Bills, Rules & Politics

[idliman]

With a 50-50 split in senate, the senate Judiciary committee will be chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin. I think they will push DACA legislation. Fairness reform bill is a well defined low hanging fruit. Wonder how IV will play this as Durbin is a seasoned politician, who unfortunately does not like fairness bill. Anyway, welcome to a brand new America where the Democrats have the trifecta of power. They control the legislative calendar for the next two years. Expect stimulus-3 checks in the first quarter.

I want to see the VB jump starting with March bulletin. The cake might already been baked for Feb VB. I hope they do not waste GCs that spilled from FB.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

With a 50-50 split in senate, the senate Judiciary committee will be chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin. I think they will push DACA legislation. Fairness reform bill is a well defined low hanging fruit. Wonder how IV will play this as Durbin is a seasoned politician, who unfortunately does not like fairness bill. Anyway, welcome to a brand new America where the Democrats have the trifecta of power. They control the legislative calendar for the next two years. Expect stimulus-3 checks in the first quarter.

I want to see the VB jump starting with March bulletin. The cake might already been baked for Feb VB. I hope they do not waste GCs that spilled from FB.

Yeah DACA will be priority number one. I hope... seriously hope that they somehow do something, anything about relieving the backlog, and I don't think redistribution is the answer and also don't think increasing visas directly is the answer because it will be used against them endlessly. The best option would be to remove counting dependents and as they take most of the EB visas now and it would indirectly increase the allocation.

[smuggymba]

With a 50-50 split in senate, the senate Judiciary committee will be chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin. I think they will push DACA legislation. Fairness reform bill is a well defined low hanging fruit. Wonder how IV will play this as Durbin is a seasoned politician, who unfortunately does not like fairness bill. Anyway, welcome to a brand new America where the Democrats have the trifecta of power. They control the legislative calendar for the next two years. Expect stimulus-3 checks in the first quarter.

I want to see the VB jump starting with March bulletin. The cake might already been baked for Feb VB. I hope they do not waste GCs that spilled from FB.

Kamala Harris is a co-sponsor on the fairness bill so hopefully the VP can talk to Durbin and bring it back on the table. We will now see the true intent of the democrats - President himself has said the country caps should go / Kamala is a co-sponsor / senate and house under dems.

[vsivarama]

Kamala Harris is a co-sponsor on the fairness bill so hopefully the VP can talk to Durbin and bring it back on the table. We will now see the true intent of the democrats - President himself has said the country caps should go / Kamala is a co-sponsor / senate and house under dems.

I doubt that Durbin will do anything about it. It's like the dog who caught up with the car and now does not know what to do. He may yet surprise us by doing the right thing. But we should not let up the pressure to bring the bill up for vote in the next congress once it's reintroduced.

[jimmys]

We will now see the true intent of the democrats - .

You want to see democrats' intent to help legal employment immigrants, again? If you spent enough time in this country and followed democrats closely, you would know the answer.

I doubt Fairness bill that ONLY helps legal employment immigration will get approved in the next two years. If anything, the fairness will get clubbed into CIR bill and will see no light.

It's a great time for DACA and other legal/illegal immigration issues. But, it remains to be seen what Sen. Joe Manchin has to say about key issues in a 50-50 Senate.

The swamp will be re-created in DC and the Government will follow their interests, again.

[qesehmk]

I think people need to keep realistic perspective. This will be the best way get things done.

1) First time in US history a president has promised something very specific to a specific group of immigrants. This is not a wish. This is very specific agenda item.
2) First time in US history we have a part Indian American person who without any doubt will be extremely sympathetic to the idea of fairness and justice.
3) However we also must understand that Biden government has many bigger fish to fry other than immigration. Even within immigration family immigration is a bigger constituency and will take precedence.
4) Realistically any immigration bill have bigger chance in first 2 years.

So if I were a strategist I will start working now with the goal to get something done from mid 2021 to end 2022. I think dems will put this to bed but EB-I needs to come across as reasonable intelligent negotiators and not as spoiled entitled brats.

I think the other group's advocacy falls in the second category and we must desist that kind of approach. Country cap removal is in sight. Stay optimistic.

[jimmys]

The Indian Americans in Biden's administration will bring exactly what the Indian Americans in the previous democratic governments' brought, that is NOTHING to the table. Stop dreaming. You're going to be in the current admin like how you were in the 2009-2017 Obama admin which is "No one gives a s*** about you". Be wise and don't expect anything.

Also, make sure the democrats in the Congress just don't pass a bill that retains FB 2021 FY spillover with FB for 2022 FY. The probability for this to happen is way higher than Fairness bill getting introduced.

Public charge rule may be rescinded NOT because it's new to employment based legal immigration. It may rather be rescinded due to the fact it affects IR/FB immigrants.

[qesehmk]

Patience. As I said first time in history a presidential candidate is committed to removing country caps.

[Pundit Arjun]

Patience. As I said first time in history a presidential candidate is committed to removing country caps.

Will be happy if they do put nation first and then politics.
Democrats or republicans - I have witnessed only vote bank politics thus far. There may be a gem of a politician here or there but 1 gem cant change anything...

Now that the Dems control the congress, lets hope and pray that they work towards improving the nation and its people :)

"Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness" - Desmond Tutu

[qesehmk]

Will be happy if they do put nation first and then politics.
Democrats or republicans - I have witnessed only vote bank politics thus far. There may be a gem of a politician here or there but 1 gem cant change anything...

Now that the Dems control the congress, lets hope and pray that they work towards improving the nation and its people :)

"Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness" - Desmond Tutu

Vote bank politics is a good thing. Think about it. Would you rather have Koch or Ambani or Adani driving government policy? Or would you rather have groups that represent people drive government policy?

The reality is always somewhere in the middle. Sometimes (in fact quite often) even the biggest think tanks are driven by billionairres. But I am ok with that too because as long as a think tank is advocating good public policy it is all good.

I believe in politics as a way of public service and both in India and US there are good politicians. The difference is that in US politicians actually do control administration which limits any corruption. In India the administration controls government and public policy and hence they engage mindlessly in corruption and get away with it. But I digress!

[AceMan]

Vote bank politics is a good thing. Think about it. Would you rather have Koch or Ambani or Adani driving government policy? Or would you rather have groups that represent people drive government policy?

The reality is always somewhere in the middle. Sometimes (in fact quite often) even the biggest think tanks are driven by billionairres. But I am ok with that too because as long as a think tank is advocating good public policy it is all good.

I believe in politics as a way of public service and both in India and US there are good politicians. The difference is that in US politicians actually do control administration which limits any corruption. In India the administration controls government and public policy and hence they engage mindlessly in corruption and get away with it. But I digress!

I always feel it is disingenuous for people like us who left India for greener pastures of developed economies and comment about inefficiencies of Indian politicians. I have personally met multiple young leaders from different states few years back who came here for world parliament meet and they were determined and knowledgeable.

[qesehmk]

I always feel it is disingenuous for people like us who left India for greener pastures of developed economies and comment about inefficiencies of Indian politicians. I have personally met multiple young leaders from different states few years back who came here for world parliament meet and they were determined and knowledgeable.

Ace - I agree that India's new generation is more knowledgeable and confident. As long as they steer clear of anything that divides india along any lines, India will have bright future.

As per us who left India - Having an opinion is an act of love. Where is there is no love there indifference! Isn't it?

[AceMan]

Ace - I agree that India's new generation is more knowledgeable and confident. As long as they steer clear of anything that divides india along any lines, India will have bright future.

As per us who left India - Having an opinion is an act of love. Where is there is no love there indifference! Isn't it?

I have to tell you some facts I have noticed. My family in the past were predominantly congress supporters who had a nationalistic view. However I see all those great people whom I looked upon growing up along with new generation have totally turned to saffron. Among my family group I have seen only the people who are abroad are still holding to the India when and where we left. And any time we try and say something in the group, I have seen the 20 something nephews and nieces have no qualms in calling us absconders of mother land. It is more like your funds are needed for some charity shows and family activities where these people run the show.

The India I left nearly 2 decades back is different from what I am seeing now. I am not sure the love we are showing the country is valued by them.

[qesehmk]

I have to tell you some facts I have noticed. My family in the past were predominantly congress supporters who had a nationalistic view. However I see all those great people whom I looked upon growing up along with new generation have totally turned to saffron. Among my family group I have seen only the people who are abroad are still holding to the India when and where we left. And any time we try and say something in the group, I have seen the 20 something nephews and nieces have no qualms in calling us absconders of mother land. It is more like your funds are needed for some charity shows and family activities where these people run the show.

The India I left nearly 2 decades back is different from what I am seeing now. I am not sure the love we are showing the country is valued by them.

Sad but true.

[alpha0]

I have to tell you some facts I have noticed. My family in the past were predominantly congress supporters who had a nationalistic view. However I see all those great people whom I looked upon growing up along with new generation have totally turned to saffron. Among my family group I have seen only the people who are abroad are still holding to the India when and where we left. And any time we try and say something in the group, I have seen the 20 something nephews and nieces have no qualms in calling us absconders of mother land. It is more like your funds are needed for some charity shows and family activities where these people run the show.

The India I left nearly 2 decades back is different from what I am seeing now. I am not sure the love we are showing the country is valued by them.

Most 20 somethings i know back in india want to migrate to western world at first available opportunity.

Reg country cap removal, i feel it will not be a standalone bill in this congress, but will be part of some sort of mini CIR. And that too will not happen atleast till summer (or till covid restrictions are gone and economy is limping back to normalcy).

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

I have to tell you some facts I have noticed. My family in the past were predominantly congress supporters who had a nationalistic view. However I see all those great people whom I looked upon growing up along with new generation have totally turned to saffron. Among my family group I have seen only the people who are abroad are still holding to the India when and where we left. And any time we try and say something in the group, I have seen the 20 something nephews and nieces have no qualms in calling us absconders of mother land. It is more like your funds are needed for some charity shows and family activities where these people run the show.

The India I left nearly 2 decades back is different from what I am seeing now. I am not sure the love we are showing the country is valued by them.

Yeah I second that. The India we left behind is gone and we can only reminisce about it as we get older. All is not bad though, millions upon millions have been lifted out of poverty and have some better prospects. Change is going to be slow but it's definitely happening. It's only visible in infrastructure and other things but hopefully the mentality of the people will also slowly change.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

I guess IV better take down the Durbin is Racist and other propaganda cr*p down. He will be Chairman of the Sen Judiciary Committee now :D.

[AceMan]

Yeah I second that. The India we left behind is gone and we can only reminisce about it as we get older. All is not bad though, millions upon millions have been lifted out of poverty and have some better prospects. Change is going to be slow but it's definitely happening. It's only visible in infrastructure and other things but hopefully the mentality of the people will also slowly change.

The quality of life has definitely improved. I used to recall the LA t shirts and my first converse shoe given to me as a teenager by my cousin in 80's. I could barely stand the snide remarks about India being dirty by my uncle and aunt, but we had no choice other than keeping quiet. Generally the reward of seeing their back used to 100 Rs in late 80's and that was a princely 300 rs. during my college days. :o With more cousins and family going out my mid 90's the tips reached around to 1000 Rs a year which was a great amount when you did not have any habits like smoking or drinking.

Since demonetization the baksish for immediate family kids pre teens are 2 K and multiples of 2000 for teens.

People in India are now much more optimistic and more positive.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

The quality of life has definitely improved. I used to recall the LA t shirts and my first converse shoe given to me as a teenager by my cousin in 80's. I could barely stand the snide remarks about India being dirty by my uncle and aunt, but we had no choice other than keeping quiet. Generally the reward of seeing their back used to 100 Rs in late 80's and that was a princely 300 rs. during my college days. :o With more cousins and family going out my mid 90's the tips reached around to 1000 Rs a year which was a great amount when you did not have any habits like smoking or drinking.

Since demonetization the baksish for immediate family kids pre teens are 2 K and multiples of 2000 for teens.

People in India are now much more optimistic and more positive.

The funniest aspect when it comes to visiting India for me is the coins! I visit maybe 2 weeks once every 2 years and every time I go they all seemed to have changed! While I am sorting out what coin is what, the shopkeepers look at me like I am a numskull.

[AceMan]

Reg country cap removal, i feel it will not be a standalone bill in this congress, but will be part of some sort of mini CIR. And that too will not happen atleast till summer (or till covid restrictions are gone and economy is limping back to normalcy).

Ideally a one time deal of half a million EB based GC to clear out the legal people waiting in the country would be the best thing to happen followed by the country cap removal. If they are normalizing DACA this would be the best thing to happen for EB.

[qesehmk]

One more time - the mystery of Unanimous Consent - unveiled.

Pelosi used UC to force Pence to invoke Article 25 (to declare president unfit for office). GOP objected. End of discussion.

This way Pelosi got GOP on record to have failed to remove a dangerous president.

Lesson - once again this proves that UC is frequently used to score political points knowing fully well it is going to fail.

Advocacy my foot. I have never ever set foot on capitol and I figured this out on my own and these immigration traitors cozy upto GOP to bash Durbin.

As you can see I am never ever going to let this go until the stupid jerks apologize to Durbin for falsely holding him responsible for GOP's S386 fiasco. Durbin is a perfectly pro immigration - good senator. It was GOP who used UC to hold S386 knowing fully well it had no future if UC was invoked.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

One more time - the mystery of Unanimous Consent - unveiled.

Pelosi used UC to force Pence to invoke Article 25 (to declare president unfit for office). GOP objected. End of discussion.

This way Pelosi got GOP on record to have failed to remove a dangerous president.

Lesson - once again this proves that UC is frequently used to score political points knowing fully well it is going to fail.

Advocacy my foot. I have never ever set foot on capitol and I figured this out on my own and these immigration traitors cozy upto GOP to bash Durbin.

As you can see I am never ever going to let this go until the stupid jerks apologize to Durbin for falsely holding him responsible for GOP's S386 fiasco. Durbin is a perfectly pro immigration - good senator. It was GOP who used UC to hold S386 knowing fully well it had no future if UC was invoked.

IV has not tweeted a single thing since Dec 18. For someone who supposedly cares about high skilled immigrants, there were several consequential things that have happened since then: The votes were officially certified by Congress and Biden WILL be the next POTUS, the Democrats swept the Georgia Senate races and now can actually pass legislation without begging Republicans. All IV did was collect $496,000 based on the UC passed by Mike Lee...

[jimmys]

One more time - the mystery of Unanimous Consent - unveiled.

Pelosi used UC to force Pence to invoke Article 25 (to declare president unfit for office). GOP objected. End of discussion.

This way Pelosi got GOP on record to have failed to remove a dangerous president.

Lesson - once again this proves that UC is frequently used to score political points knowing fully well it is going to fail.

Advocacy my foot. I have never ever set foot on capitol and I figured this out on my own and these immigration traitors cozy upto GOP to bash Durbin.

As you can see I am never ever going to let this go until the stupid jerks apologize to Durbin for falsely holding him responsible for GOP's S386 fiasco. Durbin is a perfectly pro immigration - good senator. It was GOP who used UC to hold S386 knowing fully well it had no future if UC was invoked.

Just your opinion. Complete misunderstanding of the actual events happened. Durbin pro-immigrant? Nice try.

[jimmys]

IV has not tweeted a single thing since Dec 18. For someone who supposedly cares about high skilled immigrants, there were several consequential things that have happened since then: The votes were officially certified by Congress and Biden WILL be the next POTUS, the Democrats swept the Georgia Senate races and now can actually pass legislation without begging Republicans. All IV did was collect $496,000 based on the UC passed by Mike Lee...

Which legislation you are talking about? Remember the name Joe Manchin. He's against $2000 and Trump's impeachment. Democrats won a couple of senate seats in Georgia that they don't need. Good luck passing any immigration bills in the senate. UC or otherwise.

I'm not sure even Bernie Sanders will help passing any immigration bill that only benefits Indian nationals.

[qesehmk]

IV has not tweeted a single thing since Dec 18. For someone who supposedly cares about high skilled immigrants, there were several consequential things that have happened since then: The votes were officially certified by Congress and Biden WILL be the next POTUS, the Democrats swept the Georgia Senate races and now can actually pass legislation without begging Republicans. All IV did was collect $496,000 based on the UC passed by Mike Lee...

Advocacy needs money. So I understand that part.

But it is unconscionable that even now they haven't formally apologized to Sen. Durbin.

[alpha0]

I was reading about new DHS rule asking end clients also to get LCA filed for H1B subcontractors. I agree it is too much of a burden, but if somehow USCIS starts comparing resumes given to end clients vs filed by employers for h1b/gc purposes, lot of fraud cases can be caught and eliminated.

[inspired_p]

I was reading about new DHS rule asking end clients also to get LCA filed for H1B subcontractors. I agree it is too much of a burden, but if somehow USCIS starts comparing resumes given to end clients vs filed by employers for h1b/gc purposes, lot of fraud cases can be caught and eliminated.

Everything is a double edged sword. I personally tailor the resume for every client depending the scope and area of expertise required
Asking USCIS to compare resume on file with resume used for specific client is asking for trouble.
Adjudicators have too much discretion

[vsivarama]

I was reading about new DHS rule asking end clients also to get LCA filed for H1B subcontractors. I agree it is too much of a burden, but if somehow USCIS starts comparing resumes given to end clients vs filed by employers for h1b/gc purposes, lot of fraud cases can be caught and eliminated.

This is a slippery slope and most probably will be litigated if not sidelined by the Biden admin. Laws are seldom isolated and have far reaching effects. This redefines the employer/employee relationship for contractors. Contractors (esp. US citizens/GC holders) can potentially use this law to claim that as end client is being treated as part employer, they will need to provide some of the benefits they afford to their FTEs. Businesses do not look at these kinds of laws as an inconvenience but rather as something that threatens their business model.

[alpha0]

Everything is a double edged sword. I personally tailor the resume for every client depending the scope and area of expertise required
Asking USCIS to compare resume on file with resume used for specific client is asking for trouble.
Adjudicators have too much discretion

Issue is not much about tailored resumes, it is about doctored resumes where people showing US work exp when they were in highschool / college in India or were in US in a status not eligible to work.

Even in tailored resumes, if you were a programmer in previous client and now change same exp as functiaonal consultant or manager, it should raise questions.

If somoene has to go to prison for faking son/daughter's resume for college admissions, dont you think people padding their resumes and companies helping them with that to get a job should be treated same way?

[peterpan]

Relief is coming

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-immigration-plan/2021/01/18/f0526824-59a8-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html?itid=hp-top-table-main

"President-elect Joe Biden will roll out a sweeping overhaul of the nation?s immigration laws the day he is inaugurated, ...

" "The legislation from the Biden White House also will contain several revisions to the legal immigration process, according to transition officials.

It bolsters the number of key employment- and family-based visas available by recapturing unused visas from previous years ...."

"It also grants work permits for spouses and children of temporary worker visa holders, although the number of available H-1B visas for high-skilled foreign workers and H2-B visas for lower-skilled non-agriculture workers won?t be expanded, officials said."

