinese and Indians are in together. Hindu/Chinese Bha Bhai


At Chinese website mitbbs they are reporting the same letter, again from Senator Hutchinson from Texas.

[immitime]

The above mentioned note is correct. I had sent a note to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison using ** link to support HR 3012. I got the same response. Following is the full text of message that i received -

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

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

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

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

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

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

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator"

I still do not believe this.. and suppose if this is true (only 5 % true).. AILA/Attorney community is heavily lobbying against this bill backdoor, and Sen.Kay Bailey Hutchison
will be one of them. But if this is so, everychance of cloture motion. the bill will pass for 60/38 margin! :)

[justvisiting]

I still do not believe this.. and suppose if this is true (only 5 % true).. AILA/Attorney community is heavily lobbying against this bill backdoor, and Sen.Kay Bailey Hutchison
will be one of them. But if this is so, everychance of cloture motion. the bill will pass for 60/38 margin! :)

I'm not sure why she would incldue that in the canned response email, but it is all over the internet now: http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/42205-H-R-3012-Fairness-for-High-Skilled-Immigrants-Act

[qesehmk]

I think there is a very good chance that the letter is authentic. I have personally written to AZ senator McCain and he was very particular to respond to me in great details. I can assure you it was not a standard response letter I received.

[rupen86]

I still do not believe this.. and suppose if this is true (only 5 % true).. AILA/Attorney community is heavily lobbying against this bill backdoor, and Sen.Kay Bailey Hutchison
will be one of them. But if this is so, everychance of cloture motion. the bill will pass for 60/38 margin! :)

I do not think cloture is an option here. If it was, there was no need to negotiate with Grassley. ** organizing a rally indicates that negotiations have come to a dead end. It is hard to see a way forward for this bill in this congress or next. That being said, I wonder how anything related to legal immigration can pass if things like these can not pass.

[gs1968]

This from a immigration lawyer website-hard to say if he is for or against the current version of the Bill

http://www.lawfirmnewswire.com/2012/09/fairness-for-high-skilled-immigrants-act-hits-a-snag/

[rupen86]

This from a immigration lawyer website-hard to say if he is for or against the current version of the Bill

http://www.lawfirmnewswire.com/2012/09/fairness-for-high-skilled-immigrants-act-hits-a-snag/

I do not see any new information here.

[immitime]

I do not think cloture is an option here. If it was, there was no need to negotiate with Grassley. ** organizing a rally indicates that negotiations have come to a dead end. It is hard to see a way forward for this bill in this congress or next. That being said, I wonder how anything related to legal immigration can pass if things like these can not pass.

If more than 30 senators are against.. (eating the AILA lobbying money).. then cloture is the only option. Negotiating with Grassley is a different matter altogether, he will do fillibuster otherwise. This is really election year politics. ** rally can help, Senators will know how much public support this bill got.

The Senate Majority leader or any other Senator should propose the bill to be voted on the floor, they won't do it before elections.(Schumer can do it if he wants!) Because the name will go to Republicans if this bill passes in the Senate, so if any thing is going to happen, it is going to be in the Lame duck session. Before elections if this bill passes the Senate, then it is a big surprise and another talking point to Romney during Presidential Debate(claiming republicans are capable of doing bipartisan.. (example H.R.3012 passed Senate..and congress ...subsequently). So we can expect something during November or December 2012.

[Jonty Rhodes]

If more than 30 senators are against.. (eating the AILA lobbying money).. then cloture is the only option. Negotiating with Grassley is a different matter altogether, he will do fillibuster otherwise. This is really election year politics. ** rally can help, Senators will know how much public support this bill got.

The Senate Majority leader or any other Senator should propose the bill to be voted on the floor, they won't do it before elections.(Schumer can do it if he wants!) Because the name will go to Republicans if this bill passes in the Senate, so if any thing is going to happen, it is going to be in the Lame duck session. Before elections if this bill passes the Senate, then it is a big surprise and another talking point to Romney during Presidential Debate(claiming republicans are capable of doing bipartisan.. (example H.R.3012 passed Senate..and congress ...subsequently). So we can expect something during November or December 2012.

I agree. It won't happen before the election and lame duck session is the only real hope this year. As I have said before, in the election year, when economy is still recovering and job situation is not so great, no politician would want to give a message to their voters that they are passing pro-immigration bill.