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

Relief is coming

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-immigration-plan/2021/01/18/f0526824-59a8-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html?itid=hp-top-table-main

"President-elect Joe Biden will roll out a sweeping overhaul of the nation?s immigration laws the day he is inaugurated, ...

" "The legislation from the Biden White House also will contain several revisions to the legal immigration process, according to transition officials.

It bolsters the number of key employment- and family-based visas available by recapturing unused visas from previous years ...."

"It also grants work permits for spouses and children of temporary worker visa holders, although the number of available H-1B visas for high-skilled foreign workers and H2-B visas for lower-skilled non-agriculture workers won?t be expanded, officials said."

Before we get excited, it might be worthwhile to revisit filibuster rules. Mods can move this to another section if needed.

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-is-the-senate-filibuster-and-what-would-it-take-to-eliminate-it/

[qesehmk]

The biggest change from EB perspective is that he is proposing exempting wife and children from visa limits. That's effectively doubling the quota. That will be huge!! It will most likely wipe out backlogs in 5 years or so.
Relief is coming

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-immigration-plan/2021/01/18/f0526824-59a8-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html?itid=hp-top-table-main

"President-elect Joe Biden will roll out a sweeping overhaul of the nation?s immigration laws the day he is inaugurated, ...

" "The legislation from the Biden White House also will contain several revisions to the legal immigration process, according to transition officials.

It bolsters the number of key employment- and family-based visas available by recapturing unused visas from previous years ...."

"It also grants work permits for spouses and children of temporary worker visa holders, although the number of available H-1B visas for high-skilled foreign workers and H2-B visas for lower-skilled non-agriculture workers won?t be expanded, officials said."

[vedu]

Relief is coming

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-immigration-plan/2021/01/18/f0526824-59a8-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html?itid=hp-top-table-main

"President-elect Joe Biden will roll out a sweeping overhaul of the nation?s immigration laws the day he is inaugurated, ...

" "The legislation from the Biden White House also will contain several revisions to the legal immigration process, according to transition officials.

It bolsters the number of key employment- and family-based visas available by recapturing unused visas from previous years ...."

"It also grants work permits for spouses and children of temporary worker visa holders, although the number of available H-1B visas for high-skilled foreign workers and H2-B visas for lower-skilled non-agriculture workers won?t be expanded, officials said."

I just want to see one statement in there...a promise to not waste a single visa available for this year! Other things require support of both houses, but using 100% of the visas for this year can be done single-handedly by the administration. It is much easier to do that than sending so called immigration legislation to capture visas from previous years to congress, and waiting for them to do something about it.

It's like we are dying here today expecting them to give us what is legitimately should be given to us this year, and they are telling us..."Relax...don't talk about such small things like using 100% of the visas. We are going to do big things for you in future...a relief is on the way! Why are you worried about this year? There will be no backlog in 5-10 years from now":cool:

[rabp77]

Relief is coming

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-immigration-plan/2021/01/18/f0526824-59a8-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html?itid=hp-top-table-main

"President-elect Joe Biden will roll out a sweeping overhaul of the nation?s immigration laws the day he is inaugurated, ...

" "The legislation from the Biden White House also will contain several revisions to the legal immigration process, according to transition officials.

It bolsters the number of key employment- and family-based visas available by recapturing unused visas from previous years ...."

"It also grants work permits for spouses and children of temporary worker visa holders, although the number of available H-1B visas for high-skilled foreign workers and H2-B visas for lower-skilled non-agriculture workers won?t be expanded, officials said."

if they recapture unused visas, everyone will be current. Though its likely to be challenged in courts unless there is a change of law.

There should be very good progress even if they use up 100% of the spill over this FY and next (even without any change in laws). Keeping our fingers crossed, and we should know relatively soon.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

if they recapture unused visas, everyone will be current. Though its likely to be challenged in courts unless there is a change of law.

There should be very good progress even if they use up 100% of the spill over this FY and next (even without any change in laws). Keeping our fingers crossed, and we should know relatively soon.

Evil people like Tom Cotton have already raised the alarm with their favorite word: Amnesty. You will keep hearing that over and over again. It's going to be very difficult to make this happen when it's being enjoined with provisions for the undocumented.

[Zenzone]

I just want to see one statement in there...a promise to not waste a single visa available for this year! Other things require support of both houses, but using 100% of the visas for this year can be done single-handedly by the administration. It is much easier to do that than sending so called immigration legislation to capture visas from previous years to congress, and waiting for them to do something about it.

It's like we are dying here today expecting them to give us what is legitimately should be given to us this year, and they are telling us..."Relax...don't talk about such small things like using 100% of the visas. We are going to do big things for you in future...a relief is on the way! Why are you worried about this year? There will be no backlog in 5-10 years from now":cool:

"Relax...don't talk about such small things like using 100% of the visas. We are going to do big things for you in future...a relief is on the way! Why are you worried about this year? There will be no backlog in 5-10 years from now" - Is this your comment or did anyone say that explicitly?? I didn't see such language anywhere!

[idliman]

The biggest change from EB perspective is that he is proposing exempting wife and children from visa limits. That's effectively doubling the quota. That will be huge!! It will most likely wipe out backlogs in 5 years or so.
Q, I accidentally deleted my reply to this topic (fat finger on a mobile).

The bottom line is D's need 10 R senators. If you can remember, Pres. BO could not get even1 R senator to support him for healthcare after they lost MA seat. Pres. BO spent all his political capital on healthcare. I am glad to see Pres. Elect. JB willing to spend political capital on immigration. However, with such an "amnesty" proposal, they are not going to get even 5 R senators. They need to tone it down a lot. I think only something like existing DACA without a pathway to citizenship will pass after a long drawn news cycle. Unlike EB immigrants, these DACA kids have fire in their bellies.

[srimurthy]

Q, I accidentally deleted my reply to this topic (fat finger on a mobile).

The bottom line is D's need 10 R senators. If you can remember, Pres. BO could not get even1 R senator to support him for healthcare after they lost MA seat. Pres. BO spent all his political capital on healthcare. I am glad to see Pres. Elect. JB willing to spend political capital on immigration. However, with such an "amnesty" proposal, they are not going to get even 5 R senators. They need to tone it down a lot. I think only something like existing DACA without a pathway to citizenship will pass after a long drawn news cycle. Unlike EB immigrants, these DACA kids have fire in their bellies.

From the new articles it looks like most who are here before 1/1/2021 can file and get a pathway to GC (5 Years) and Citizenship (8 Years total) changing the wait period from GC to Citizenship to 3 years. And that is too aggressive, 8 years the employment members are not even getting to file for 485 awesome.

[longwaitgigu]

I was reading one of Greg siskind tweet
Where it says
Biden signing EO today for immigration
We have a list of today?s immigration EOs!

1: Rescinding Census EO
2: Rescinding Muslim Ban
3: Rescinding 2017 interior enforcement EO
4: Stop wall construction
5: Renewing Liberian DED
6: Fortifying DACA

Is the moratorium in no. 3? Or is it not today?
Is it safe to assume number 3 is related to interview mandate which came on march 2017

[qesehmk]

Q, I accidentally deleted my reply to this topic (fat finger on a mobile).

The bottom line is D's need 10 R senators. If you can remember, Pres. BO could not get even1 R senator to support him for healthcare after they lost MA seat. Pres. BO spent all his political capital on healthcare. I am glad to see Pres. Elect. JB willing to spend political capital on immigration. However, with such an "amnesty" proposal, they are not going to get even 5 R senators. They need to tone it down a lot. I think only something like existing DACA without a pathway to citizenship will pass after a long drawn news cycle. Unlike EB immigrants, these DACA kids have fire in their bellies.

Hi Idli,

Yes Obama had it very very rough. But most of the resistance to Obama was purely because he was African American. Biden has two advantages, he is white and he has life long friendships all over the place.

Having said that I do agree that blanket amnesty is not at all acceptable to a very large section of GOP. However you must understand that GOP will lose Texas (their bedrock) very very soon if they don't change their ways. So IMHO it is just a matter of time before DACA children get their dues. (yes I do believe America owes them citizenship. Because citizenship afterall just a formality. For all practical purposes these children ARE americans).

We should rejoice that we have a president who is speaking for removing nationalities based discrimination.

[bookworm]

Hi Idli,

Yes Obama had it very very rough. But most of the resistance to Obama was purely because he was African American. Biden has two advantages, he is white and he has life long friendships all over the place.

Having said that I do agree that blanket amnesty is not at all acceptable to a very large section of GOP. However you must understand that GOP will lose Texas (their bedrock) very very soon if they don't change their ways. So IMHO it is just a matter of time before DACA children get their dues. (yes I do believe America owes them citizenship. Because citizenship afterall just a formality. For all practical purposes these children ARE americans).

We should rejoice that we have a president who is speaking for removing nationalities based discrimination.

I agree with you that the policy changes are a step in the right direction. However the Policy should be supported by the processes. The broken process flow tends to divert resources to the current political priority. There needs to be a modernization component in immigration reform to move into the 20th if not 21st century. I mean we are still talking about getting paper based RFEs and responses when the world has moved to tik tok.

[qesehmk]

I agree with you that the policy changes are a step in the right direction. However the Policy should be supported by the processes. The broken process flow tends to divert resources to the current political priority. There needs to be a modernization component in immigration reform to move into the 20th if not 21st century. I mean we are still talking about getting paper based RFEs and responses when the world has moved to tik tok.

Totally agree. You know why all these processes are manual and paper based? Because it protects jobs at USCIS which are 100% supported via fees collected from immigrants. That's why exactly as you say the processes must be automated and I will say that we also need a structural change in USCIS funding.

[AceMan]

Totally agree. You know why all these processes are manual and paper based? Because it protects jobs at USCIS which are 100% supported via fees collected from immigrants. That's why exactly as you say the processes must be automated and I will say that we also need a structural change in USCIS funding.

The biggest misnomer as shown by covid pandemic is the Medicals with 2 year validity. The immigration doctors, the TB tests, false positives, RFE for expired medicals.

Repealing the need for medicals for people in the country for more than 3 years should really spare lot of USCiS resources.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

Durbin is officially Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is giving a speech on DACA already.

[inspired_p]

Issue is not much about tailored resumes, it is about doctored resumes where people showing US work exp when they were in highschool / college in India or were in US in a status not eligible to work.

Even in tailored resumes, if you were a programmer in previous client and now change same exp as functiaonal consultant or manager, it should raise questions.

If somoene has to go to prison for faking son/daughter's resume for college admissions, dont you think people padding their resumes and companies helping them with that to get a job should be treated same way?

It is not a good thing solely based on the fact that we can't trust USCIS ( who by no means are Subject Matter experts) to decide what level of digression constitute a fraud resume.
It is like that story of a monkey having a sword to kill a mosquito. Surely they will cut our nose with it.

[qesehmk]

Durbin is officially Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is giving a speech on DACA already.

Mark my words - country caps are going to be history within next 2 years. :)

[alpha0]

Q, I accidentally deleted my reply to this topic (fat finger on a mobile).

The bottom line is D's need 10 R senators. If you can remember, Pres. BO could not get even1 R senator to support him for healthcare after they lost MA seat. Pres. BO spent all his political capital on healthcare. I am glad to see Pres. Elect. JB willing to spend political capital on immigration. However, with such an "amnesty" proposal, they are not going to get even 5 R senators. They need to tone it down a lot. I think only something like existing DACA without a pathway to citizenship will pass after a long drawn news cycle. Unlike EB immigrants, these DACA kids have fire in their bellies.

First of all, there would be few democrats from southern states who also wont support blanket amnesty. Then there will be questions on how they will stop flood of new immigrants from southern border who will try to get in to benefit from amnesty. Since these people dont have any valid id, they can provide whatever fake document/s needed to prove they were in US before 1 Jan 2021.

I was reading on Greg Siskind twitter that same plan wants to allow people with approved petitions to come to US on visas while they wait for GC. Do they even know how many such millions are waiting from Mexico / Phillipines and other countries?

And when unemployment is around 8%, which politician is going to triple number of greencards for EB immigrants? I hope those who write the bill split into few parts - first part can be about DACA + country quota removal type of things. Time is not right for major amnesty.

[Zenzone]

Mark my words - country caps are going to be history within next 2 years. :)

Yes. I'm also more optimistic about this than ever now.

[usvisas]

Hi Idli,

Yes Obama had it very very rough. But most of the resistance to Obama was purely because he was African American. Biden has two advantages, he is white and he has life long friendships all over the place.

the other difference I see is that these EO's and revocations, new bill(s) - have ALL come right away on day 1 unlike during BO.

[vsivarama]

You will soon start hearing from R's using "us" the legal immigrants as a shield to fight back against the immigration bill. They will suddenly be sympathetic to backlogged folks and how we are delayed while undocumented are being fast tracked to citizenship. While that is true, let's not for a moment believe those crocodile tears. It's just political theatre. They will want to twist our advocacy efforts to meet their ends and then kick us to the curb once they get their way. So let's be wary. For D's and R's it's not about legal vs illegal or right vs wrong, it's pure vote bank politics. If we had the numbers the undocumented folks have then the D's would have been pandering to us "bigly" (as our former President used to say)

[qesehmk]

the other difference I see is that these EO's and revocations, new bill(s) - have ALL come right away on day 1 unlike during BO.

Obama had it very rough. The 2008 crisis was in full swing. If you were here in US we were talking about future of capitalism as we know it. The whole banking system was going down. So immigration at that time was not a priority at all.

[usvisas]

Obama had it very rough. The 2008 crisis was in full swing. If you were here in US we were talking about future of capitalism as we know it. The whole banking system was going down. So immigration at that time was not a priority at all.

True that. But this time too there's the pandemic and economy that only wallstreet-wise looks very rosy. it doesn't show as the big boys still continue to mint...

[qesehmk]

True that. But this time too there's the pandemic and economy that only wallstreet-wise looks very rosy. it doesn't show as the big boys still continue to mint...
The difference is the damage is done and assessed by now vs in 2008 the crisis was being born as Obama was being sworn in.

Also as it relates to immigration the situation was opposite, in 2008 immigration was not as acute problem from immigrants POV as it is today.

[mcmilers]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/alien-biden-immigration-law/index.html

He is getting right to work. I totally agree here. Alein is a very denigrating word.

[idliman]

President Biden Sends Immigration Bill to Congress as Part of His Commitment to Modernize our Immigration System

The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 establishes a new system to responsibly manage and secure our border, keep our families and communities safe, and better manage migration across the Hemisphere

President Biden is sending a bill to Congress on day one to restore humanity and American values to our immigration system. The bill provides hardworking people who enrich our communities every day and who have lived here for years, in some cases for decades, an opportunity to earn citizenship. The legislation modernizes our immigration system, and prioritizes keeping families together, growing our economy, responsibly managing the border with smart investments, addressing the root causes of migration from Central America, and ensuring that the United States remains a refuge for those fleeing persecution. The bill will stimulate our economy while ensuring that every worker is protected. The bill creates an earned path to citizenship for our immigrant neighbors, colleagues, parishioners, community leaders, friends, and loved ones?including Dreamers and the essential workers who have risked their lives to serve and protect American communities.

The U.S. Citizenship Act will:

PROVIDE PATHWAYS TO CITIZENSHIP & STRENGTHEN LABOR PROTECTIONS



[*=left]Create an earned roadmap to citizenship for undocumented individuals. The bill allows undocumented individuals to apply for temporary legal status, with the ability to apply for green cards after five years if they pass criminal and national security background checks and pay their taxes. Dreamers, TPS holders, and immigrant farmworkers who meet specific requirements are eligible for green cards immediately under the legislation. After three years, all green card holders who pass additional background checks and demonstrate knowledge of English and U.S. civics can apply to become citizens. Applicants must be physically present in the United States on or before January 1, 2021. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may waive the presence requirement for those deported on or after January 20, 2017 who were physically present for at least three years prior to removal for family unity and other humanitarian purposes. Lastly, the bill further recognizes America as a nation of immigrants by changing the word ?alien? to ?noncitizen? in our immigration laws.
[*=left]Keep families together. The bill reforms the family-based immigration system by clearing backlogs, recapturing unused visas, eliminating lengthy wait times, and increasing per-country visa caps. It also eliminates the so-called ?3 and 10-year bars,? and other provisions that keep families apart. The bill further supports familes by more explicitly including permanent partnerships and eliminating discrimination facing LGBTQ+ families. It also provides protections for orphans, widows, children, and Filipino veterans who fought alongside the United States in World War II. Lastly, the bill allows immigrants with approved family-sponsorship petitions to join family in the United States on a temporary basis while they wait for green cards to become available.
[*=left]Embrace diversity. The bill includes the NO BAN Act that prohibits discrimination based on religion and limits presidential authority to issue future bans. The bill also increases Diversity Visas to 80,000 from 55,000. Promote immigrant and refugee integration and citizenship. The bill provides new funding to state and local governments, private organizations, educational institutions, community-based organizations, and not-for-profit organizations to expand programs to promote integration and inclusion, increase English-language instruction, and provide assistance to individuals seeking to become citizens.
[*=left]Grow our economy. This bill clears employment-based visa backlogs, recaptures unused visas, reduces lengthy wait times, and eliminates per-country visa caps. The bill makes it easier for graduates of U.S. universities with advanced STEM degrees to stay in the United States; improves access to green cards for workers in lower-wage sectors; and eliminates other unnecessary hurdles for employment-based green cards. The bill provides dependents of H-1B visa holders work authorization, and children are prevented from ?aging out? of the system. The bill also creates a pilot program to stimulate regional economic development, gives DHS the authority to adjust green cards based on macroeconomic conditions, and incentivizes higher wages for non-immigrant, high-skilled visas to prevent unfair competition with American workers.
[*=left]Protect workers from exploitation and improve the employment verification process. The bill requires that DHS and the Department of Labor establish a commission involving labor, employer, and civil rights organizations to make recommendations for improving the employment verification process. Workers who suffer serious labor violations and cooperate with worker protection agencies will be granted greater access to U visa relief. The bill protects workers who are victims of workplace retaliation from deportation in order to allow labor agencies to interview these workers. It also protects migrant and seasonal workers, and increases penalties for employers who violate labor laws.



PRIORITIZE SMART BORDER CONTROLS




[*=left]Supplement existing border resources with technology and infrastructure. The legislation builds on record budget allocations for immigration enforcement by authorizing additional funding for the Secretary of DHS to develop and implement a plan to deploy technology to expedite screening and enhance the ability to identify narcotics and other contraband at every land, air, and sea port of entry. This includes high-throughput scanning technologies to ensure that all commercial and passenger vehicles and freight rail traffic entering the United States at land ports of entry and rail-border crossings along the border undergo pre-primary scanning. It also authorizes and provides funding for plans to improve infrastructure at ports of entry to enhance the ability to process asylum seekers and detect, interdict, disrupt and prevent narcotics from entering the United States. It authorizes the DHS Secretary to develop and implement a strategy to manage and secure the southern border between ports of entry that focuses on flexible solutions and technologies that expand the ability to detect illicit activity, evaluate the effectiveness of border security operations, and be easily relocated and broken out by Border Patrol Sector. To protect privacy, the DHS Inspector General is authorized to conduct oversight to ensure that employed technology effectively serves legitimate agency purposes.
[*=left]Manage the border and protect border communities. The bill provides funding for training and continuing education to promote agent and officer safety and professionalism. It also creates a Border Community Stakeholder Advisory Committee, provides more special agents at the DHS Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate criminal and administrative misconduct, and requires the issuance of department-wide policies governing the use of force. The bill directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the impact of DHS?s authority to waive environmental and state and federal laws to expedite the construction of barriers and roads near U.S. borders and provides for additional rescue beacons to prevent needless deaths along the border. The bill authorizes and provides funding for DHS, in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and nongovernmental experts, to develop guidelines and protocols for standards of care for individuals, families, and children in CBP custody.
[*=left]Crack down on criminal organizations. The bill enhances the ability to prosecute individuals involved in smuggling and trafficking networks who are responsible for the exploitation of migrants. It also expands investigations, intelligence collection and analysis pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act to increase sanctions against foreign narcotics traffickers, their organizations and networks. The bill also requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and DHS, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to improve and expand transnational anti-gang task forces in Central America.
Post 1 of 2

[idliman]

ADDRESS ROOT CAUSES OF MIGRATION



[*=left]Start from the source. The bill codifies and funds the President?s $4 billion four-year inter-agency plan to address the underlying causes of migration in the region, including by increasing assistance to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, conditioned on their ability to reduce the endemic corruption, violence, and poverty that causes people to flee their home countries. It also creates safe and legal channels for people to seek protection, including by establishing Designated Processing Centers throughout Central America to register and process displaced persons for refugee resettlement and other lawful migration avenues?either to the United States or other partner countries. The bill also re-institutes the Central American Minors program to reunite children with U.S. relatives and creates a Central American Family Reunification Parole Program to more quickly unite families with approved family sponsorship petitions.
[*=left]Improve the immigration courts and protect vulnerable individuals. The bill expands family case management programs, reduces immigration court backlogs, expands training for immigration judges, and improves technology for immigration courts. The bill also restores fairness and balance to our immigration system by providing judges and adjudicators with discretion to review cases and grant relief to deserving individuals. Funding is authorized for legal orientation programs and counsel for children, vulnerable individuals, and others when necessary to ensure the fair and efficient resolution of their claims. The bill also provides funding for school districts educating unaccompanied children, while clarifying sponsor responsibilities for such children.
[*=left]Support asylum seekers and other vulnerable populations. The bill eliminates the one-year deadline for filing asylum claims and provides funding to reduce asylum application backlogs. It also increases protections for U visa, T visa, and VAWA applicants, including by raising the cap on U visas from 10,000 to 30,000. The bill also expands protections for foreign nationals assisting U.S. troops.



Post 2 of 2

[idliman]

Well there is wording above in Pres. JB's proposal that states FB-"increasing per-country visa caps" and EB-"eliminates per-country visa caps". This will be a major part of any immigration policy of this JB admin. This is a good start.

[vsivarama]

Well there is wording above in Pres. JB's proposal that states FB-"increasing per-country visa caps" and EB-"eliminates per-country visa caps". This will be a major part of any immigration policy of this JB admin. This is a good start.

Realistically speaking, this bill is dead on arrival with the very slight Democrat lead in the senate. The best bet is to break it down to pieces and pass the ones for which there is broader support which D's do not want. They would rather hold legal immigrants hostage to reach their end goal. Let's see if it is any different this time around.

[qesehmk]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/alien-biden-immigration-law/index.html

He is getting right to work. I totally agree here. Alein is a very denigrating word.

Beautiful. Just goes to show how empathetic this president is.

[qesehmk]

Realistically speaking, this bill is dead on arrival with the very slight Democrat lead in the senate. The best bet is to break it down to pieces and pass the ones for which there is broader support which D's do not want. They would rather hold legal immigrants hostage to reach their end goal. Let's see if it is any different this time around.
I am sorry how is this dead on arrival? There is no filibuster anymore. Dems control the house and senate. So if they want it they can pass. It's just a matter of priorities and of course Biden being biden would rather have a few republicans along with rather than steamroll this.

I think this has fair chance. Just a question of how much democrats want to compromise. That's it.

p.s. - Rocket corrected me. Actually filibuster is still in effect for regular bills. So yes this will not be easy by any means.

[rocketfast]

I am sorry how is this dead on arrival? There is no filibuster anymore.

That is not true, Q. They have filibuster for regular bills. Only few things like budget, cabinet and court appointments don't need 60 votes. There is talk to end filibuster for everything, but that IMO is a nuclear option as Dems will likely lose senate without adding new states and then it is just Republican dominance once they get 50 seats.

[qesehmk]

That is not true, Q. They have filibuster for regular bills. Only few things like budget, cabinet and court appointments don't need 60 votes. There is talk to end filibuster for everything, but that IMO is a nuclear option as Dems will likely lose senate without adding new states and then it is just Republican dominance once they get 50 seats.

Thanks Rocket. I stand corrected and apologize to vsivarama!

Yes indeed it will be very tough to find 10 GOP senators to break filibuster and thus the bill has very tough path unless there is some give and take. Not impossible if they push for this early on.

[vsivarama]

That is not true, Q. They have filibuster for regular bills. Only few things like budget, cabinet and court appointments don't need 60 votes. There is talk to end filibuster for everything, but that IMO is a nuclear option as Dems will likely lose senate without adding new states and then it is just Republican dominance once they get 50 seats.

That's right. Ending filibuster could come back to bite the democrats unless they are prepared to take it all the way and provide statehood to Puerto Rico and DC to balance out the scales somewhat. Harry Reid nuked the filibuster when it came to the courts. We all know where it landed us with Supreme Court and other justices.

[nbk1976]

That's right. Ending filibuster could come back to bite the democrats unless they are prepared to take it all the way and provide statehood to Puerto Rico and DC to balance out the scales somewhat. Harry Reid nuked the filibuster when it came to the courts. We all know where it landed us with Supreme Court and other justices.

Harry Reid did not get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court vacancies. It was the GOP that did that.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-gop-ended-senate-filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/

[Zenzone]

That's right. Ending filibuster could come back to bite the democrats unless they are prepared to take it all the way and provide statehood to Puerto Rico and DC to balance out the scales somewhat. Harry Reid nuked the filibuster when it came to the courts. We all know where it landed us with Supreme Court and other justices.

Well if Dems don't remove it for every other bill type that remains under the filibuster rule, I feel that the next GOP trifecta (if it happens) will certainly attempt to do it regardless. Just like how they went for the jugular for judge nominations under DT. It can only serve Dems to rip the band aid off right now and inflict max. leverage out of it to push their legislative agenda, and yes statehood to DC and PR as well as SC packing should all be on the table if they want to blunt any future effects of a possible GOP trifecta.

[Zenzone]

I am sorry how is this dead on arrival? There is no filibuster anymore. Dems control the house and senate. So if they want it they can pass. It's just a matter of priorities and of course Biden being biden would rather have a few republicans along with rather than steamroll this.

I think this has fair chance. Just a question of how much democrats want to compromise. That's it.

p.s. - Rocket corrected me. Actually filibuster is still in effect for regular bills. So yes this will not be easy by any means.

My money is on filibuster coming to a complete end imminently.

[vsivarama]

Harry Reid did not get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court vacancies. It was the GOP that did that.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-gop-ended-senate-filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/

Harry Reid did not get rid of filibuster for SC, but he did so for judicial nominees in general. I never mentioned SC in my statement. Once the cat is out of the bag you cannot hide it. A lot of these procedural things work on precedent (including a lot of court judgements). Once you set a precedent, it can be used as an argument/precedent for any future judgements. So always be careful what you wish for. A lot of Republicans were ok with Dictator Trump. But you know what, once the precedent is set it's hard to undo. Dictators are toppled all the time and very soon we could have dictator Sanders. I am just giving an example here to make a point (I am ok with President xyz but not with dictator xyz). That's the only reason all of the republican senators did not go along with stop the steal nonsense as it can as easily be orchestrated by Democrats in the future. They made sure the majority (of house and senate) would recognize Biden and the rest is theatre. Same was the case with obamacare, when Obama was president they would vote for repealing obamacare and send it to his desk as they knew Obama would veto it. That did not happen once when DT was president. They voted knowing Sen McCain would stop it and repeal legislation would not reach DT.

[idliman]

Well if Dems don't remove it for every other bill type that remains under the filibuster rule, I feel that the next GOP trifecta (if it happens) will certainly attempt to do it regardless. Just like how they went for the jugular for judge nominations under DT. It can only serve Dems to rip the band aid off right now and inflict max. leverage out of it to push their legislative agenda, and yes statehood to DC and PR as well as SC packing should all be on the table if they want to blunt any future effects of a possible GOP trifecta.
The only way anything immigration is going to be passed is via removing filibuster. As I expected, there is an article in NBC (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/senate-republicans-throw-cold-water-biden-s-immigration-proposal-n1255232) today, which quoted an aide saying they will not get the support of even 1 Republican senator. I agree that if Democrats get rid of the filibuster, they might do everything in one shot. Packing the court, passing CIR, Statehood for PR and DC.


Even if all 50 Democrats unite, finding 10 Republicans for the bill would be a daunting task.

"I don't think I can even count to one," said a senior GOP aide who wasn't authorized to speak about the plan's prospects, arguing that the path to citizenship is "an issue" for Republicans.

The aide suggested that Biden's plan was an attempt to placate progressives, not a "take it or leave it" product. Adding border provisions could help, but it may not be enough, the aide said.


Sadly I agree that everything revolves around the number game and vote bank politics. All we can hope for is administrative relief via executive actions and hope that the agencies process the paperwork without wasting visas.

[qesehmk]

if Democrats get rid of the filibuster, they might do everything in one shot. Packing the court, passing CIR, Statehood for PR and DC.

exactly my sentiment. And I would add trifurcation of California too.

[usvisas]

The difference is the damage is done and assessed by now vs in 2008 the crisis was being born as Obama was being sworn in.

Also as it relates to immigration the situation was opposite, in 2008 immigration was not as acute problem from immigrants POV as it is today.

that is true too!

[vsivarama]

I agree that if Democrats get rid of the filibuster, they might do everything in one shot. Packing the court, passing CIR, Statehood for PR and DC.


This is a double edged sword. If Democrats gave statehood to PR and DC by nuking the filibuster, the next time GOP has the senate there is nothing stopping it from creating more states. They could divide Texas into 5 states. If you think it's ridiculous, then think again. In the 1880's the Republicans divided the Dakotas territory into two states on purpose. You can try and pack the courts too. Say increase the number of chief Justices to 15 and get 6 in during Biden's term. Guess what when republicans gain control of senate and have a republican president in charge they can expand the bench to 25.

[alpha0]

This is a double edged sword. If Democrats gave statehood to PR and DC by nuking the filibuster, the next time GOP has the senate there is nothing stopping it from creating more states. They could divide Texas into 5 states. If you think it's ridiculous, then think again. In the 1880's the Republicans divided the Dakotas territory into two states on purpose. You can try and pack the courts too. Say increase the number of chief Justices to 15 and get 6 in during Biden's term. Guess what when republicans gain control of senate and have a republican president in charge they can expand the bench to 25.

Even republicans did not eliminate filibuster in DJT's first two years when they had control of house.

I wish Biden adds some solid protections for Americans in immigration reform like company can not have more than 50% (or some %) H1Bs without any bs exception like dont count h1b if gc process is started. That will force companies to train Americans and hire them When DJT cracked the whip, WITCH companies created centers in US and started training and hiring americans.

Also modifying lottery to use soc code/area+ wage levels is a good idea and he should try to add those in h1b reforms.

[AceMan]

Even republicans did not eliminate filibuster in DJT's first two years when they had control of house.

I wish Biden adds some solid protections for Americans in immigration reform like company can not have more than 50% (or some %) H1Bs without any bs exception like dont count h1b if gc process is started. That will force companies to train Americans and hire them When DJT cracked the whip, WITCH companies created centers in US and started training and hiring americans.

Also modifying lottery to use soc code/area+ wage levels is a good idea and he should try to add those in h1b reforms.

We need to grow up beyond the basic needs like dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Stop treating H1 as non-immigrant visas, encompass every requirement for documentation (PERM,140,485) from 4th year of the H1B. Any body who has completed 6 years in H1B should be given the direct GC. Two years from that date should be the route to an USC, and not a GC and 5 years. Similar thing with L1, start the process after the first 3 years.
Same for college students, once they complete their 3 year OPT issue the GC.

8 years direct is what an undocumented person is offered for their citizenship. 8 years direct is what a legal person should be offered too. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Zenzone]

Even republicans did not eliminate filibuster in DJT's first two years when they had control of house.

I wish Biden adds some solid protections for Americans in immigration reform like company can not have more than 50% (or some %) H1Bs without any bs exception like dont count h1b if gc process is started. That will force companies to train Americans and hire them When DJT cracked the whip, WITCH companies created centers in US and started training and hiring americans.

Also modifying lottery to use soc code/area+ wage levels is a good idea and he should try to add those in h1b reforms.

All those are valid but they need to be done in tandem while providing folks the much awaited and needed benefits.

[alpha0]

We need to grow up beyond the basic needs like dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Stop treating H1 as non-immigrant visas, encompass every requirement for documentation (PERM,140,485) from 4th year of the H1B. Any body who has completed 6 years in H1B should be given the direct GC. Two years from that date should be the route to an USC, and not a GC and 5 years. Similar thing with L1, start the process after the first 3 years.
Same for college students, once they complete their 3 year OPT issue the GC.

8 years direct is what an undocumented person is offered for their citizenship. 8 years direct is what a legal person should be offered too. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree with UK type system where visa belongs to individual and not company and you can apply for PR after certain no of years. But think about lawyers here who have made fortunes in filling h1b / GC forms and will block any effort which will kill their revenue stream.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/26/biden-immigration-bill-462479

This is a good development. Comprehensive Immigration Reform has no choice, piecemeal is what the Rs are going to agree to. Let's see what happens.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

This is from an article a week or more earlier: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/15/biden-immigration-plans-459766

It looks like the Hispanic Caucus have all the clout now. There is literally not a single thing about high skilled legal immigrants in that entire article. Just a complete travesty.

[bookworm]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/26/biden-immigration-bill-462479

This is a good development. Comprehensive Immigration Reform has no choice, piecemeal is what the Rs are going to agree to. Let's see what happens.

Its a good development only if it can attract the votes... in the congress and in the mid terms. Which D or R wants to go to their constituents and boast that they made life easier for folks who are making more than the median income?

In our passion for an argument we are forgetting that our fortunes are tied to the undocumented/illegal immigrants. Smart thing to do here is to align with the folks whose voice is the loudest.

Either we accept the fact that every 10 years there will be movement of PD by 3 months and in between we will be retrogressed OR we play it smart & become part of the global problem (& solution).

[abcx13]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/26/biden-immigration-bill-462479

This is a good development. Comprehensive Immigration Reform has no choice, piecemeal is what the Rs are going to agree to. Let's see what happens.

From the article: "That’s because those advocates are eyeing a ticking clock: Bills that were passed last Congress can be moved to the floor directly without having to go through committee if they are voted on before April 1."

So they could pass S386 now without any issues, but of course they won't. Must hold legals hostage for votebank politics!

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

Its a good development only if it can attract the votes... in the congress and in the mid terms. Which D or R wants to go to their constituents and boast that they made life easier for folks who are making more than the median income?

In our passion for an argument we are forgetting that our fortunes are tied to the undocumented/illegal immigrants. Smart thing to do here is to align with the folks whose voice is the loudest.

Either we accept the fact that every 10 years there will be movement of PD by 3 months and in between we will be retrogressed OR we play it smart & become part of the global problem (& solution).

Comprehensive Immigration Reform is dead on arrival, period. It's just not going to happen, it was always and will always be a pipe dream. Who knows maybe Mike Lee will negotiate with Durbin and they will pass two compromise bills, one for high skilled and other for DACA in a quid pro quo.

[bookworm]

Comprehensive Immigration Reform is dead on arrival, period. It's just not going to happen, it was always and will always be a pipe dream. Who knows maybe Mike Lee will negotiate with Durbin and they will pass two compromise bills, one for high skilled and other for DACA in a quid pro quo.

We can call it whatever we want - Fact is if immigration reform gets chopped up then nothing will pass. I have philosophical differences with Q but I think he is right. Only one bill will be passed (if any).

Choice is a watered down version that doesn't satisfy all immigrant groups OR status quo for next 10 years.

[alpha0]

We can call it whatever we want - Fact is if immigration reform gets chopped up then nothing will pass. I have philosophical differences with Q but I think he is right. Only one bill will be passed (if any).

Choice is a watered down version that doesn't satisfy all immigrant groups OR status quo for next 10 years.

Question is what democrats can pass using budget reconciliation process. Can they pass legalization of DACA + Covid frontline workers with 51 votes? I read articles that they are exploring options.

No matter what, republicans will try to offset number of greencards given to this population somewhere else - mostly family based categories and diversity lottery which democrats will not agree, so getting 60 votes is out of question.

I hope whatever bill is drafted has country quota removal embedded. Since this is not going thru UC this time, it wont need too many carveouts etc.

[srimurthy]

I hope whatever bill is drafted has country quota removal embedded. Since this is not going thru UC this time, it wont need too many carveouts etc.

H4-EAD Revoke has been withdrawn by Biden admin.
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=128849

Congrats everyone.

[alpha0]

H4-EAD Revoke has been withdrawn by Biden admin.
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=128849

Congrats everyone.

This is good news. It shows either DJT admin was incompetent who could not kill rule in 4 years or they never intended to remove it and this was all a show to charge up the base during election time.

[idliman]

Murthy.com says (29Jan2021):

President Biden is expected to sign an executive order (EO) on Tuesday, February 2, 2021 to modernize the U.S. immigration system. No further details on the forthcoming executive order have been provided.

The President had been scheduled to sign this EO today, but delayed it until after the Senate?s confirmation vote for Alejandro Mayorkas, who is Biden?s nominee for the Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Mayorkas is expected to be confirmed by the Senate on Monday evening.
The confirmation vote has been pushed to Tuesday because of the snow storm. The last time Pres. BO tried to modernize the system and we all know what happened. I am not hoping for bread loafs, but even breadcrumbs will do for us.

There may be some hope for us after Mayorkos takes over. According to CNN:

"You can tell that we are in a semi-holding pattern at the very top until Mr. Mayorkas is confirmed as Secretary and starts giving more clear public direction and more specific leadership effort," one department official said.

Looks like USCIS is in a honeymoon period after the election. Hoping for things to speedup.

[qesehmk]

The 1.9T bill is certainly going ahead. Dems are going to use the reconciliation bill that is exempt from filibuster.

Anybody knows if immigration is part of the reconciliation bill?

[Zenzone]

The 1.9T bill is certainly going ahead. Dems are going to use the reconciliation bill that is exempt from filibuster.

Anybody knows if immigration is part of the reconciliation bill?

Not as far as I'm aware.

[idliman]

The 1.9T bill is certainly going ahead. Dems are going to use the reconciliation bill that is exempt from filibuster.