We all know that removing per country limit is one of the least controversial and sensible thing to do in employment based legal immigration without adding a single new green card.

But in this time of hyperactive media and especially during election year, when every fact gets twisted and misrepresented to suit their own logic, no politician would want to take that risk of looking immigrant friendly. The last thing any politician would want before the election, is to make an average American who usually has a zero knowledge of legal immigration system, feel that more immigrants are going to snatch American jobs from Americans themselves.

We know that this is just a scare tactic and is not true representation but things always get represented in this way especially by extreme right wingers and many media outlets who don't even care to read the text of the bill.

In general, Democrats are overall pro-immigration (both illegal and legal) while Republicans are more pro-legal immigration. But Republican party has been more or less hijacked these days by far right tea-party Republicans who are extremely anti-Immigrant. I personally have more hopes on Democrats passing this bill compared to Republicans even though this bill was introduced by a Republican (Jason Chaffetz, R-UT) in House.

** may give credit to Sen. Grassley for amending this bill but deep down, we all know that he has damaged this bill greatly by holding it for a long time to add his own agenda which is not only unrelated to country quota in employment based green cards but may not also be acceptable to many corporations, immigration lawyers and even some of the Senators who may see it as a hindrance to corporations' ability to hire people and causing damage to their businesses and profits. Whether we like it or not, this is the reality.

[abcx13]

In general, Democrats are overall pro-immigration (both illegal and legal) while Republicans are more pro-legal immigration. But Republican party has been more or less hijacked these days by far right tea-party Republicans who are extremely anti-Immigrant. I personally have more hopes on Democrats passing this bill compared to Republicans even though this bill was introduced by a Republican (Jason Chaffetz, R-UT) in House. I think Romney supports STEM visas more than Obama but the problem is that like Obama, Romney doesn't necessarily do (or even say) what he believes. And it remains to be seen whether he'll hew to his own beliefs or to the Tea Party. If he wins (unlikely), he should be able to reform the system if he chooses to, especially with Ryan as VP - Ryan should be able to muster Tea Party support. It's murkier with Obama winning. But the big roadblock (illegals/DREAM) is now gone because of that (stupid) exec order. I think what was clear from that was immigration is not the political hot potato that people think it is. There was no big fallout. And what's a 100k GCs on top of a few million anyway...

[rupen86]

I agree. It won't happen before the election and lame duck session is the only real hope this year. As I have said before, in the election year, when economy is still recovering and job situation is not so great, no politician would want to give a message to their voters that they are passing pro-immigration bill.

We all know that removing per country limit is one of the least controversial and sensible thing to do in employment based legal immigration without adding a single new green card.

But in this time of hyperactive media and especially during election year, when every fact gets twisted and misrepresented to suit their own logic, no politician would want to take that risk of looking immigrant friendly. The last thing any politician would want before the election, is to make an average American who usually has a zero knowledge of legal immigration system, feel that more immigrants are going to snatch American jobs from Americans themselves.

We know that this is just a scare tactic and is not true representation but things always get represented in this way especially by extreme right wingers and many media outlets who don't even care to read the text of the bill.

In general, Democrats are overall pro-immigration (both illegal and legal) while Republicans are more pro-legal immigration. But Republican party has been more or less hijacked these days by far right tea-party Republicans who are extremely anti-Immigrant. I personally have more hopes on Democrats passing this bill compared to Republicans even though this bill was introduced by a Republican (Jason Chaffetz, R-UT) in House.

** may give credit to Sen. Grassley for amending this bill but deep down, we all know that he has damaged this bill greatly by holding it for a long time to add his own agenda which is not only unrelated to country quota in employment based green cards but may not also be acceptable to many corporations, immigration lawyers and even some of the Senators who may see it as a hindrance to corporations' ability to hire people and causing damage to their businesses and profits. Whether we like it or not, this is the reality.