Anybody knows if immigration is part of the reconciliation bill?
They cannot include immigration measures in reconciliation bill as it will violate Byrd rule. Even the $15 minimum wage raise is iffy. See the quote from The Hill (https://thehill.com/policy/finance/537220-house-approves-budget-resolution-for-covid-19-package) :


Once authorizing committees draw up legislation based on the budget?s reconciliation instructions, Republicans will have another change to challenge aspects of the bill for so-called Byrd Rule violations.

The rule stipulates that the fast-track process cannot be used for issues that do not directly affect deficits, among other things. Democrats have recently argued that their inclusion of a $15 minimum wage bill should comply given its effects on welfare spending, but the Senate Parliamentarian will have the final say.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

David Bier summary of Immigration Bill (US Citizenship Act):

https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1362141643760160769

Tweet captures (he has copied and pasted text in his tweets, so some context will be realized only by going to his tweet thread):

Increases the family-sponsored cap from the FB floor of 226,000 to the cap of 480,000 by ending the requirement to deduct immediate relatives from the cap.

It also increases the EB cap, though not by nearly as much, from 140K to 170K and recaptures the 225K unused EB green cards since 1992. That would help with backlog reduction, but not dramatically. Demand would still far exceed supply

It removes from the FB cap the F2A category for spouses and minor children of LPRs by classifying them as immediate relatives, freeing up almost 90K additional green cards for family members of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

This is only the outline text. But I don't see anything in here that would preclude all backlogged legal immigrants in the US from qualifying for the pathways to citizenship for Dreamers, farm workers, and others.

Biden bill will end EB country caps and increase family based country caps to 20%. There's a typo that says that EB would go to 20%, but they are clearly repealed later.

Spouses and children of H-1B workers could receive employment authorization and most children would be protected from aging out while the petition is pending.

This is nearly as important as the V visa for family-sponsored applicants. Guaranteeing that students on OPT don't lose their status makes the H1B cap far less important. That's huge!

A permanent end to endless wait times! Max wait time will be 10 years. It won't matter much for EB since all of those cases will disappear under the path to citizenship, but it will help many family-sponsored cases.

Exempting STEM PhDs is nice, but all this provision would do, if the cap is binding, is force immigrants to unnecessarily get PhDs. What's the point of that? Just make it a master's degree.

Flexible EB cap, yay, but wait... they can only *lower* the cap. No authority to *increase* it during times of low unemployment. Very bad. And it plays into the protectionist nonsense that Biden rejected just last year when he denounced the visa bans. Skilled workers create jobs!

Big oversights:

1) No exemption for derivatives of legal immigrants. The derivatives gobble up half the cap and will take half of it for FB now that F2A is uncapped. That was in some early reports about the Biden plan, who would oppose it?

2) Nothing improves the process at all for seasonal agricultural or nonagricultural workers on H-2A or H-2B outside of the Pacific territories. These programs are the main way for employment-based migration by lower-skilled workers.

3) This is the only provision for year-round lower-skilled workers. Employers already don't use all the EB green cards b/c the permanent labor certification process is horrible and far too expensive when you're hiring someone for $12.50/hour. Year-round work visas are needed.

Another positive: The diversity lottery would increase by 25,000. Why not more?

Overall, if the final text holds, the pathway to citizenship would benefit both illegal AND legal immigrants, clearing away the EB backlog. The V Visa changes and other FB reforms means that the FB backlog will not be a major issue going forward

Despite Biden saying he supports seasonal workers, there's no H-2B cap relief. There's no H-2A streamlining. There's nothing at all for year-round temporary workers. That's a big loss and a sign that they won't make it bipartisan.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

Here is another tweet summary from Doug Rand:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1362588305708249090.html

[qesehmk]

Just an outstanding piece of article on how immigration is a strategic imperative for US, how EB immigration needs to increase, how trump has hurt overall immigration and economic security of US, how the politics is shaping the debate now and where it needs to focus.

By far the most comprehensive and excellent excellent grasp of the subject by the author - without any bias.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/23/politics/immigration-policy-us-economy/index.html

[alpha0]

Just an outstanding piece of article on how immigration is a strategic imperative for US, how EB immigration needs to increase, how trump has hurt overall immigration and economic security of US, how the politics is shaping the debate now and where it needs to focus.

By far the most comprehensive and excellent excellent grasp of the subject by the author - without any bias.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/23/politics/immigration-policy-us-economy/index.html

Dont you think article is biased? I did not know Ali Noorani is expert of social net @.

This is my 2 cents - idea is to balance ones contributions over working life against what they need to consume during retirement years. System should never be based on working people feeding benefits of elderly because you will need way more working people when these working people retire and apart from immigration lawyers whose lives run on that, everyone else can understand that is not viable option.

There is no talk about how will you stop another millions of undocumented from coming in. I read that this month, number of southern border crossings increased by 3 times.

There is no talk about changing family based immigration. Which country alllows people to immigrate just because they are brother/sisters or parents of citizens (who themselves are immigrants in most cases)?

[qesehmk]

Your point about social security's sustainability is true. But the author is not suggesting that immigration is a permanent fix. He is merely suggesting that immigration is a remedy. I do agree it is a temporary remedy. The real remedy is fiscal discipline. But America has forgotten fiscal discipline after Reagan declared "Deficits don't matter". But we digress.

The article is not really political in nature and that's why border control is not discussed and should not be discussed. He is simply stating that immigration in any form is good economics.



Dont you think article is biased? I did not know Ali Noorani is expert of social net @.

This is my 2 cents - idea is to balance ones contributions over working life against what they need to consume during retirement years. System should never be based on working people feeding benefits of elderly because you will need way more working people when these working people retire and apart from immigration lawyers whose lives run on that, everyone else can understand that is not viable option.

There is no talk about how will you stop another millions of undocumented from coming in. I read that this month, number of southern border crossings increased by 3 times.

There is no talk about changing family based immigration. Which country alllows people to immigrate just because they are brother/sisters or parents of citizens (who themselves are immigrants in most cases)?

[alpha0]

Your point about social security's sustainability is true. But the author is not suggesting that immigration is a permanent fix. He is merely suggesting that immigration is a remedy. I do agree it is a temporary remedy. The real remedy is fiscal discipline. But America has forgotten fiscal discipline after Reagan declared "Deficits don't matter". But we digress.

The article is not really political in nature and that's why border control is not discussed and should not be discussed. He is simply stating that immigration in any form is good economics.

Control healthcare costs. No country should spend 18% of GDP on healthcare, 2nd costly country spends about 10% of GDP, that should take care of lot of problems this country is facing.

And what about telling people to live within their means? Enough of taking money from someone else / your own future to spend in present. I paid off a car loan and my credit score went down, i am like which morons designed this system when you get penalized for paying your debt before time @.

[qesehmk]

Control healthcare costs. No country should spend 18% of GDP on healthcare, 2nd costly country spends about 10% of GDP, that should take care of lot of problems this country is facing.

And what about telling people to live within their means? Enough of taking money from someone else / your own future to spend in present. I paid off a car loan and my credit score went down, i am like which morons designed this system when you get penalized for paying your debt before time @.

Healthcare is a huge problem. A friend of mine worked for a healthcare company - his travel budget was more than most 6 figure salaries. Money flows in healthcare like water. Bigger than in technology. The car loan thing is funny but true. I have experienced that first hand. I have to say that I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal. And when those two worlds collide I am fiscally liberal too. In other words I agree with living within means but I see government as a force for good - like TDR and FDR saw it.

[alpha0]

I see house is planning to vote DACA/TPS and farm workers bill this month. I hope they add original version of country quota removal bill to the list and send all 3 to senate. Since this will go thru committee in senate, it would not need so many carve outs like last time. It would be interesting to see who will be democrat champion of country quota removal in senate this time.

[gs1968]

I see house is planning to vote DACA/TPS and farm workers bill this month. I hope they add original version of country quota removal bill to the list and send all 3 to senate. Since this will go thru committee in senate, it would not need so many carve outs like last time. It would be interesting to see who will be democrat champion of country quota removal in senate this time.

Dream Act passed 228-197 in the House. 9 Republicans joined with all Democrats to pass it and send it to the Senate. In the absence of any country cap removal Bills having been introduced this session, this might be the Bill to rally around as it offers protection to legal Dreamers

[alpha0]

Dream Act passed 228-197 in the House. 9 Republicans joined with all Democrats to pass it and send it to the Senate. In the absence of any country cap removal Bills having been introduced this session, this might be the Bill to rally around as it offers protection to legal Dreamers

Looking at recent comments by Graham and other republican senators, it seems they want to make border issue a huge weakness of Biden and charge up their base, so i doubt 10 repubs will agree to move that bill in senate in near future.

[qesehmk]

Dream Act passed 228-197 in the House. 9 Republicans joined with all Democrats to pass it and send it to the Senate. In the absence of any country cap removal Bills having been introduced this session, this might be the Bill to rally around as it offers protection to legal Dreamers

If I were involved in advocacy I would have made an effort to tag EB children onto this bill.

That would be non-controvertial, and in line with this bill's goals.

One has to be realistic and keep making progress inch by inch. Country caps will go when they will go but this to me has a real chance and if we can solve desi people's children's aging out problem, why not. Generally speaking - anybody who has this as a problem - I encourage you to organize and do something to add such provision in HR6 2021-2022.

[jimmys]

Looking at recent comments by Graham and other republican senators, it seems they want to make border issue a huge weakness of Biden and charge up their base, so i doubt 10 repubs will agree to move that bill in senate in near future.

First of all, I doubt all the 50 Dem senators will agree.

[alpha0]

First of all, I doubt all the 50 Dem senators will agree.

I dont blame republicans. Sorry to say but dems have no plan on how they will stop another 11 Million from crossing the border, period.

Just because Biden says dont come now, they wont stop coming. There are hundreds of millions of people in world who wants to come to USA at any cost, and if they are lucky to cross the border and if govt follows "catch and release", those people just need to be lucky once.

[Zenzone]

If I were involved in advocacy I would have made an effort to tag EB children onto this bill.

That would be non-controvertial, and in line with this bill's goals.

One has to be realistic and keep making progress inch by inch. Country caps will go when they will go but this to me has a real chance and if we can solve desi people's children's aging out problem, why not. Generally speaking - anybody who has this as a problem - I encourage you to organize and do something to add such provision in HR6 2021-2022.

I thought its already tagged. Am I missing anything here? Remember seeing a mention of it in one of Greg Siskind's tweet.

[Zenzone]

I dont blame republicans. Sorry to say but dems have no plan on how they will stop another 11 Million from crossing the border, period.

Just because Biden says dont come now, they wont stop coming. There are hundreds of millions of people in world who wants to come to USA at any cost, and if they are lucky to cross the border and if govt follows "catch and release", those people just need to be lucky once.

This is the classic fox news anti-immigrant phobic narrative that I can never subscribe to. Laws are important and I think ppl. should come in lawfully no questions about that but the narrative should be a bit more balanced here. Those very same republicans are against all forms of immigration also, period.

[qesehmk]

I thought its already tagged. Am I missing anything here? Remember seeing a mention of it in one of Greg Siskind's tweet.

If so - my bad. I must have missed it. That would be terrific!

[qesehmk]

I thought its already tagged. Am I missing anything here? Remember seeing a mention of it in one of Greg Siskind's tweet.

I just skimmed the bill - HERE IS THE LINK (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+6%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2#toc-H554840E7D4204E298182A755987B5AD6) - there is no explicit reference to EB children aging out. However the language may be generic enough to include them.

Others on the forum might be able to better decipher this and tell if this includes EB children too. If it does - your children will be eligible to get a conditional GC independent of your GC!

[vsivarama]

I dont blame republicans. Sorry to say but dems have no plan on how they will stop another 11 Million from crossing the border, period.

Just because Biden says dont come now, they wont stop coming. There are hundreds of millions of people in world who wants to come to USA at any cost, and if they are lucky to cross the border and if govt follows "catch and release", those people just need to be lucky once.

This is where you read between the lines. The core republican strategy is to waste time water down the bill and even then they will not vote for it. The same happened with stimulus, it was brought down from $2000 to $1400 there were stricter income limits and yet no one voted for it (What happened to GOP superstars like Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio who were for 2000 stimulus). Their argument $1.9 was to high and state and local budget was the sticking point. When you read the breakdown State and local was 85 billion of the total bill and more than 50% of the republican voters support the bill. One more example democrats offered money for border wall to DT in return for protection for Dreamers and guess what DT turned it down. Dems are not that great either but I will have to defend them a bit here as in this particular instance they are on the right side of the issue. I can guarantee you one thing, even if democrats gave everything republicans want in terms of border security there won't be any votes (10 votes definitely not) on this bill.

[gs1968]

I just skimmed the bill - HERE IS THE LINK (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+6%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2#toc-H554840E7D4204E298182A755987B5AD6) - there is no explicit reference to EB children aging out. However the language may be generic enough to include them.

Others on the forum might be able to better decipher this and tell if this includes EB children too. If it does - your children will be eligible to get a conditional GC independent of your GC!

It is in the very first paragraph of the Bill

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary or the Attorney General shall adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on a conditional basis, or without the conditional basis as provided in section 104(c)(2), an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States, is subject to a grant of Deferred Enforced Departure, has temporary protected status under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a), or is the son or daughter of an alien admitted as a nonimmigrant under subparagraphs (E)(i), (E)(ii), (H)(i)(b), or (L) of section 101(a)(15) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) if—

TBH it is not clear how any of this will be implemented and was a line that was added at the last minute before introduction to meet the April 1 deadline and show some progress. I think their hope is that the Senate will review it and come up with clearer guidelines. I also think that one of the reasons Rep.Lofgren has not introduced an HR 1044 equivalent is because one of her main motivations to doing so (based on her floor speeches) is to help aging out children and this Bill does that

[qesehmk]

It is in the very first paragraph of the Bill

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary or the Attorney General shall adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on a conditional basis, or without the conditional basis as provided in section 104(c)(2), an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States, is subject to a grant of Deferred Enforced Departure, has temporary protected status under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a), or is the son or daughter of an alien admitted as a nonimmigrant under subparagraphs (E)(i), (E)(ii), (H)(i)(b), or (L) of section 101(a)(15) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) if—

TBH it is not clear how any of this will be implemented and was a line that was added at the last minute before introduction to meet the April 1 deadline and show some progress. I think their hope is that the Senate will review it and come up with clearer guidelines. I also think that one of the reasons Rep.Lofgren has not introduced an HR 1044 equivalent is because one of her main motivations to doing so (based on her floor speeches) is to help aging out children and this Bill does that

I suspected this but honestly I have not checked the language. Too greek for me. But if you think it does address it then that's really a good news.

Zoe Lofgren is THE original champion of country cap removal. CCR was the original intent - aging out children was additional benefit. So I am sure, she will pick it up after HR6 is successful - which I think it should.

[alpha0]

This is where you read between the lines. The core republican strategy is to waste time water down the bill and even then they will not vote for it. The same happened with stimulus, it was brought down from $2000 to $1400 there were stricter income limits and yet no one voted for it (What happened to GOP superstars like Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio who were for 2000 stimulus). Their argument $1.9 was to high and state and local budget was the sticking point. When you read the breakdown State and local was 85 billion of the total bill and more than 50% of the republican voters support the bill. One more example democrats offered money for border wall to DT in return for protection for Dreamers and guess what DT turned it down. Dems are not that great either but I will have to defend them a bit here as in this particular instance they are on the right side of the issue. I can guarantee you one thing, even if democrats gave everything republicans want in terms of border security there won't be any votes (10 votes definitely not) on this bill.

Let's keep politics aside, but what is plan to create disincentive for new undocumented to come to USA. USA will not be able to absorb all those who wants to come here, we all know that. There is no try to create simple and effective e-verify system and punish employers who knowingly hire undocumented. Unless they remove that incentive, this migration will continue for decades.

Immigration bill discussion you were talking about, democrats also increased eligible population from 1 Milloin to 4 Million and it was also one of the reasons those negotiations failed (infact both sides wanted those negotiations to fail). Same with 1.9 T, when DJT offered that thru Mnuchin, dems rejected it because they did not want Trump to get benefit of that in election.

[Zenzone]

Let's keep politics aside, but what is plan to create disincentive for new undocumented to come to USA. USA will not be able to absorb all those who wants to come here, we all know that. There is no try to create simple and effective e-verify system and punish employers who knowingly hire undocumented. Unless they remove that incentive, this migration will continue for decades.

Immigration bill discussion you were talking about, democrats also increased eligible population from 1 Milloin to 4 Million and it was also one of the reasons those negotiations failed (infact both sides wanted those negotiations to fail). Same with 1.9 T, when DJT offered that thru Mnuchin, dems rejected it because they did not want Trump to get benefit of that in election.

Some of your points are valid but if you have two pick b/w lesser of two evils the verdict is pretty clear here (at least for me!).

[qesehmk]

alpha - don't get caught into legal illegal immigrant discussion. If money can move legally everywhere then so should people be. That's how I think and that's what I profess. Think about it.

I have lived in southwest too and I can tell you first hand that Arizona Texas California were all Mexican territories, until one fine day US declared unilaterally that it belongs to US. So many people including white people don't see this quite as much legal vs illegal issue.

[vsivarama]

Let's keep politics aside, but what is plan to create disincentive for new undocumented to come to USA. USA will not be able to absorb all those who wants to come here, we all know that. There is no try to create simple and effective e-verify system and punish employers who knowingly hire undocumented. Unless they remove that incentive, this migration will continue for decades.


I absolutely love your post and thinking and looks like you and I have a lot of common ground here. I am for mandatory e-verify for the businesses. Why do you want to create an incentive to break the law for anyone. Especially when legal immigrants are waiting for decades even after doing everything by the rule of law and undocumented folks do not have any harder pathway to citizenship. In fact it might be easier. But here is where the politics come in as you cannot separate politics from the immigration issue or else you would have had some reform a decade or so back. R's say they want mandatory e-verify, but in fact if they get that included a lot of their donors get affected and so as an insurance premium they want to make it harder for folks to seek asylum and may even add extra provisions for family based immigration just to make it a non starter. Their fear is, if D's agreed to e-verify R's donor base will stop funding them. But here is the kicker, even if D's hypothetically agree (which they will not) to all their demands let me tell you how many R's will vote in favor. Less than 10! That's the politics side of it.



Immigration bill discussion you were talking about, democrats also increased eligible population from 1 Milloin to 4 Million and it was also one of the reasons those negotiations failed (infact both sides wanted those negotiations to fail). Same with 1.9 T, when DJT offered that thru Mnuchin, dems rejected it because they did not want Trump to get benefit of that in election.

Again a very fair and good point. I did not agree with NP as I felt she played games during the negotiations. Guess what, the voters took notice and now they have a smaller majority in the house. There could still be a case if you wanted to make one, you could say that Ds wanted 3.2T which they then cut it to 2.4T which was further cut down to 1.9T and so they bailed. You and I know that the reason they did not pass was because D's did not want DJT to get the credit before an election. It would have been savvier to pass the bill and let it fail in senate as Mitch was against it. What also makes it different from the current scenario is that the opposition party was fighting (even if it were for optics) to give more relief to the American people while the party in power did not care even though it was in their best interest. Now the optics are different as the R's come across as the party that would rather want the American people to suffer than make JB look good. So the R's took it on themselves to obstruct JB but in the process going against their own constituents to vote down the bill. There was lots of hero worship how R's were all in for $2000 check that DJT proposed. But now that they have been caught flat footed they wanted to bail out on flimsiest of reasons. Long story short, when both sides want the negotiations to fail, I want to support the side that's on the right side of history as per my analysis. This time I know D's are serious and not playing games because they are passing piecemeal legislations instead of trying for comprehensive reform.

[vedu]

alpha - don't get caught into legal illegal immigrant discussion. If money can move legally everywhere then so should people be. That's how I think and that's what I profess. Think about it.

Q,

Politics aside, I am coming around to appreciate this point of view more and more. People come to this country legally or illegally against all odds for the better future for their families. As long as they work hard and contribute to this country, they should have the right to live with dignity. Only immigrants (legal or illegal) who should be thrown away are the people who commit crimes and are menace to the society.

Long time back, while growing up in India as a child, I used to notice a peculiar behavior of stray dogs in my lane vs. some nearby lane. They had their territories fixed. They would bark at each other and fight if any dog tried to get into territory of others. We as human beings can definitely do better than that. Of course, good immigration and border security policies are required, but some people will always sneak in no matter how strict the policies are. So, once they are here and have contributed to the society by their hard work, they should be allowed to settle down. That's my two cents!

[alpha0]

alpha - don't get caught into legal illegal immigrant discussion. If money can move legally everywhere then so should people be. That's how I think and that's what I profess. Think about it.

I have lived in southwest too and I can tell you first hand that Arizona Texas California were all Mexican territories, until one fine day US declared unilaterally that it belongs to US. So many people including white people don't see this quite as much legal vs illegal issue.

I don't think money can enter without the permission of destination country. I can understand your analogy in h1b visas but there also as i wrote earlier, if India forces apple to source 75% of items locally so what is wrong if US force Indian IT shops to hire x% locally.

There are 400+ Million people in South America and 130 or so Million in Mexico, question is how do you restrict them from coming to USA in your approach. Would you allow all of them to enter USA if they wish?

[qesehmk]

I don't think money can enter without the permission of destination country. I can understand your analogy in h1b visas but there also as i wrote earlier, if India forces apple to source 75% of items locally so what is wrong if US force Indian IT shops to hire x% locally.

There are 400+ Million people in South America and 130 or so Million in Mexico, question is how do you restrict them from coming to USA in your approach. Would you allow all of them to enter USA if they wish?
I am originally a student of physics - particularly fond of astrophysics. So i have a rather lofty view of how lonely place earth is for all human beings in this entire universe. It just feels very artificial to me that humans can't move across borders easily but money moves so easily. I see immigration and related challenges as a change management problem. I think people should be able to move and prosper everywhere and that the world should open its doors just a bit every day. I know this is too much of an idealistic view. But it is not utopian. If we don't open the world for people, the problems will find their way into advanced societies anyway.

But coming back to Rep vs Dem reality, the rhetoric by GOP is generally a theater. The total number of illegal immigrants coming to US between 1990 and 2007 is only about 9M. That's 300K per year!! US can very easily absorb and in fact will welcome such levels of immigration. Immigration is a major economic imperative and it only helps US. GOP is only engaged in hate and racism. Trump has clearly said he welcomes white immigration (norway) but not otherwise.

To answer you questions about a country requiring to hire or produce local - I think that would be entirely within that country's right. And that absolutely does not negate the benefits of immigration. So yes a country can do that and yet US can easily absorb 300K illegals every year.

[whereismygc]

The house has passed H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR6%22%5D%7D&s=4&r=1). This bill allows DACA as well as H1B workers' children path to Green Card as well as citizenship. This has a fair chance in the senate. Do send letters your senators asking for passage of this bill.

[cancer24]

Does it need 60 votes in Senate?

[whereismygc]

Does it need 60 votes in Senate?

It needs 51 votes to pass. But if a senator tried to filibuster it (i.e. tries to go into an infinite loop of discussion thereby blocking a bill), then the senate needs 60 votes to break the filibuster. It remains to be a seen what GOP senators do. Dems are obviously on board.

[whereismygc]

Durbin says he is getting close to getting a vote on DREAM. In other words, there may be enough votes on GOP side to break filibuster.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/21/politics/dick-durbin-immigration-dream-act-cnntv/index.html

[gs1968]

Durbin says he is getting close to getting a vote on DREAM. In other words, there may be enough votes on GOP side to break filibuster.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/21/politics/dick-durbin-immigration-dream-act-cnntv/index.html

This is great news although the article content seems less certain than the headline

[qesehmk]

This is great news although the article content seems less certain than the headline
It certainly seems more understated than headline suggests. But if we read between the lines, what Durbin is saying is that unlike GOP senate majority leader McConnell who killed GOP's own S386, Durbin knows that he doesn't have to worry if the bill ever see the light of day on senate agenda.

Durbin will work in the background to get 10 republicans to break any filibuster and while they all don't have to vote for the bill, there could be 10 senators who might detest filibusters. After that all Durbin needs is 1 GOP vote assuming Joe Manchin could very well vote down.

[alpha0]

It certainly seems more understated than headline suggests. But if we read between the lines, what Durbin is saying is that unlike GOP senate majority leader McConnell who killed GOP's own S386, Durbin knows that he doesn't have to worry if the bill ever see the light of day on senate agenda.

Durbin will work in the background to get 10 republicans to break any filibuster and while they all don't have to vote for the bill, there could be 10 senators who might detest filibusters. After that all Durbin needs is 1 GOP vote assuming Joe Manchin could very well vote down.

Let's see how much ransom those 10 demand (for border security or whatever other measures).

On other hand, i feel if republicans filibuster this DACA bill, democrats can use that as an excuse to dilute filibuster.

[qesehmk]

Let's see how much ransom those 10 demand (for border security or whatever other measures).

On other hand, i feel if republicans filibuster this DACA bill, democrats can use that as an excuse to dilute filibuster.

Filibuster is useless anyway and I do think it should be completely scrapped. I am not as optimistic that it will be scrapped over DREAM act.

[idliman]

I hear that Grace Meng's amendement for stopping the spillover for FY 2021 and FY 2022 had passed the committee (https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/documents/Meng%20Amendment%20%231.pdf). I cross checked the amendment and verified that it makes spillover as zero. For people not familiar with INA (d)(2)(C) specifies the spilloever from FB to EB.


(e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number computed under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such section, are deemed to equal zero.

She also another amendment which will provide visa's for people affected by DT's presedential proclamations. I could not confirm for sure whether it had passed the committee, but the text of the amendement is there. If someone cross checks if it had passed, please share.

Here's the text to the Appropriations Bill for FY 2021 (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP15/20210630/112871/BILLS-117-SC-AP-FY2022-HSecurity-AppropsHomelanddraftbillFY2022.pdf).

With democrats controling the house, the Committee version should fly through congress. Don't know what will happen in the Senate.

[usvisas]

Yea..Meng's amendment: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/documents/Meng%20Amendment%20%231.pdf

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

I hear that Grace Meng's amendement for stopping the spillover for FY 2021 and FY 2022 had passed the committee (https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/documents/Meng%20Amendment%20%231.pdf). I cross checked the amendment and verified that it makes spillover as zero. For people not familiar with INA (d)(2)(C) specifies the spilloever from FB to EB.



She also another amendment which will provide visa's for people affected by DT's presedential proclamations. I could not confirm for sure whether it had passed the committee, but the text of the amendement is there. If someone cross checks if it had passed, please share.

Here's the text to the Appropriations Bill for FY 2021 (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP15/20210630/112871/BILLS-117-SC-AP-FY2022-HSecurity-AppropsHomelanddraftbillFY2022.pdf).

With democrats controling the house, the Committee version should fly through congress. Don't know what will happen in the Senate.

If you ask me, no immigration related amendments will make it through. They will all be cleaned out. I have observed these type of backdoor fixes being tried many times before.

[Zenzone]

I hear that Grace Meng's amendement for stopping the spillover for FY 2021 and FY 2022 had passed the committee (https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/documents/Meng%20Amendment%20%231.pdf). I cross checked the amendment and verified that it makes spillover as zero. For people not familiar with INA (d)(2)(C) specifies the spilloever from FB to EB.



She also another amendment which will provide visa's for people affected by DT's presedential proclamations. I could not confirm for sure whether it had passed the committee, but the text of the amendement is there. If someone cross checks if it had passed, please share.

Here's the text to the Appropriations Bill for FY 2021 (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP15/20210630/112871/BILLS-117-SC-AP-FY2022-HSecurity-AppropsHomelanddraftbillFY2022.pdf).

With democrats controling the house, the Committee version should fly through congress. Don't know what will happen in the Senate.

Why do I get a Deja'Vu moment here? Wait didn't the dems try the same thing last year too through appropriations (Can someone confirm). This Meng amendment feels pretty substantial for an appropriations bill. As such appropriations is not expected to pass until Dec 2021 atleast with piece meal bills happening to keep the funding going until then. Interesting it says that re-capture unused FB to EB SO numbers in 2021 fiscal also and give it back to the FB. Its essentially a re-capture bill also for FB.

[inspired_p]

Why do I get a Deja'Vu moment here? Wait didn't the dems try the same thing last year too through appropriations (Can someone confirm). This Meng amendment feels pretty substantial for an appropriations bill. As such appropriations is not expected to pass until Dec 2021 atleast with piece meal bills happening to keep the funding going until then. Interesting it says that re-capture unused FB to EB SO numbers in 2021 fiscal also and give it back to the FB. Its essentially a re-capture bill also for FB.

What happens to. FADs if no spillover is considered? I would assume it will retrogress tremendously.

[gthbvf]

Doesn't Appropriations bill need simple majority to pass? ..With thin majority of Ds in Senate , passing appropriations before end of FY21still possible?

[Zenzone]

Doesn't Appropriations bill need simple majority to pass? ..With thin majority of Ds in Senate , passing appropriations before end of FY21still possible?

That's my point. If the govt. doesn't shut down (highly unlikely in my opinion) with a split senate, the bill is expected to pass in Dec 2021. But the language says FY 2021 wasted visas should be re-captured back. If that's the case ~ 150K wasted FB SO from this fiscal should also flow back to EB next year. Not sure of the real impact.

Without getting technical on the language pre-maturely, these type of amendments have very slim chance as such to begin with. If these are minor annoyance USCIS wastage due to poor processing efficiency is the real concern in my opinion. Feels like posturing.

[Zenzone]

Doesn't Appropriations bill need simple majority to pass? ..With thin majority of Ds in Senate , passing appropriations before end of FY21still possible?

That's why immigration provisions almost always get stripped out as they are subjected to filibuster. Its a tacit agreement that worked even during DT's years and prior.

[gthbvf]

You missing point ..Ideally Appropriations/Omnibus bill has to pass in FY21 (before Sept2021) .. With simple majority vote needed it's doable in Senate . And since D control Senate so hard to strip amendment sourced from house D.

[abcx13]

You missing point ..Ideally Appropriations/Omnibus bill has to pass in FY21 (before Sept2021) .. With simple majority vote needed it's doable in Senate . And since D control Senate so hard to strip amendment sourced from house D.

They would need Manchin and Sinema's support.

[Zenzone]

You missing point ..Ideally Appropriations/Omnibus bill has to pass in FY21 (before Sept2021) .. With simple majority vote needed it's doable in Senate . And since D control Senate so hard to strip amendment sourced from house D.

No chance as such. Last year Durbin tried it. Also, this year's appropriations bill will be delayed. Have seen this song and dance many times.

Some early analysis for your reference (please take it with a grain of salt) - https://www.am22tech.com/usa/news/block-fb-eb-spillover/

[GCkaLADDU]

That's my point. If the govt. doesn't shut down (highly unlikely in my opinion) with a split senate, the bill is expected to pass in Dec 2021. But the language says FY 2021 wasted visas should be re-captured back. If that's the case ~ 150K wasted FB SO from this fiscal should also flow back to EB next year. Not sure of the real impact.

Without getting technical on the language pre-maturely, these type of amendments have very slim chance as such to begin with. If these are minor annoyance USCIS wastage due to poor processing efficiency is the real concern in my opinion. Feels like posturing.

I believe devil is in the details. It all boils down to what is considered as the established worldwide level for EB for year 2020 (156K vs 140K) and 2021 (262K vs 140K) in the section B of the amendment. Per my understanding it should be 156K/262K as these limits were already established at the start of the fiscal year. If thats the case, then definitely the calculation for 2022 stands at 140K + (262K - Used Visas in 2021)

Section E makes spillover for 2021 and 2022 as zero but its not clear how this effects the numbers for 2021. Does this text make section B as 140K? If no what is the point of adding year 2021 in the this section

[Zenzone]

I believe devil is in the details. It all boils down to what is considered as the established worldwide level for EB for year 2020 (156K vs 140K) and 2021 (262K vs 140K) in the section B of the amendment. Per my understanding it should be 156K/262K as these limits were already established at the start of the fiscal year. If thats the case, then definitely the calculation for 2022 stands at 140K + (262K - Used Visas in 2021)

Section E makes spillover for 2021 and 2022 as zero but its not clear how this effects the numbers for 2021. Does this text make section B as 140K? If no what is the point of adding year 2021 in the this section

Here is the logical conflict. This year USCIS must have given more than 140K visas in EB (even if they waste a lot of visas), so how can allotted numbers be retroactively redacted. Makes no sense because more than the 140K statutory limit was exceeded only because of the spillover at the beginning on 2021 fiscal flowing into the EB from FB per INA (d)(2)(C). If the SO was retroactively reset to zero then USCIS would have breached the INA numerical limit for FY 2021.

[android09]

Here is the logical conflict. This year USCIS must have given more than 140K visas in EB (even if they waste a lot of visas), so how can allotted numbers be retroactively redacted. Makes no sense because more than the 140K statutory limit was exceeded only because of the spillover at the beginning on 2021 fiscal flowing into the EB from FB per INA (d)(2)(C). If the SO was retroactively reset to zero then USCIS would have breached the INA numerical limit for FY 2021.

The same thing was tried last year as well. The DHS was a continuing resolution funding. Fully expect the same this year as well. Doubt if this will be enacted through a omnibus bill with 50-50 and VP breaking the tie.

[Zenzone]

The same thing was tried last year as well. The DHS was a continuing resolution funding. Fully expect the same this year as well. Doubt if this will be enacted through a omnibus bill with 50-50 and VP breaking the tie.

Agree that. Regular continuing appropriations will need filibuster proof majority if I'm not mistaken here. Also, as noted above Sinema and Manchin will be key players as well regardless.

[rsnake]

Does anyone know if any of the Republicans on the committee voted for this amendment too?

[qesehmk]

I quickly scanned the meng amendment and this is how it comes across to me. It has 2 key provisions.
1) Recapture all unused visas from 2020 and 2021 and give them back to EB and FB both.
2) Make USCIS reserve visas for some of the applicants and process them in 2022 with 2020+2021 quota!!

I think #2 makes the whole thing unnecessarily complicated. If #1 is accomplished then #2 becomes moot.

Now as per #1 - the devil in the details is that meng is proposing equitable distribution between EB and FB by in proportion of their base size.
Step 1 - Recapture visas = Visas available for EB+FB for 2020+2021 - Visas used for EB+FB for 2020+2021.
Step 2 - Distribute fairly across EB and FB in proportion.

So do the math. My back of the hand calculation tells me there could be approx 400K visas in total and basically EB will get 150K and FB will get 250K for 2022 (in proportion of their size which is approximately in that range).

So if this bill passes then we are talking about 290K visas for EB for USCIS fiscal 2022.

So the first order of business is for the people with best understanding of legal jargon to pour over Meng's pdf and confirm what I am saying.
And then the second order of business is to write to your congressman asking him to support meng.

We can also try to influence Meng to remove the unnecessary part of her amendment or modify it to make it less complicated (imagine the complications for USCIS / DOS trying to implement that 2nd part).

Overall I give thumbs up to this.

[Zenzone]

Does anyone know if any of the Republicans on the committee voted for this amendment too?

Zip. It was 37-24 along party lines.

[Zenzone]

I quickly scanned the meng amendment and this is how it comes across to me. It has 2 key provisions.
1) Recapture all unused visas from 2020 and 2021 and give them back to EB and FB both.
2) Make USCIS reserve visas for some of the applicants and process them in 2022 with 2020+2021 quota!!

I think #2 makes the whole thing unnecessarily complicated. If #1 is accomplished then #2 becomes moot.

Now as per #1 - the devil in the details is that meng is proposing equitable distribution between EB and FB by in proportion of their base size.
Step 1 - Recapture visas = Visas available for EB+FB for 2020+2021 - Visas used for EB+FB for 2020+2021.
Step 2 - Distribute fairly across EB and FB in proportion.

So do the math. My back of the hand calculation tells me there could be approx 400K visas in total and basically EB will get 150K and FB will get 250K for 2022 (in proportion of their size which is approximately in that range).

So if this bill passes then we are talking about 290K visas for EB for USCIS fiscal 2022.

So the first order of business is for the people with best understanding of legal jargon to pour over Meng's pdf and confirm what I am saying.
And then the second order of business is to write to your congressman asking him to support meng.

We can also try to influence Meng to remove the unnecessary part of her amendment or modify it to make it less complicated (imagine the complications for USCIS / DOS trying to implement that 2nd part).

Overall I give thumbs up to this.

Interesting take. Another point is that these appropriation bills are subjected to filibuster in Senate as they cover discretionary spending. I already see folks like T.Cotton being vocal with their opposition. It feels like posturing to me.

[abcx13]

I quickly scanned the meng amendment and this is how it comes across to me. It has 2 key provisions.
1) Recapture all unused visas from 2020 and 2021 and give them back to EB and FB both.
2) Make USCIS reserve visas for some of the applicants and process them in 2022 with 2020+2021 quota!!

I think #2 makes the whole thing unnecessarily complicated. If #1 is accomplished then #2 becomes moot.

Now as per #1 - the devil in the details is that meng is proposing equitable distribution between EB and FB by in proportion of their base size.
Step 1 - Recapture visas = Visas available for EB+FB for 2020+2021 - Visas used for EB+FB for 2020+2021.
Step 2 - Distribute fairly across EB and FB in proportion.

So do the math. My back of the hand calculation tells me there could be approx 400K visas in total and basically EB will get 150K and FB will get 250K for 2022 (in proportion of their size which is approximately in that range).

So if this bill passes then we are talking about 290K visas for EB for USCIS fiscal 2022.

So the first order of business is for the people with best understanding of legal jargon to pour over Meng's pdf and confirm what I am saying.
And then the second order of business is to write to your congressman asking him to support meng.

We can also try to influence Meng to remove the unnecessary part of her amendment or modify it to make it less complicated (imagine the complications for USCIS / DOS trying to implement that 2nd part).

Overall I give thumbs up to this.