If election year politics was the reason, then what was the reason for Schumer to reach some kind of deal with Grassley which made it possible for him to lift the hold ? The only logical possibility that I see is some objections would have come after the hold was lifted possibly because of Grassley's amendments. It is hard to imagine that the bill which passed in the house with such overwhelming majority in republican controlled house would not have 60 votes to pass. In general, senate works with unanimous consent. In recent times, cloture use is increased because of gridlock in senate. But they would use that only for bills that are supposed to give them rich political dividends. This bill does not come in that category. I highly doubt either party has any considerable interest in passing the bill. Had Grassley not put a hold, this bill would have easily passed with unanimous consent. But his hold muddled the things. If there is real opposition to Grassley's amendments, either those amendments would have to be amended or the bill has to go through against the opposition. I do not see good chances either way. But I hope this is wrong analysis and the bill passes in November

[gs1968]

To rupen86

Senator Schumer probably negotiated with Sen.Grassley to allow the Irish E-3 Bill to come to the Senate Floor but objections could have been raised to this by other Senators. If Senator Schumer was very keen on 3012 provisions he would have encouraged stand-alone passage of the same without including the Irish provisions in his Bill or would have moved to co-sponsor the Senate version of 3012 introduced by Senator Lee. Basically HR 3012 is a Republican Bill in a Democratic Senate and the Democrats would like to have their pound of flesh before letting it through. That said,if we cast our mind back to the original Politico article (before their correction) about Sen.Grassley removing his hold,there was already am mention that other senators would block it if he chose to move it forward. The opposition to this Bill is mainly from Senate Republicans and the people opposing it (Sessions & Vitter are the only ones publicly known and neither of them faces an election this year) are likely to be still there in the lame-duck session and I cannot see how that will change things.
Also the recently circulated Sen.Hutchinson letter mentions "enough opposition". Are we to believe that there is more widespread opposition then what we are led to believe?

[rupen86]

To rupen86

Senator Schumer probably negotiated with Sen.Grassley to allow the Irish E-3 Bill to come to the Senate Floor but objections could have been raised to this by other Senators. If Senator Schumer was very keen on 3012 provisions he would have encouraged stand-alone passage of the same without including the Irish provisions in his Bill or would have moved to co-sponsor the Senate version of 3012 introduced by Senator Lee. Basically HR 3012 is a Republican Bill in a Democratic Senate and the Democrats would like to have their pound of flesh before letting it through. That said,if we cast our mind back to the original Politico article (before their correction) about Sen.Grassley removing his hold,there was already am mention that other senators would block it if he chose to move it forward. The opposition to this Bill is mainly from Senate Republicans and the people opposing it (Sessions & Vitter are the only ones publicly known and neither of them faces an election this year) are likely to be still there in the lame-duck session and I cannot see how that will change things.
Also the recently circulated Sen.Hutchinson letter mentions "enough opposition". Are we to believe that there is more widespread opposition then what we are led to believe?

It is reported that Sessions & Vitter had put a hold because they had objections on I3 bill getting attached to 3012. With I3 gone, they do not have objections and will release hold. At least that is what is published in the media. So, we can not say that they are the ones who have objection to 3012. If Grassley negotiated with Schumer to remove I3 from 3012, what would have Schumer got in return? Who would have been involved in negotiations on Grassley's amendments ? Also, Grassley's principle opposition was to 3012 to advance his agenda. In any case, Schumer had no obligation to agree because of which the hold was released. The bill would have died anyway without doing anything.

[chengisk]

I think Grassley removed the hold just to get rid of the people who call his cell phone while he is talking on the floor.

[pakkpk]

Good thinking. This way anybody can make Senetors remove holds by making calls on their cell phones. I see many comments and analysis by posters have hidden special interest or agenda except yours.
I think Grassley removed the hold just to get rid of the people who call his cell phone while he is talking on the floor.

[gs1968]

To rupen86
I am still having trouble understanding the rationale behind the hold on HR3012 by Senators Vitter & Sessions. The Irish E-3 reason was actually provided by the organization that is promoting HR 3012 and was picked up by some Indian media outlets and reported.I did not see widespread publication of this. HR 3012 in its native form had no I-3 provisions at all and it would have been more logical/sensible to place holds on Bills by Sens.Schumer & Brown which had those provisions. To place a hold on a Bill to prevent certain amendments being added seems futile as the Democrats if they choose to do so, can always add these to any of the multiple Bills that clear the Senate every week. In any case if Sen Schumer is waiting for approval of Irish E-3 before bringing HR 3012 to the floor-in the 3 weeks of Senate activity between official release of Hold (July 11) and Senate adjournment (Aug 2) no action was taken ether in Committee or Floor on this