Q - I don't think it will actually allocate unused visas proportionally to EB and FB. I think it will allocate unused FY20+FY21 EB to EB in FY22 and unused FY20+FY21 FB to FB in FY22. FY20 FB-> FY21 EB SO that is unused by the time the bill passes also goes back to FB.

[Zenzone]

Q - I don't think it will actually allocate unused visas proportionally to EB and FB. I think it will allocate unused FY20+FY21 EB to EB in FY22 and unused FY20+FY21 FB to FB in FY22. FY20 FB-> FY21 EB SO that is unused by the time the bill passes also goes back to FB.

Out of curiosity, how many EB visas were wasted in FY 2020.

[AceMan]

Out of curiosity, how many EB visas were wasted in FY 2020.

EB visas issued for 2020 147,153. Visas available ~156,000

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2020AnnualReport/FY20AnnualReport-TableV-Part3.pdf

[Zenzone]

EB visas issued for 2020 147,153. Visas available ~156,000

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2020AnnualReport/FY20AnnualReport-TableV-Part3.pdf

Okay. So that means we had a SO of ~ 16K for FY 2020 and those 9K unused visas fall back to EB as part of this SO also?

[AceMan]

Okay. So that means we had a SO of ~ 16K for FY 2020 and those 9K unused visas fall back to EB as part of this SO also?

I recall an attempt to insert country cap removal in appropriations bill last year or the year before with no success. I suspect USCIS is not going to process more than 140K visas for 2021.

[gammaray]

I recall an attempt to insert country cap removal in appropriations bill last year or the year before with no success. I suspect USCIS is not going to process more than 140K visas for 2021.

The difference is last years congress was composed differently, with the Senate under Republican majority. If the budget bill is passed as a reconciliation bill it can pass the Senate with a simple majority and all democrats will vote along party lines. The small side items added to the bill like Meng's amendment will not register and not deter any of the members to vote against the bill, imo. In fact, I would argue, it would actually be presented and perceived in a positive light since it's giving back the lost visa of the covid years. Remember the covid spillover was an unintended consequence that benefited one type of immigrant visa's (more specifically, one country's immigrant visas) and hurt the other. So the amendment will really be viewed as a fair step to restore parity (to a system that's inherently unfair to begin with but that's a separate matter).

[qesehmk]

Q - I don't think it will actually allocate unused visas proportionally to EB and FB. I think it will allocate unused FY20+FY21 EB to EB in FY22 and unused FY20+FY21 FB to FB in FY22. FY20 FB-> FY21 EB SO that is unused by the time the bill passes also goes back to FB.
Thank you abcx. I will check again. Can somebody else put forth their simplified view of what meng amendment actually proposes? The more views we have the better.

[Zenzone]

The difference is last years congress was composed differently, with the Senate under Republican majority. If the budget bill is passed as a reconciliation bill it can pass the Senate with a simple majority and all democrats will vote along party lines. The small side items added to the bill like Meng's amendment will not register and not deter any of the members to vote against the bill, imo. In fact, I would argue, it would actually be presented and perceived in a positive light since it's giving back the lost visa of the covid years. Remember the covid spillover was an unintended consequence that benefited one type of immigrant visa's (more specifically, one country's immigrant visas) and hurt the other. So the amendment will really be viewed as a fair step to restore parity (to a system that's inherently unfair to begin with but that's a separate matter).

I think you might be mixing up reconciliation vs. new appropriations. This amendment is sitting in the new appropriations bill which will require filibuster if I'm not wrong. Also, its not the question of "small" amendment because the Senate Parliamentarian reviews and strikes down items in the reconciliation bills that don't confirm to Byrd's rule and other limitations on what can be thrown into such omnibus bills. These bills have a very narrow scope. Durbin's amendment last year was struck down by the parliamentarian for example.

[Zenzone]

Thank you abcx. I will check again. Can somebody else put forth their simplified view of what meng amendment actually proposes? The more views we have the better.

From what I read, it says the SO from FB to EB for FY 21 and 22 should be set o zero and those shud be given back to FB and retained until they are actually used. Hence, the retroactive part makes this very questionable as FB SO for 2021 will be used by EB this year (although not 100% to account for wastage). So how can you retroactively set the SO to zero.

[Zenzone]

I recall an attempt to insert country cap removal in appropriations bill last year or the year before with no success. I suspect USCIS is not going to process more than 140K visas for 2021.

Likely the will process somewhere around 160-180K visas imo. this fiscal.

[gammaray]

I think you might be mixing up reconciliation vs. new appropriations. This amendment is sitting in the new appropriations bill which will require filibuster if I?m not wrong. Also, its not ?small? ammendment because the Senate Parlimentarian reviews and strikes down items in the reconciliation bills that don?t confirm to Byrd?s rule and other limitations on what can be thrown into such omnibus bills. These bills have a very narrow scope. Durbin?s ammendment last year was struck down by tge parlimentarian for example.

Which is why I said if the appropriations bill is packaged as a reconciliation bill. The appropriations bill by itself will likely not pass, not because of the trivial amendment, but well the republican's never agree to any budget numbers of Dems. So to circumvent that the dems could use a mechanism that requires simple majority. Byrd's rule is quite open to interpretation and many latently related items in the past have made it through the omnibus bills. A case could be made here since the amendment is specifically related to covid issues. Durbin's amendment didn't make it through, imo, is because, one, the senate republicans were reviewing it, and two, because it was a separate disjointed issue about gc backlogs and not directly related to any covid hardships.

In any case, as with most things in the immigrant world, it's speculation at this point. I guess we'll know soon enough what comes out of it.

[Zenzone]

Which is why I said if the appropriations bill is packaged as a reconciliation bill. The appropriations bill by itself will likely not pass, not because of the trivial amendment, but well the republican's never agree to any budget numbers of Dems. So to circumvent that the dems could use a mechanism that requires simple majority. Byrd's rule is quite open to interpretation and many latently related items in the past have made it through the omnibus bills. A case could be made here since the amendment is specifically related to covid issues. Durbin's amendment didn't make it through, imo, is because, one, the senate republicans were reviewing it, and two, because it was a separate disjointed issue about gc backlogs and not directly related to any covid hardships.

In any case, as with most things in the immigrant world, it's speculation at this point. I guess we'll know soon enough what comes out of it.

You can't package discretionary items in the budget reconciliation bill and Durbin's amendment was not removed the GOP instead by the Parliamentarian. In the past those things got struck down except a precedence in 2005 when a re-capture made it to the bill but ultimately didn't make it post passing when concessions were made before implementation. Regardless, this will not be signed into law atleast until Jan next year as such due to timelines and schedules and piecemeal funding bills will be avoiding a shut down post October through the time the omnibus recon bill passes. So the first quarter of next fiscal won't be impacted either, IMO.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

Dems are going to save the reconciliation for the massive $3.5T Infrastructure bill and will be very careful not to poison it with anything else as it's Biden's pet project. IMHO the DHS bill will be stripped off the immigration amendments before passage.

[FlowerPot]

Even if all this happens, USCIS already struggled and is struggling to process all the applications for the last 2 years and how can they be all allocated and processed in 2022? wouldn't that be more burden on them to consume the numbers for FY2022 (140 regular EB + Meng's recapture of 20 & 21). This would mean lots more wastage than efficient recapture. We all know how USCIS will treat this scenario. They will waste it saying processing capacity limits, etc. and waste much more numbers.

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

Even if all this happens, USCIS already struggled and is struggling to process all the applications for the last 2 years and how can they be all allocated and processed in 2022? wouldn't that be more burden on them to consume the numbers for FY2022 (140 regular EB + Meng's recapture of 20 & 21). This would mean lots more wastage than efficient recapture. We all know how USCIS will treat this scenario. They will waste it saying processing capacity limits, etc. and waste much more numbers.

This is just a game for them. Once the filing dates are opened up, people will just file in droves and they will reap the application fees and sit on them for a couple of years. That's why more than anytime it is now imperative that people don't worry about being on EAD/AP and make full use of it to travel freely without worrying about visa stamping and look toward progressing in their careers by using AC21. This is especially true of 2015+ folks as there were massive applications in 2016.

[gammaray]

Even if all this happens, USCIS already struggled and is struggling to process all the applications for the last 2 years and how can they be all allocated and processed in 2022? wouldn't that be more burden on them to consume the numbers for FY2022 (140 regular EB + Meng's recapture of 20 & 21). This would mean lots more wastage than efficient recapture. We all know how USCIS will treat this scenario. They will waste it saying processing capacity limits, etc. and waste much more numbers.

The amendment doesn't call out for all unused visas to be processed in 2022 itself. It's allows for the carryover to extend beyond 2022 till all the numbers are consumed.

[qesehmk]

Q - I don't think it will actually allocate unused visas proportionally to EB and FB. I think it will allocate unused FY20+FY21 EB to EB in FY22 and unused FY20+FY21 FB to FB in FY22. FY20 FB-> FY21 EB SO that is unused by the time the bill passes also goes back to FB.


From what I read, it says the SO from FB to EB for FY 21 and 22 should be set o zero and those shud be given back to FB and retained until they are actually used. Hence, the retroactive part makes this very questionable as FB SO for 2021 will be used by EB this year (although not 100% to account for wastage). So how can you retroactively set the SO to zero.


So here is the language and trying to simplify it: BLUE color mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision
6 of law, beginning in fiscal year 2022, the worldwide level
7 of family-sponsored immigrants under subsection ( c) of
8 section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
9 U.S.C. 1151) and the worldwide level of employment-
10 based immigrants under subsection (d) of such section
11 shall each be increased by the number computed under
12 subsection (b) of this section with respect to each of such
13 worldwide levels.

For year 2022 for EB and FB each the level of immigration should be increased by b where b is defined as follow:
The increased level for each EB and FB can be called as A


14 (b) For each of the worldwide levels described in sub-
15 section (a) of this section, the number computed under
16 this subsection is the difference (if any) between the sum
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.)
(80922615) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
2
1 of the worldwide levels established under the applicable
2 subsection of section 201 of the Immigration and Nation-
3 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
4 and the number of visas that were issued and used as the
5 basis for an application for admission into the United
6 States as an immigrant described in the applicable sub-
7 section during such fiscal years.

b is defined for each FB and EB separately as b = visa level as established for 2020 + 2021 - visas used during 2020 and 2021

8 ( c) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the
9 Secretary of Homeland Security, shall allocate the visas
10 made available as a result of the computation under sub-
11 section (b) on a proportional basis consistent with sub-
12 sections (a) and (b) of section 203 of the Immigration and
13 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a) and (b)), and in accord-
14 ance with subsection (e)(l) of such section (8 U.S.C.
15 1153(e)(l)).

Then level A should be distributed across sub categories according to the established usual formula.

16 (d) Each visa made available as a result of the com-
17 putation made under subsection (b) of this section shall
18 remain available for use in fiscal year 2022 or any subse-
19 quent fiscal year, until the Secretary of State, in consulta-
20 tion with the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines
21 that such visa has been issued and used as the basis for
22 an application for admission into the United States.

Visas under A should be available during 2022 as well as any future year. i.e. extra visas will spill from FB to FB and EB to EB only for year 2022 visas.

23 (e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number com-
24 puted under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Im-
25 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the
g:\V\E\071221\E071221.026.xml
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.)
(80922615) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
3
1 number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such sec-
2 tion, are deemed to equal zero.
Spillover for year 2021 and 2022 from FB to EB and vice versa is ZERO. (i.e. any unused EB from 2021 stays in EB)

3 (f) Notwithstanding section 204(a)(l)(I)(ii)(II) of the
4 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
5 1154(a)(l)(I)(ii)(II)), and subject to subsection (i) of this
6 section, an immigrant visa for those selected in accordance
7 with section 203(e)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(e)(2)) in fiscal year 2020 or 2021
9 shall remain available to such alien if, because of restric-
10 tions or limitations on visa processing, visa issuance, trav-
11 el, or other effects associated with the COVID-19 public
12 health emergency-
13 ( 1) the alien was unable to receive a visa inter-
14 view despite submitting an Online Immigrant Visa
15 and Alien Registration Application (Form DS-260)
16 to the Secretary of State; or
17 (2) the alien was unable to seek admission or
18 was denied admission to the United States despite
19 being approved for a visa under section 203(c) of
20 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
21 1153(c)).
If diversity visas were announced then they should be issued those visas out of respective years. (2020 or 2021). This obviously then affects calculation of A.

22 (g) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact-
23 ment of this section, the Secretary of State shall-
24 ( 1) provide written notice consistent with sub-
25 section (h) to each alien described in subsection (f)
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml (80922615)
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
4
1 (and such alien's representative, if applicable) of
2 their continuing eligibility to apply for a visa under
3 section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality
4 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)); and
5 (2) publish on the Department of State website,
6 information and procedures implementing this sec-
7 tion.
8 (h) The notice described in subsection (g) (1) shall in-
9 elude procedures for the alien to inform the Secretary of
10 State of the alien's intent to proceed with or abandon the
11 application, and shall include an advisal that such applica-
12 tion shall be deemed abandoned if the alien fails to notify
13 the Secretary of the alien's intent to proceed within one
14 year after the date on which the notice was issued.
15 (i) An alien described in subsection (f) shall remain
16 eligible to receive a visa described in such subsection until
17 the earliest of the date that-
18 (1) the alien-
19 (A) notifies the Secretary of State of the
20 alien's intent to abandon the application; or
21 (B) fails to respond to the notice described
22 in subsection (g)(l); or
23 (2) the Secretary of State makes a final deter-
24 mination of the alien's ineligibility for such visa
25 under section 203(c)(2), 204(a)(l)(I)(iii), or 212(a)
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml (80922615)
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.) G:\M\17\MENG\MENG_053.XML
5
1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S. C.
2 1153(c)(2), 1154(a)(l)(I)(iii), or 1182(a) ).
3 (j) A determination of whether an alien is the child
4 of a visa recipient described in subsection (f), pursuant
5 section 203(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
6 U.S.C. 1153(d)) shall be made using the age of the child
7 when the applicant was initially selected for a visa in ac-
8 cordance with section 203(e)(2) of such Act.

The DOS secretary should take steps to execute F above.

[sudebusa]

So here is the language and trying to simplify it: BLUE color mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision
6 of law, beginning in fiscal year 2022, the worldwide level
7 of family-sponsored immigrants under subsection ( c) of
8 section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
9 U.S.C. 1151) and the worldwide level of employment-
10 based immigrants under subsection (d) of such section
11 shall each be increased by the number computed under
12 subsection (b) of this section with respect to each of such
13 worldwide levels.

For year 2022 for EB and FB each the level of immigration should be increased by b where b is defined as follow:
The increased level for each EB and FB can be called as A


14 (b) For each of the worldwide levels described in sub-
15 section (a) of this section, the number computed under
16 this subsection is the difference (if any) between the sum
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.)
(80922615) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
2
1 of the worldwide levels established under the applicable
2 subsection of section 201 of the Immigration and Nation-
3 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
4 and the number of visas that were issued and used as the
5 basis for an application for admission into the United
6 States as an immigrant described in the applicable sub-
7 section during such fiscal years.

b is defined for each FB and EB separately as b = visa level as established for 2020 + 2021 - visas used during 2020 and 2021

8 ( c) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the
9 Secretary of Homeland Security, shall allocate the visas
10 made available as a result of the computation under sub-
11 section (b) on a proportional basis consistent with sub-
12 sections (a) and (b) of section 203 of the Immigration and
13 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a) and (b)), and in accord-
14 ance with subsection (e)(l) of such section (8 U.S.C.
15 1153(e)(l)).

Then level A should be distributed across sub categories according to the established usual formula.

16 (d) Each visa made available as a result of the com-
17 putation made under subsection (b) of this section shall
18 remain available for use in fiscal year 2022 or any subse-
19 quent fiscal year, until the Secretary of State, in consulta-
20 tion with the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines
21 that such visa has been issued and used as the basis for
22 an application for admission into the United States.

Visas under A should be available during 2022 as well as any future year. i.e. extra visas will spill from FB to FB and EB to EB only for year 2022 visas.

23 (e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number com-
24 puted under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Im-
25 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the
g:\V\E\071221\E071221.026.xml
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.)
(80922615) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
3
1 number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such sec-
2 tion, are deemed to equal zero.
Spillover for year 2021 and 2022 from FB to EB and vice versa is ZERO. (i.e. any unused EB from 2021 stays in EB)

3 (f) Notwithstanding section 204(a)(l)(I)(ii)(II) of the
4 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
5 1154(a)(l)(I)(ii)(II)), and subject to subsection (i) of this
6 section, an immigrant visa for those selected in accordance
7 with section 203(e)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(e)(2)) in fiscal year 2020 or 2021
9 shall remain available to such alien if, because of restric-
10 tions or limitations on visa processing, visa issuance, trav-
11 el, or other effects associated with the COVID-19 public
12 health emergency-
13 ( 1) the alien was unable to receive a visa inter-
14 view despite submitting an Online Immigrant Visa
15 and Alien Registration Application (Form DS-260)
16 to the Secretary of State; or
17 (2) the alien was unable to seek admission or
18 was denied admission to the United States despite
19 being approved for a visa under section 203(c) of
20 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
21 1153(c)).
If diversity visas were announced then they should be issued those visas out of respective years. (2020 or 2021). This obviously then affects calculation of A.

22 (g) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact-
23 ment of this section, the Secretary of State shall-
24 ( 1) provide written notice consistent with sub-
25 section (h) to each alien described in subsection (f)
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml (80922615)
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
4
1 (and such alien's representative, if applicable) of
2 their continuing eligibility to apply for a visa under
3 section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality
4 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)); and
5 (2) publish on the Department of State website,
6 information and procedures implementing this sec-
7 tion.
8 (h) The notice described in subsection (g) (1) shall in-
9 elude procedures for the alien to inform the Secretary of
10 State of the alien's intent to proceed with or abandon the
11 application, and shall include an advisal that such applica-
12 tion shall be deemed abandoned if the alien fails to notify
13 the Secretary of the alien's intent to proceed within one
14 year after the date on which the notice was issued.
15 (i) An alien described in subsection (f) shall remain
16 eligible to receive a visa described in such subsection until
17 the earliest of the date that-
18 (1) the alien-
19 (A) notifies the Secretary of State of the
20 alien's intent to abandon the application; or
21 (B) fails to respond to the notice described
22 in subsection (g)(l); or
23 (2) the Secretary of State makes a final deter-
24 mination of the alien's ineligibility for such visa
25 under section 203(c)(2), 204(a)(l)(I)(iii), or 212(a)
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml (80922615)
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.) G:\M\17\MENG\MENG_053.XML
5
1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S. C.
2 1153(c)(2), 1154(a)(l)(I)(iii), or 1182(a) ).
3 (j) A determination of whether an alien is the child
4 of a visa recipient described in subsection (f), pursuant
5 section 203(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
6 U.S.C. 1153(d)) shall be made using the age of the child
7 when the applicant was initially selected for a visa in ac-
8 cordance with section 203(e)(2) of such Act.

The DOS secretary should take steps to execute F above.