[rupen86]

To rupen86
I am still having trouble understanding the rationale behind the hold on HR3012 by Senators Vitter & Sessions. The Irish E-3 reason was actually provided by the organization that is promoting HR 3012 and was picked up by some Indian media outlets and reported.I did not see widespread publication of this. HR 3012 in its native form had no I-3 provisions at all and it would have been more logical/sensible to place holds on Bills by Sens.Schumer & Brown which had those provisions. To place a hold on a Bill to prevent certain amendments being added seems futile as the Democrats if they choose to do so, can always add these to any of the multiple Bills that clear the Senate every week. In any case if Sen Schumer is waiting for approval of Irish E-3 before bringing HR 3012 to the floor-in the 3 weeks of Senate activity between official release of Hold (July 11) and Senate adjournment (Aug 2) no action was taken ether in Committee or Floor on this

Grassley had put a hold on 3012 as soon as it arrived in the senate. At that time, there was no discussion about Irish E-3 and in the objections he had said that he was concerned that "this bill (3012) does nothing to protect American workers". He might also have problem with Irish E-3 being attached to 3012 for which he might have negotiated with Schumer to put E-3 as standalone bill. But his main negotiations might be with other parties to put H1B restrictions. I still do not know what Schumer would have got in return. I do not know whether Vitter & Sessions have put hold on 3012 or the companion senate bill but their intention is with E3 and not 3012 according to the reports. It might be possible that after Schumer agreed to drop Irish provisions that bill would have become identical as 3012 with Grassley's amendments and now it might be referred as one bill.

[immitime]

Grassley had put a hold on 3012 as soon as it arrived in the senate. At that time, there was no discussion about Irish E-3 and in the objections he had said that he was concerned that "this bill (3012) does nothing to protect American workers". He might also have problem with Irish E-3 being attached to 3012 for which he might have negotiated with Schumer to put E-3 as standalone bill. But his main negotiations might be with other parties to put H1B restrictions. I still do not know what Schumer would have got in return. I do not know whether Vitter & Sessions have put hold on 3012 or the companion senate bill but their intention is with E3 and not 3012 according to the reports. It might be possible that after Schumer agreed to drop Irish provisions that bill would have become identical as 3012 with Grassley's amendments and now it might be referred as one bill.

Its Ironical that inside GrassUncle's brian the following lingers.. RAW politics anyway.

"this bill (3012) does nothing to protect American workers".

My question is, How about The President ordered to issue EAD to all under 30 years dreamers who are really Illegals, how he is going to protect the American Workers now.. He will buy a blanket to each one..?? while Legal , lawful EB immigrants are waiting for decades... During DNC none of them talking about Immigration, because they know they don't get the votes, if they do. What these people forget is they are all IMMIGRANTS here, by hook or crook. This is real politics. H.R.3012 should be on senate floor[after the elections] by November lastweek. this is only my view point.

[rupen86]

Its Ironical that inside GrassUncle's brian the following lingers.. RAW politics anyway.

"this bill (3012) does nothing to protect American workers".

My question is, How about The President ordered to issue EAD to all under 30 years dreamers who are really Illegals, how he is going to protect the American Workers now.. He will buy a blanket to each one..?? while Legal , lawful EB immigrants are waiting for decades... During DNC none of them talking about Immigration, because they know they don't get the votes, if they do. What these people forget is they are all IMMIGRANTS here, by hook or crook. This is real politics. H.R.3012 should be on senate floor[after the elections] by November lastweek. this is only my view point.

Right. That does not protect American workers. But the logic here is that by doing this, he would be getting more Hispanic votes. Doing anything about illegal immigration is considered to be a booster for Hispanic votes and that's what the polls also reflect. He increased his advantage with Hispanic voters after he announced this change. Had he done the same for H4, or 3012 how would his poll numbers go ? It certainly would not improve.

[qesehmk]

immitime - they did talk about DREAM act and firmly supported that.

What I was amused was how president Obama moved away from his script and singled out China as the main source of competition for labor. In doing so - he avoided making a reference to Indian outsourcing - if you think about it.

Just an observation. I haven't formed any opinion one way or other on this topic.

Its Ironical that inside GrassUncle's brian the following lingers.. RAW politics anyway.

"this bill (3012) does nothing to protect American workers".

My question is, How about The President ordered to issue EAD to all under 30 years dreamers who are really Illegals, how he is going to protect the American Workers now.. He will buy a blanket to each one..?? while Legal , lawful EB immigrants are waiting for decades... During DNC none of them talking about Immigration, because they know they don't get the votes, if they do. What these people forget is they are all IMMIGRANTS here, by hook or crook. This is real politics. H.R.3012 should be on senate floor[after the elections] by November lastweek. this is only my view point.

[immitime]

immitime - they did talk about DREAM act and firmly supported that.

What I was amused was how president Obama moved away from his script and singled out China as the main source of competition for labor. In doing so - he avoided making a reference to Indian outsourcing - if you think about it.

Just an observation. I haven't formed any opinion one way or other on this topic.

Q, yes.. they did talk about DREAMers because they will get all the Latino votes. Our community as soon as they get GC,... they are Americans by all means... I do not want to elaborate on this. Even one of my family friend from India who is a US citizen said he no more belongs to India and he is not from that country!.. Hope you got what I am pointing.

Your observation is 100 % correct.. NEVER BELIEVE ANY POLITICIAN ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD... Whatever Charisma they show.. they only work for their own personal goals... is it not?

[gs1968]

The House Appropriations committee has released the text of the Continuing resolution to extend spending at current levels till March 2013

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20120910/BILLS-112hjres-PIH-CR2013.pdf

It is a clean spending bill and contains no reference to any immigration provision added on. There was some slim chance that 3012 provisions may be added to this but it appears like that has to go through on its own. More significantly many media outlets are reporting that both chambers may pass the resolution as early as by the end of this week.Hopefully this will not advance adjournment date and there will be time left for more legislative action after that.
This from POLITICO

“Democrats will engage in the game, too, putting up jobs bills that have no Republican support and little chance of passing. To add more fuel to the ‘do-nothing Congress’ label, at least one chamber — the Democratic-led Senate — could adjourn as early as Sept. 21 for another seven-week recess, coming on the heels of the five-week August recess. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will be playing ‘prevent defense’ through the Nov. 6 election, GOP aides said.

[abcx13]

I've asked this question on Ron's forum before but didn't get a response and was drowned out by the India haters (Jeff and DaveUK). So I'll ask it here again: how is it that in this day and age the immigration system can be so blatantly discriminatory? Under the civil rights act, employers can't discriminate based on national origin, so why can the government? Would it be legal if the government put a quota of 50 on immigrants who were black and 39,950 on others? Or hypothetically, would it be legal if they said that Christians (who only make up 34% of the world's population) have a quota of 39,500 and everyone else gets 500 visas? Or could they introduce separate immigration quotas for men and women? And if so, on what grounds?

I understand that they can have a diversity visa or sign special treaties with Chile and Singapore, but it seems like a national origin quota should be against the law for a general purpose employment based immigrant visa, which is what the EB program is. Are there really no grounds for a legal challenge against the country quota system? (This is probably a rhetorical question since I assume if there were grounds, some lawyers would have brought such a case to court.)

[GhostWriter]

Why should others like us when we ourselves don't. Look at your own posts. There can be a period of few years to few decades when "India has a higher number of skilled migrants to offer the US as compared to all other nations." It depends on demographics, education, wage differential, population, language and many other factors. I don't think I am delusional.
I am equally frustrated with the GC wait and some of the random policies but the solution is not to demean ourselves. What exactly do you expect that others should stop using the best option available to them (whether it is EB1-C or L1 or EB3-EB2 porting) and you get your GC !!


I've asked this question on Ron's forum before but didn't get a response and was drowned out by the India haters (Jeff and DaveUK).


As always, we Indians have screwed up the system for ourselves. (Yes, I am aware there are a lot of flaws but somehow every other country except India managed not to overload the system. And you are delusional if you think India has a higher number of skilled migrants to offer the US as compared to all other nations.)