Q - I have immense respect for you and other gurus in this forum. The way all of you provide stats, suggestions, comments selflessly, that's truly worth mentioning. I am a follower of this forum for a long time. Thanks for the detailed analysis of the proposed bill. So in layman's terms, can we expect any SO in 2022 or NONE? Thanks a bunch!

[LightAtEndOfTunnel]

Q - I don't think it will actually allocate unused visas proportionally to EB and FB. I think it will allocate unused FY20+FY21 EB to EB in FY22 and unused FY20+FY21 FB to FB in FY22. FY20 FB-> FY21 EB SO that is unused by the time the bill passes also goes back to FB.

This is my interpretation of the text too. If USCIS processes 100K EB (which is what more likely to happen) visas for FY-21 then we might just be able to get 40K additional visas for FY-22. All of the spillover from FY-2020 to FY-2021 (160K) which is more or less unused will go back to FB.

[LightAtEndOfTunnel]

Q - I have immense respect for you and other gurus in this forum. The way all of you provide stats, suggestions, comments selflessly, that's truly worth mentioning. I am a follower of this forum for a long time. Thanks for the detailed analysis of the proposed bill. So in layman's terms, can we expect any SO in 2022 or NONE? Thanks a bunch!

If the bill goes through we may have some extra visas available but it will be rather a re-capture than spill over and also smaller in number than originally projected estimate from CO in his live-chat.

[Zenzone]

So here is the language and trying to simplify it: BLUE color mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision
6 of law, beginning in fiscal year 2022, the worldwide level
7 of family-sponsored immigrants under subsection ( c) of
8 section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
9 U.S.C. 1151) and the worldwide level of employment-
10 based immigrants under subsection (d) of such section
11 shall each be increased by the number computed under
12 subsection (b) of this section with respect to each of such
13 worldwide levels.

For year 2022 for EB and FB each the level of immigration should be increased by b where b is defined as follow:
The increased level for each EB and FB can be called as A


14 (b) For each of the worldwide levels described in sub-
15 section (a) of this section, the number computed under
16 this subsection is the difference (if any) between the sum
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.)
(80922615) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
2
1 of the worldwide levels established under the applicable
2 subsection of section 201 of the Immigration and Nation-
3 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
4 and the number of visas that were issued and used as the
5 basis for an application for admission into the United
6 States as an immigrant described in the applicable sub-
7 section during such fiscal years.

b is defined for each FB and EB separately as b = visa level as established for 2020 + 2021 - visas used during 2020 and 2021

8 ( c) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the
9 Secretary of Homeland Security, shall allocate the visas
10 made available as a result of the computation under sub-
11 section (b) on a proportional basis consistent with sub-
12 sections (a) and (b) of section 203 of the Immigration and
13 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a) and (b)), and in accord-
14 ance with subsection (e)(l) of such section (8 U.S.C.
15 1153(e)(l)).

Then level A should be distributed across sub categories according to the established usual formula.

16 (d) Each visa made available as a result of the com-
17 putation made under subsection (b) of this section shall
18 remain available for use in fiscal year 2022 or any subse-
19 quent fiscal year, until the Secretary of State, in consulta-
20 tion with the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines
21 that such visa has been issued and used as the basis for
22 an application for admission into the United States.

Visas under A should be available during 2022 as well as any future year. i.e. extra visas will spill from FB to FB and EB to EB only for year 2022 visas.

23 (e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number com-
24 puted under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Im-
25 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the
g:\V\E\071221\E071221.026.xml
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.)
(80922615) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
3
1 number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such sec-
2 tion, are deemed to equal zero.
Spillover for year 2021 and 2022 from FB to EB and vice versa is ZERO. (i.e. any unused EB from 2021 stays in EB)

3 (f) Notwithstanding section 204(a)(l)(I)(ii)(II) of the
4 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
5 1154(a)(l)(I)(ii)(II)), and subject to subsection (i) of this
6 section, an immigrant visa for those selected in accordance
7 with section 203(e)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(e)(2)) in fiscal year 2020 or 2021
9 shall remain available to such alien if, because of restric-
10 tions or limitations on visa processing, visa issuance, trav-
11 el, or other effects associated with the COVID-19 public
12 health emergency-
13 ( 1) the alien was unable to receive a visa inter-
14 view despite submitting an Online Immigrant Visa
15 and Alien Registration Application (Form DS-260)
16 to the Secretary of State; or
17 (2) the alien was unable to seek admission or
18 was denied admission to the United States despite
19 being approved for a visa under section 203(c) of
20 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
21 1153(c)).
If diversity visas were announced then they should be issued those visas out of respective years. (2020 or 2021). This obviously then affects calculation of A.

22 (g) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact-
23 ment of this section, the Secretary of State shall-
24 ( 1) provide written notice consistent with sub-
25 section (h) to each alien described in subsection (f)
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml (80922615)
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
4
1 (and such alien's representative, if applicable) of
2 their continuing eligibility to apply for a visa under
3 section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality
4 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)); and
5 (2) publish on the Department of State website,
6 information and procedures implementing this sec-
7 tion.
8 (h) The notice described in subsection (g) (1) shall in-
9 elude procedures for the alien to inform the Secretary of
10 State of the alien's intent to proceed with or abandon the
11 application, and shall include an advisal that such applica-
12 tion shall be deemed abandoned if the alien fails to notify
13 the Secretary of the alien's intent to proceed within one
14 year after the date on which the notice was issued.
15 (i) An alien described in subsection (f) shall remain
16 eligible to receive a visa described in such subsection until
17 the earliest of the date that-
18 (1) the alien-
19 (A) notifies the Secretary of State of the
20 alien's intent to abandon the application; or
21 (B) fails to respond to the notice described
22 in subsection (g)(l); or
23 (2) the Secretary of State makes a final deter-
24 mination of the alien's ineligibility for such visa
25 under section 203(c)(2), 204(a)(l)(I)(iii), or 212(a)
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml (80922615)
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.) G:\M\17\MENG\MENG_053.XML
5
1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S. C.
2 1153(c)(2), 1154(a)(l)(I)(iii), or 1182(a) ).
3 (j) A determination of whether an alien is the child
4 of a visa recipient described in subsection (f), pursuant
5 section 203(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
6 U.S.C. 1153(d)) shall be made using the age of the child
7 when the applicant was initially selected for a visa in ac-
8 cordance with section 203(e)(2) of such Act.

The DOS secretary should take steps to execute F above.

Q - Thanks!! I gave a clean read of the text once again and what you have laid out above is now aligning with my understanding. (EB's established numbers for fiscal 2020 + fiscal 2021) minus (EB's used numbers for fiscal 2020 and fiscal 2021) will be added back to the EB's fiscal 2022 available visas and that will become the established limit for fiscal 2022. My estimated math on this comes to (156k+255k) minus (147k+170k) = 94k recaptured visas. So the total established limit for EB for fiscal 2022 will be 94k + 140k = 234K.

My key assumption is USCIS uses 170K visas by the end of this fiscal which I believe is reasonable given the run rate but you can run scenarios on that prediction to get at different estimates.

Also, I note that there will be no spillover from FB to EB from fiscal 2021 to fiscal 2022 as well as fiscal 2022 to fiscal 2023. Basically, they are giving two full fiscal years to clear these unused numbers given that consulates are yet to open for FB numbers to be used as well as USCIS processing nightmares with AOS cases.

[qesehmk]

Q - I have immense respect for you and other gurus in this forum. The way all of you provide stats, suggestions, comments selflessly, that's truly worth mentioning. I am a follower of this forum for a long time. Thanks for the detailed analysis of the proposed bill. So in layman's terms, can we expect any SO in 2022 or NONE? Thanks a bunch!
Thanks for your kind words. I do my bit and others do theirs. And that's really the goal of this blog - all of us helping each other live somewhat a better quality life through better clarity.

To answer your question - yes absolutely there will be extra visas. How much? Hard to say but at a minimum my guess is 50-60K. At best - could be upto 200K.

[qesehmk]

Q - Thanks!! I gave a clean read of the text once again and what you have laid out above is now aligning with my understanding. (EB?s established numbers for fiscal 2020 + fiscal 2021) minus (EB?s used numbers for fiscal 2020 and fiscal 2021) will be added back to the EB?s fiscal 2022 available visas and that will become the established limit for fiscal 2022. My estimated math on this comes to (156k+255k) minus (147k+170k) = 94k recaptured visas. So the total established limit for EB for fiscal 2022 will be 94k + 140k = 234K.

My key assumption is USCIS uses 170K visas by the end of this fiscal which I believe is reasonable given the run rate but you can run scenarios on that prediction to get at different estimates.

Also, I note that there will be no spillover from FB to EB from fiscal 2021 to fiscal 2022 as well as fiscal 2022 to fiscal 2023. Basically, they are giving two full fiscal years to clear these unused numbers given that consulates are yet to open for FB numbers to be used as well as USCIS processing nightmares with AOS cases.

So what they are propose to be doing (as I my latest understanding goes ) is:
1) Use current established bases and not try to undo history. So EB retains all of last years spillover. And FB will give EB nothing next year (if amendment approved).
2) Repeat the same the year after i.e. in 2022.
3) 2023 onwards the visas will spill (but not the ones that were earmarked from 2020/2021 timeframe (kind of crazy)!!

With this my initial guess is anywhere between 50K-200K visas for EB next year. It all depends if Meng's amendment goes through and when.

[Zenzone]

So what they are propose to be doing (as I my latest understanding goes ) is:
1) Use current established bases and not try to undo history. So EB retains all of last years spillover. And FB will give EB nothing next year (if amendment approved).
2) Repeat the same the year after i.e. in 2022.
3) 2023 onwards the visas will spill (but not the ones that were earmarked from 2020/2021 timeframe (kind of crazy)!!

With this my initial guess is anywhere between 50K-200K visas for EB next year. It all depends if Meng's amendment goes through and when.

With the current processing pace, i think the wastage will be closer to 100k of the total 255 k we had at the beginning of this fiscal. That puts the fiscal 2022 limit to approx 230-240k visas for EB from my estimate. Agree fully that there will definitely be extra visas.

[sudebusa]

Thanks for your kind words. I do my bit and others do theirs. And that's really the goal of this blog - all of us helping each other live somewhat a better quality life through better clarity.

To answer your question - yes absolutely there will be extra visas. How much? Hard to say but at a minimum my guess is 50-60K. At best - could be upto 200K.

Thanks, Q! I think this is a better scenario than wasting visas; at least for the near future (next 2 to 3 years).

[qesehmk]

With the current processing pace, i think the wastage will be closer to 100k of the total 255 k we had at the beginning of this fiscal. That puts the fiscal 2022 limit to approx 230-240k visas for EB from my estimate. Agree fully that there will definitely be extra visas.
Yes indeed. Wastage this year determines lower bound of EXTRA visas availability next year.

I do think though that the chances for meng amendment are less than 10%. Also it is not as good for EB folks from numbers standpoint. But from utilization standpoint it almost forces USCIS to use those visas and so the amendment works just fine especially for people prior to 2014 (just a wild guess).

[Zenzone]

Yes indeed. Wastage this year determines lower bound of EXTRA visas availability next year.

I do think though that the chances for meng amendment are less than 10%. Also it is not as good for EB folks from numbers standpoint. But from utilization standpoint it almost forces USCIS to use those visas and so the amendment works just fine especially for people prior to 2014 (just a wild guess).

I think the amendment is marginally less beneficial for EB folks as the sheer numeric limit drops a bit for FY 2022 if you don't account for USCIS processing efficiency. In my experience as an Oct'20 filer, the tradeoff for exchanging that for assured no visa wasted in coming years is probably worth it regardless. My fear is without an amendment EB will lose ~100K visas as they are wasted this fiscal and get ~150K next year from FB but USCIS will probably waste another 100K next fiscal. So net gain is only (50+50) 100K visas over fiscal 21 and 22 FY. Whereas with amendment EB will surely gain ~130K visas. Therefore, amendment seems to be a better outcome when utilization is taken into account, IMO. Also, to Q's point above its high time USCIS is held accountable for the wastage as such.

[qesehmk]

I think the amendment is marginally less beneficial for EB folks as the sheer numeric limit drops a bit for FY 2022 if you don't account for USCIS processing efficiency. In my experience as an Oct'20 filer, the tradeoff for exchanging that for assured no visa wasted in coming years is probably worth it regardless. My fear is without an amendment EB will lose ~100K visas as they are wasted this fiscal and get ~150K next year from FB but USCIS will probably waste another 100K next fiscal. So net gain is only (50+50) 100K visas over fiscal 21 and 22 FY. Whereas with amendment EB will surely gain ~130K visas. Therefore, amendment seems to be a better outcome when utilization is taken into account, IMO. Also, to Q's point above its high time USCIS is held accountable for the wastage as such.

We are totally on the same page. I hope people understand what you have articulated very well!

[abcx13]

Q - Thanks!! I gave a clean read of the text once again and what you have laid out above is now aligning with my understanding. (EB's established numbers for fiscal 2020 + fiscal 2021) minus (EB's used numbers for fiscal 2020 and fiscal 2021) will be added back to the EB's fiscal 2022 available visas and that will become the established limit for fiscal 2022. My estimated math on this comes to (156k+255k) minus (147k+170k) = 94k recaptured visas. So the total established limit for EB for fiscal 2022 will be 94k + 140k = 234K.

My key assumption is USCIS uses 170K visas by the end of this fiscal which I believe is reasonable given the run rate but you can run scenarios on that prediction to get at different estimates.

Also, I note that there will be no spillover from FB to EB from fiscal 2021 to fiscal 2022 as well as fiscal 2022 to fiscal 2023. Basically, they are giving two full fiscal years to clear these unused numbers given that consulates are yet to open for FB numbers to be used as well as USCIS processing nightmares with AOS cases.


So what they are propose to be doing (as I my latest understanding goes ) is:
1) Use current established bases and not try to undo history. So EB retains all of last years spillover. And FB will give EB nothing next year (if amendment approved).
2) Repeat the same the year after i.e. in 2022.
3) 2023 onwards the visas will spill (but not the ones that were earmarked from 2020/2021 timeframe (kind of crazy)!!

With this my initial guess is anywhere between 50K-200K visas for EB next year. It all depends if Meng's amendment goes through and when.

I think clause e) sets the SO to zero for FY21 and FY22.

This is the text from the INA:


(d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants
(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to—
(A) 140,000, plus
(B) the number computed under paragraph (2).
(2)
(A) The number computed under this paragraph for fiscal year 1992 is zero.
(B) The number computed under this paragraph for fiscal year 1993 is the difference (if any) between the worldwide level established under paragraph (1) for the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued under section 1153(b) of this title during that fiscal year.
(C) The number computed under this paragraph for a subsequent fiscal year is the difference (if any) between the maximum number of visas which may be issued under section 1153(a) of this title (relating to family-sponsored immigrants) during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued under that section during that year.


So when e) sets that to zero for FY21 and FY22, it is referring to the FB SO from the previous years, i.e. FY20 and FY21.

[Zenzone]

Yes but the question is when it says -

(e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number computed under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the
number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such section, are deemed to equal zero.

Does it mean at the end of fiscal 2021 and 2022 or the beginning of those years. For the argument sake if we assume it meant the beginning of those fiscal to your line of reasoning, there are ~ 130K visas granted based on the 1151.(d) (2) (C) section that allowed SO of unused FB visas from 2020 to roll-over to EB at the beginning of the 2021 fiscal. How would the DHS be able to undo what was consumed already by EB lawfully of that SO of 130K that came in to EB.

Let's say if USCIS used 60K of those 130K FB SO visas in fiscal 2021 those 60K visas would be double counted.

[gammaray]

Yes but the question is when it says -

(e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number computed under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the
number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such section, are deemed to equal zero.

Does it mean at the end of fiscal 2021 and 2022 or the beginning of those years. For the argument sake if we assume it meant the beginning of those fiscal to your line of reasoning, there are ~ 130K visas granted based on the 1151.(d) (2) (C) section that allowed SO of unused FB visas from 2020 to roll-over to EB at the beginning of the 2021 fiscal. How would the DHS be able to undo what was consumed already by EB lawfully of that SO of 130K that came in to EB.

Let's say if USCIS used 60K of those 130K FB SO visas in fiscal 2021 those 60K visas would be double counted.

It's always beginning of fiscal years and not the end. It is my understanding as well that SO from 2020 and 2021 will be reversed, and not 2021 and 2022. The way the amendment is written currently, it is in conflict with the fact that some of the 2020 FB visas may be used by EB (though it doesn't look like it based on USCICS processing numbers). In such case my guess is the amendment will be modified eventually before the final bill to exclude the already used FB visas by the EB category.

[Zenzone]

Okay. I managed to pull the below excerpt from one of the COVID Stimulus bill draft from last July and found this language. It appears Meng's amendment is word for word a copy & paste and hence it applies for SO we got from FB at the end of 2020 fiscal and 2021 fiscal and not what I thought it to be this morning -

(ii) ELIMINATION OF FALL ACROSS.—
25 For fiscal years 2021 and 2022, the number computed under subsection (c)(3)(C) of
2 section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the
4 number computed under subsection
5 (d)(2)(C) of such section, are deemed to
6 equal zero.

[LightAtEndOfTunnel]

It's always beginning of fiscal years and not the end. It is my understanding as well that SO from 2020 and 2021 will be reversed, and not 2021 and 2022. The way the amendment is written currently, it is in conflict with the fact that some of the 2020 FB visas may be used by EB (though it doesn't look like it based on USCICS processing numbers). In such case my guess is the amendment will be modified eventually before the final bill to exclude the already used FB visas by the EB category.

I doubt USCIS will even get to processing 140K visas in FY-2021.

[qesehmk]

I think clause e) sets the SO to zero for FY21 and FY22.

This is the text from the INA:



So when e) sets that to zero for FY21 and FY22, it is referring to the FB SO from the previous years, i.e. FY20 and FY21.

If we interpret it that way then it's a great tell-tale sign of meng amendment as only a bargaining chip. The reason being how do you undo the spillover from 2020 - something that already happened and at least partially allocated. Second - the whole amendment is so onorous and clearly eggregious to GOP that they won't like one bit of it.

Finally - it's terrible that Indian congressmen/women are nowhere to be seen pushing competing amendments to secure interests of backlogged indians. Absolutely amazing to me. TBH the fault may not be theirs. Look the squeaky wheel gets the grease. May be backlogged EB-I is not making enough noise.

[abcx13]

If we interpret it that way then it's a great tell-tale sign of meng amendment as only a bargaining chip. The reason being how do you undo the spillover from 2020 - something that already happened and at least partially allocated. Second - the whole amendment is so onorous and clearly eggregious to GOP that they won't like one bit of it.

Finally - it's terrible that Indian congressmen/women are nowhere to be seen pushing competing amendments to secure interests of backlogged indians. Absolutely amazing to me. TBH the fault may not be theirs. Look the squeaky wheel gets the grease. May be backlogged EB-I is not making enough noise.

Practically speaking, the SO will probably be wasted anyway, so they can claw it back for FB. Alternatively, if some of it is indeed used, then I guess they would just claw back the unused part or they could double use it and add it to FB anyway...