[Ramsen]

The country quota was there decades from today for obvious reasons. Why you did not notice for decades? Reason is backlog was reasonable level and you were able to pass another bills like recapture. Now no way around you are trying to remove the country quota. If Indians would have tried to remove the country quota with recapture or STEM they might not have opposed. Or atleast if you would have given a better phase out plan or removing the country quota gradually you might not get this much opposition. In immigration the government can bring any law for protection of country. You cannot question anywhere except congress. Now everyone knew that backlog is so much only for India as number of H1b persons are 60% every year. Next highest is china that is less than 10%. See the difference. China may not need HR 3012 in couple of years as their waiting will improve. The best solution will be one time releif for all the backlogs and restrict the future H1b


I've asked this question on Ron's forum before but didn't get a response and was drowned out by the India haters (Jeff and DaveUK). So I'll ask it here again: how is it that in this day and age the immigration system can be so blatantly discriminatory? Under the civil rights act, employers can't discriminate based on national origin, so why can the government? Would it be legal if the government put a quota of 50 on immigrants who were black and 39,950 on others? Or hypothetically, would it be legal if they said that Christians (who only make up 34% of the world's population) have a quota of 39,500 and everyone else gets 500 visas? Or could they introduce separate immigration quotas for men and women? And if so, on what grounds?

I understand that they can have a diversity visa or sign special treaties with Chile and Singapore, but it seems like a national origin quota should be against the law for a general purpose employment based immigrant visa, which is what the EB program is. Are there really no grounds for a legal challenge against the country quota system? (This is probably a rhetorical question since I assume if there were grounds, some lawyers would have brought such a case to court.)

[Ramsen]

To rupen86
I am still having trouble understanding the rationale behind the hold on HR3012 by Senators Vitter & Sessions. The Irish E-3 reason was actually provided by the organization that is promoting HR 3012 and was picked up by some Indian media outlets and reported.I did not see widespread publication of this. HR 3012 in its native form had no I-3 provisions at all and it would have been more logical/sensible to place holds on Bills by Sens.Schumer & Brown which had those provisions. To place a hold on a Bill to prevent certain amendments being added seems futile as the Democrats if they choose to do so, can always add these to any of the multiple Bills that clear the Senate every week. In any case if Sen Schumer is waiting for approval of Irish E-3 before bringing HR 3012 to the floor-in the 3 weeks of Senate activity between official release of Hold (July 11) and Senate adjournment (Aug 2) no action was taken ether in Committee or Floor on this

It is not difficult to undertand some of the Senators views. See if country quota is removed a person from Isrel,UK needs to wait for 5 to 7 years similar to India. Being a Staunch ally for many decades they think they need a seperate queue. US was never trusted by India and US never trusted India till 21st century. Now slowly changing but long way to go. So it is going to be tough task to remove the country quota and all possible hurdles will come. It may take years to remove to country quota as it takes time to remove the obstacles. But what will happen if country quota is removed. There will be lot of interest in studying MS in non accredited colleges and many Indians will apply GC while OPT and more overcrowding may happen. There is no fair solution for this as the problem was created by Indians and soution also suggested by them.

[abcx13]

Why should others like us when we ourselves don't. Look at your own posts. There can be a period of few years to few decades when "India has a higher number of skilled migrants to offer the US as compared to all other nations." It depends on demographics, education, wage differential, population, language and many other factors. I don't think I am delusional.
I am equally frustrated with the GC wait and some of the random policies but the solution is not to demean ourselves. What exactly do you expect that others should stop using the best option available to them (whether it is EB1-C or L1 or EB3-EB2 porting) and you get your GC !!

Others should like us for our ability to introspect and correct our flaws and make ourselves better people. I find it sad that you don't possess the courage to see the shortcomings in (y)our fellow countrymen. I guess it is easier to criticize Americans for going to Iraq but much harder to see our own failings - whether it is with a clogged immigration system or opressing religious minorities in Kashmir or in the N. East. Just because someone is an American or an Indian doesn't mean they can't be critical of their own country.

If Indian demographics, education levels, language skills, wages were truly world class as you implicitly claim, India would be a much better place today. You seriously believe that India generates over HALF of the highly skilled qualified workers in the world that want to immigrate to the US and that labor cost arbitrage/skirting the rules is not a component to the mass influx of Indians employed in IT? The wilful blindness is truly staggering. It's one thing to be cogniznant of the situation and still game the system, but to deny the part Indians play in messing it up is ridiculous and cowardly.

As to whether I expect people to keep using the best possible option available, I expect a modicum of honesty in the process. This is why India is a mess - everyone is trying to use the "best option" available to them, which includes everything from employing underage laborers to skipping red lights. The law and propriety be damned. Sab chalta hai.

[abcx13]

If Indians would have tried to remove the country quota with recapture or STEM they might not have opposed.

In immigration the government can bring any law for protection of country. You cannot question anywhere except congress.

Now everyone knew that backlog is so much only for India as number of H1b persons are 60% every year. Next highest is china that is less than 10%. See the difference. China may not need HR 3012 in couple of years as their waiting will improve. The best solution will be one time releif for all the backlogs and restrict the future H1b

Point 1 is a non-starter. Nothing that raised immigration would have passed in this Congress.

Point 2 is wrong. Laws passed by Congress can still be challenged in the court on Constitutionality grounds (see Obamacare). It's really a matter of making a creative argument. Until Obamacare passed people weren't even thinking of Constitutional challenges.

I agree with you on point 3 but I'm clearly in the minority here.

[gcq]

What is the chance HR 3012 will be taken up before elections ? There are only 5 legislative days before election and there is a hold on the bill still. Is it possible to get this taken up before elections ?

After elections priorities for many of the supporters of the bill changes. Many might have supported the bill to get funding for their election campaigns. After elections that is not the case.

What do you guys think ?

[Ramsen]

Atleast not in their agenda so far. Unless there is a new development it is not being considered for September. Still no specific reason or status of the bill was publicly announced. That is a positive and negative. Best time will be Lame Duck if they are really interested on this bill.


What is the chance HR 3012 will be taken up before elections ? There are only 5 legislative days before election and there is a hold on the bill still. Is it possible to get this taken up before elections ?

After elections priorities for many of the supporters of the bill changes. Many might have supported the bill to get funding for their election campaigns. After elections that is not the case.

What do you guys think ?

[abcx13]

I remember reading somewhere that the only chance for this bill is the lame duck Congress *after* the election. Ron wrote this I believe because most immigration legislation has historically been passed in lame duck sessions.

[pakkpk]

3012 has no budget implication. I do not understand (except spreading negativity) why you are linking both. E2 was passed for Israeli investors. What provisions allotted for that?
The House Appropriations committee has released the text of the Continuing resolution to extend spending at current levels till March 2013

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20120910/BILLS-112hjres-PIH-CR2013.pdf

It is a clean spending bill and contains no reference to any immigration provision added on. There was some slim chance that 3012 provisions may be added to this but it appears like that has to go through on its own. More significantly many media outlets are reporting that both chambers may pass the resolution as early as by the end of this week.Hopefully this will not advance adjournment date and there will be time left for more legislative action after that.
This from POLITICO

“Democrats will engage in the game, too, putting up jobs bills that have no Republican support and little chance of passing. To add more fuel to the ‘do-nothing Congress’ label, at least one chamber — the Democratic-led Senate — could adjourn as early as Sept. 21 for another seven-week recess, coming on the heels of the five-week August recess. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will be playing ‘prevent defense’ through the Nov. 6 election, GOP aides said.

[rupen86]

I've asked this question on Ron's forum before but didn't get a response and was drowned out by the India haters (Jeff and DaveUK). So I'll ask it here again: how is it that in this day and age the immigration system can be so blatantly discriminatory? Under the civil rights act, employers can't discriminate based on national origin, so why can the government? Would it be legal if the government put a quota of 50 on immigrants who were black and 39,950 on others? Or hypothetically, would it be legal if they said that Christians (who only make up 34% of the world's population) have a quota of 39,500 and everyone else gets 500 visas? Or could they introduce separate immigration quotas for men and women? And if so, on what grounds?

I understand that they can have a diversity visa or sign special treaties with Chile and Singapore, but it seems like a national origin quota should be against the law for a general purpose employment based immigrant visa, which is what the EB program is. Are there really no grounds for a legal challenge against the country quota system? (This is probably a rhetorical question since I assume if there were grounds, some lawyers would have brought such a case to court.)

I too have the same question. Current laws do not allow to discriminate based on race, color and country of origin in employment. But current country quota is just doing that. I would think that if there is lawsuit, it would have a decent chance.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/07/22/high-skilled-immigration-restrictions-are-economically-senseless/