[Zenzone]

Practically speaking, the SO will probably be wasted anyway, so they can claw it back for FB. Alternatively, if some of it is indeed used, then I guess they would just claw back the unused part or they could double use it and add it to FB anyway...

Says who? How do you clawback just the unused portion of the SO that never existed until you passed the retroactive law? Please explain that to me! Also, how come you are so sure that only 140K visas will be allocated this fiscal. I think I disagree with you on both counts. Also, Double using it would also increase the overall visa available in a given fiscal under INA. That conflicts with the existing sections of INA that are untouched by this amendment. First of all none of this will pass muster with the Senate Parliamentarian to begin with. Odds are stacked against it.

Something for your additional reading pleasure & reference - https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/should-congress-legalize-illegal-aliens-through-budget-process-consider

We also should probably wait for the Senate version of this bill as there are enough buzz about multiple immigration proposals being added to it. Who knows what that one has got.

[gammaray]

I doubt USCIS will even get to processing 140K visas in FY-2021.

This is true, without looking at any data or before the USCIS performance numbers from Q1 and Q2, I thought it was logical that USCIS couldn't even meet 140K never mind the additional 110K spillover for FY 2021. In a normal year USCIS is able to process (most times) 90-95% of 140K. In a covid year with only approximately 70-75% working capacity (if not lower) for most of the year how would they process 140k? This coupled with the previous administrations continual effort to impede the process (like increasing the I-485 form length by three times, adding I-944 requirements, mandatory interview etc) increased the processing times drastically. So the math doesn't add up ---reduced working capacity + increased processing times does not = to more gc's issued.

IMO, the only way 140K visas (or more) in FY2021 can be issued if there is there is directive from the current admin and the hopefully-soon-to-be-elected USCIS director to forgo all previous Miller/Trump roadblocks and allow USCIS to freely and quickly adjudicate cases (which kindda-sortta-maybe is the case currently though not through formal official memo's). But with only 2 months left in the FY we'll see how much of that can happen.

[gammaray]

Finally - it's terrible that Indian congressmen/women are nowhere to be seen pushing competing amendments to secure interests of backlogged indians. Absolutely amazing to me. TBH the fault may not be theirs. Look the squeaky wheel gets the grease. May be backlogged EB-I is not making enough noise.

You mean ethnically Indian congress people. They are all American. And I say that because most of the ethnic Indians generally don't identify with other "regular" Indians or work towards their betterment as such, I feel. Unlike ethinic latinos or africans or some of the other ethnicities, which do.

[LightAtEndOfTunnel]

You mean ethnically Indian congress people. They are all American. And I say that because most of the ethnic Indians generally don't identify with other "regular" Indians or work towards their betterment as such, I feel. Unlike ethinic latinos or africans or some of the other ethnicities, which do.

Very true, except Pramila Jaydev most of them are 2nd generation Americans. I doubt they identify themselves as Indians or empathize with Indian immigrants, if not loathe them at worst.

[AceMan]

Finally - it's terrible that Indian congressmen/women are nowhere to be seen pushing competing amendments to secure interests of backlogged indians. Absolutely amazing to me. TBH the fault may not be theirs. Look the squeaky wheel gets the grease. May be backlogged EB-I is not making enough noise.

They are more American than a regular American and removing the backlog has no real utility for them.

[Positive]

Very true, except Pramila Jaydev most of them are 2nd generation Americans. I doubt they identify themselves as Indians or empathize with Indian immigrants, if not loathe them at worst.

Pramila Jaypal and Raja Krishnamoorthi were born Indian.

[may2011]

Any inputs on the Senate version of the DHS funding bill?

https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/with_replies?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eser p%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[txsguy]

Any inputs on the Senate version of the DHS funding bill?

https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/with_replies?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eser p%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I don't understand how they can take away the already spilled GC numbers from FB to EB.
If this is true, indians living in democratic states should start calling their congressperson/senator and make them aware of this. Republicans will anyways vote no against it.

[may2011]

Thanks my question too..Can laws be applied retroactively?What are the chances of this draft becoming a law?

[whereismygc]

Here is the draft DHS appropriations bill in the senate.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DHSFY2022_Final.PDF

In our view the language is exactly same as Meng amendment.

If passed -
a) It is clear EB will NOT receive ANY FB spillover in 2022
b) It is clear EB will NOT receive the unused 80K from 2021
c) It is not clear if EB will have a negative adjustment to its 140K cap due to overuse of approximately 42K visas. We hope not.

As a result we have updated the worst case scenario to show 140K visa availability for 2022.

For more details visit - www.whereismygc.com

[Zenzone]

Here is the draft DHS appropriations bill in the senate.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DHSFY2022_Final.PDF

In our view the language is exactly same as Meng amendment.

If passed -
a) It is clear EB will NOT receive ANY FB spillover in 2022
b) It is clear EB will NOT receive the unused 80K from 2021
c) It is not clear if EB will have a negative adjustment to its 140K cap due to overuse of approximately 42K visas. We hope not.

As a result we have updated the worst case scenario to show 140K visa availability for 2022.

For more details visit - www.whereismygc.com

So the Senate Parlimentarian agreed to this version? I remember reading that she was against any immigration provisions as such. Is this confirmed? And also, how can they do a negative adjustment of over-allocation of 40K GCs given last year. I don't think that will be touched and will be handled as a procedural interpretation by the agencies during rule-making when (& if) this passes and becomes law.

[whereismygc]

So the Senate Parlimentarian agreed to this version? I remember reading that she was against any immigration provisions as such. Is this confirmed? And also, how can they do a negative adjustment of over-allocation of 40K GCs given last year. I don't think that will be touched and will be handled as a procedural interpretation by the agencies during rule-making when (& if) this passes and becomes law.
The thing that Senate Parliamentarian denied was a broad immigration proposal that would have avoided filibuster. This one is going through the normal route and will be subject to filibuster. The negative adjustment is unlikely although the language of the bill talks about "Difference". Check it out. Given the anti India bias in all things immigration, it is not entirely unlikely that agencies end up interpreting the "difference" that way.

[may2011]

When is it scheduled for vote in the Senate?

[prepleo]

The thing that Senate Parliamentarian denied was a broad immigration proposal that would have avoided filibuster. This one is going through the normal route and will be subject to filibuster. The negative adjustment is unlikely although the language of the bill talks about "Difference". Check it out. Given the anti India bias in all things immigration, it is not entirely unlikely that agencies end up interpreting the "difference" that way.

Like other senior members have pointed out before, there is always noise when the DHS appropriations bill or other major non-immigration specific bill comes around. When rubber hits the road, the DHS appropriations bill has always been cleaned of all this kind of language. I have begun to understand that way the US congress/senate is setup, there has to be overwhelming support to add "riders" (forgive me my legalese is still entry level - it may not be called "riders") or additional language to a bill. And even then the success of the bill becoming a law is miniscule. My recommendations is don't waste time with these "riders". During one such bill being introduced I called my congressman's office so many times in a week that I was on a first name basis with one of the staff members.

I spent a better part of decade worrying about this and all I have to show for it is grey hair. Upside because of this is that I have decent understanding of how the US legislature works.

[may2011]

Thanks for the explanation.I am a novice with regards to immigration laws, policies.I saw some lawyers tweeting about this and thought they might pass it this time.

[whereismygc]

Like other senior members have pointed out before, there is always noise when the DHS appropriations bill or other major non-immigration specific bill comes around. When rubber hits the road, the DHS appropriations bill has always been cleaned of all this kind of language. I have begun to understand that way the US congress/senate is setup, there has to be overwhelming support to add "riders" (forgive me my legalese is still entry level - it may not be called "riders") or additional language to a bill. And even then the success of the bill becoming a law is miniscule. My recommendations is don't waste time with these "riders". During one such bill being introduced I called my congressman's office so many times in a week that I was on a first name basis with one of the staff members.

I spent a better part of decade worrying about this and all I have to show for it is grey hair. Upside because of this is that I have decent understanding of how the US legislature works.
Hope so. This "change" is almost criminal. The reason it might actually pass is because republicans may not oppose it at because this doesn't add new GC visas (but it does add H1 which makes it somewhat likely that GOP might oppose).

[may2011]

whats the last date (if any) for the bill to pass?

[ImmiGiveMe]

The thing that Senate Parliamentarian denied was a broad immigration proposal that would have avoided filibuster. This one is going through the normal route and will be subject to filibuster. The negative adjustment is unlikely although the language of the bill talks about "Difference". Check it out. Given the anti India bias in all things immigration, it is not entirely unlikely that agencies end up interpreting the "difference" that way.

What does below point in the bill mean?

(e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number computed under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such section, are deemed to equal zero.

[SG2020]

What does below point in the bill mean?

(e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number computed under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such section, are deemed to equal zero.

This thread might be useful: https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1450484970762473478

[qesehmk]

What does below point in the bill mean?

(e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number computed under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such section, are deemed to equal zero.

That is the part that says for year 2021 and 2022 there shall be no spillover from EB to FB or FB to EB. Now that is problematic since 2021 is already passe and EB received and used FB spillover. So not sure how they might handle that part. But don't worry this is just a draft. It will first pass the judiciary committee and then senate and then congress. So long way to go.

[qesehmk]

whats the last date (if any) for the bill to pass?


When is it scheduled for vote in the Senate?
Probably there isn't a set date. But this can't drag on. I assume a month or two and this must be taken care of. Dems wanted to vote on infra bill by Oct 31st.


Thanks my question too..Can laws be applied retroactively?What are the chances of this draft becoming a law?
My understanding is that by convention the laws are always forward looking but they can use historical dates for references. e.g. everybody who was in US before 1st Jun 1990 is eligible for a GC now on (just an example). Additionally I think laws also should do no harm. e.g. if EB has already used numbers how can that be undone now! So not sure what exactly senate is thinking (or not!)

[may2011]

thanks for ur response

[alpha0]

That is the part that says for year 2021 and 2022 there shall be no spillover from EB to FB or FB to EB. Now that is problematic since 2021 is already passe and EB received and used FB spillover. So not sure how they might handle that part. But don't worry this is just a draft. It will first pass the judiciary committee and then senate and then congress. So long way to go.

I doubt parliamentarin allows this type of change to GC numbers calculation related changes to INA in reconciliation bill just because democrat put some price on that to show it is related to a budget.

[kapilsharma]

Hello experts,

My I140 was approved from location A(HQ office)and I am working at location B currently on H1B(our branch office) and working here since last 10 years), its same company and same job description and position at location A is still valid. My priority date is Dec 2, 2011. Now my Filling Date is current (Based on Eb2 to EB3 downgrade) and my Final Action date is still in future. I would like to file for I485 before the Filling Date retrogress.

Do I have to move to location specified in I140\PERM at the time of filling (and file and H1B amend to add location A before I485 filling).
If I do not have to move now, my understanding is that I will have to move and join at my PERM location as soon as get my EAD based on I485 filling. Is my understanding correct?

Hello Rohanvus,

I am in very similar situation. Did you move to original location as listed in your perm? please advice.

Thanks!

[kapilsharma]

Hello experts,

My I140 was approved from location A(HQ office)and I am working at location B currently on H1B(our branch office) and working here since last 10 years), its same company and same job description and position at location A is still valid. My priority date is Dec 2, 2011. Now my Filling Date is current (Based on Eb2 to EB3 downgrade) and my Final Action date is still in future. I would like to file for I485 before the Filling Date retrogress.

Do I have to move to location specified in I140\PERM at the time of filling (and file and H1B amend to add location A before I485 filling).
If I do not have to move now, my understanding is that I will have to move and join at my PERM location as soon as get my EAD based on I485 filling. Is my understanding correct?


Hello rohanvus,

i am in same situation, what your attorney suggested? Did you move to the location stated in perm.... please guide.

[kapilsharma]

Hello experts,

My I140 was approved from location A(HQ office)and I am working at location B currently on H1B(our branch office) and working here since last 10 years), its same company and same job description and position at location A is still valid. My priority date is Dec 2, 2011. Now my Filling Date is current (Based on Eb2 to EB3 downgrade) and my Final Action date is still in future. I would like to file for I485 before the Filling Date retrogress.

Do I have to move to location specified in I140\PERM at the time of filling (and file and H1B amend to add location A before I485 filling).
If I do not have to move now, my understanding is that I will have to move and join at my PERM location as soon as get my EAD based on I485 filling. Is my understanding correct?



Hello rohanvus,

i am in same situation, what your attorney suggested? Did you move to the location stated in perm.... please guide. Not sure why my message is not displaying so posted couple of times... sorry!

[srimurthy]

Hello rohanvus,

i am in same situation, what your attorney suggested? Did you move to the location stated in perm.... please guide. Not sure why my message is not displaying so posted couple of times... sorry!

I guess as suggested earlier in the forums, the GC is for a future job and you can still work at the local office as long as the company can prove that the job exists for which the underlying PERM and 140 were filed and approved.
You can move after the GC is approved to the head office. Or you can also switch and change jobs and companies after 180 days from 485 filing using AC-21, in which case you have to submit a 485J with the new employer.

Also you can move to the head office now or after 180 days after filing 485 and submit 485J or switch to EAD and work with the same employer at head office.
I am not an expert but providing info based on what we learned in the forum over the year. Your company attorney should also be giving the right direction.

[idliman]

Hello experts,

My I140 was approved from location A(HQ office)and I am working at location B currently on H1B(our branch office) and working here since last 10 years), its same company and same job description and position at location A is still valid. My priority date is Dec 2, 2011. Now my Filling Date is current (Based on Eb2 to EB3 downgrade) and my Final Action date is still in future. I would like to file for I485 before the Filling Date retrogress.

Do I have to move to location specified in I140\PERM at the time of filling (and file and H1B amend to add location A before I485 filling).
If I do not have to move now, my understanding is that I will have to move and join at my PERM location as soon as get my EAD based on I485 filling. Is my understanding correct?


Hello rohanvus,

i am in same situation, what your attorney suggested? Did you move to the location stated in perm.... please guide.
There are two options. Option A: GC is for a future job. So after getting GC, then you can work in the HQ location for 6 months. Till then you don't have to do anything.

Option B: Once you cross 180 days after I-485 has been pending, you are a "free agent". All you have to show is that your job is "same or similar" to PERM job. As you are in the same job in the same company but at a diffent location, this does not matter for you. So filing another I-485J is what you will do, but I would advise you to not do anything at all till an RFE is obtained. USCIS is very liberal on this topic. The USCIS Policy Manual (https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-e-chapter-5) says that they will look for Salary and consider your possible career and location movement.


A change to the same or a similar occupational classification may involve lateral movement, career progression, or porting to self-employment, either in the same or a different geographic location.

USCIS also recognizes that there may be differences in pay due to varying rates of pay in different economic sectors or geographic locations, as well as other factors, such as corporate mergers, size of employer, or differences in compensation structure. Additionally, there could be differences in wages in cases involving moves from for-profit employers to nonprofit employers, academic institutions, or public employers (or vice versa).

Applicants should explain in detail any substantial discrepancy in wages between the original position and the new position. In all instances, officers review a difference in wages and any explanation for that difference along with all other evidence presented.


Basically for both the scenarios, you will not do anything. Wait for RFE. However, if your PD is FA current and you want to force the hand of USCIS, you may submit a I-485 Supp J. This may lead to GC approval. The attorneys will mostly oppose this move and advice you to wait for RFE. But you have a voice and get HR in line this can be done.

In my opinion, it is very rare to see RFE for wage type issues or RFEs regarding location/wage in I-485J. As long as some justification is provided, I-485 J will go through fine.

[gammaray]

Hello experts,

My I140 was approved from location A(HQ office)and I am working at location B currently on H1B(our branch office) and working here since last 10 years), its same company and same job description and position at location A is still valid. My priority date is Dec 2, 2011. Now my Filling Date is current (Based on Eb2 to EB3 downgrade) and my Final Action date is still in future. I would like to file for I485 before the Filling Date retrogress.

Do I have to move to location specified in I140\PERM at the time of filling (and file and H1B amend to add location A before I485 filling).
If I do not have to move now, my understanding is that I will have to move and join at my PERM location as soon as get my EAD based on I485 filling. Is my understanding correct?


Hello rohanvus,

i am in same situation, what your attorney suggested? Did you move to the location stated in perm.... please guide.

You are muddling a couple of things here. I-140 is a company application, it should always have the company HQ address listed on it with the company's financials. PERM is where the actual job location is pertinent. Since gc is for a future job, it's okay if you are working at a different location but will join and work in the position/location listed on the perm after I485 approval (though maybe it might trigger a RFI? not sure).

H1B is completely different from gc. If you are h1b status you need to make sure the location/job listed on the LCA is being followed. If there is a change is job profile and/or location to outside the MSA then you must file for an h1B amendment in order to not violate h1b rules.

The only connection between the h1b stutus/job and the I-485 is that if you violate the h1b status thus violating legal status -- you are allowing for I-485 denial based on status violation.

[rohanvus]

Hello Rohanvus,

I am in very similar situation. Did you move to original location as listed in your perm? please advice.

Thanks!

Per my lawyer , i dont have to change my location because in my case my PERM had language like i can telecommute or travel anywhere in US .

[kapilsharma]

You are muddling a couple of things here. I-140 is a company application, it should always have the company HQ address listed on it with the company's financials. PERM is where the actual job location is pertinent. Since gc is for a future job, it's okay if you are working at a different location but will join and work in the position/location listed on the perm after I485 approval (though maybe it might trigger a RFI? not sure).

H1B is completely different from gc. If you are h1b status you need to make sure the location/job listed on the LCA is being followed. If there is a change is job profile and/or location to outside the MSA then you must file for an h1B amendment in order to not violate h1b rules.

The only connection between the h1b stutus/job and the I-485 is that if you violate the h1b status thus violating legal status -- you are allowing for I-485 denial based on status violation.

Follow up Question
Thanks for your reply. I checked my perm and in section C and D they have listed headquarters address and in section H they listed worksite location address which is same as my H1b address. In perm there is no telecommute option mentioned.

Now because of Covid company is planning to close worksite location office and asking employees to work remotely. Does this require re-perm? Thoughts?

[gammaray]

Follow up Question
Thanks for your reply. I checked my perm and in section C and D they have listed headquarters address and in section H they listed worksite location address which is same as my H1b address. In perm there is no telecommute option mentioned.

Now because of Covid company is planning to close worksite location office and asking employees to work remotely. Does this require re-perm? Thoughts?

So if your remote work location (I'm assuming its your home location) is outside the MSA of the worksite location listed on the LCA then you will definitely have to file for a h1b amendment.

With regards to the PERM, not 100% certain, but following somewhat similar logic -- if the work location has changed and you won't be able to join the worksite location listed on the PERM in the future (since its closing permanently) then I would assume that you would have to redo the PERM with the new location. Definitely need to consult with your legal representative to decide next steps.

The only other thing is, as mentioned in posts above, if your I-485 crosses the 180-day pending mark, then all you need is a I485J with the updated information and don't have to redo the PERM. But that's assuming the FAD will not be current for you for the next 6 months (or 6 months from whenever you actually send in the I-485) and your application will remain pending.