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

Yes. Although it doesn't exist formally - in reality that's how it works. e.g. it was not a coincidence that AC21 was passed in 2000 right at the height of dot com bubble, and then in 2003/4 the unutilized FB visas were given to EB which cleared not only EB2 but EB3 backlog. However now the times are exactly opposite and so EB immigration by itself has zero chance of happening. Which is why it is critical to tag along with FB as part of CIR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geeaarpee

How about a flexible cap Q that can be flexible to the economic cycles? I don't think the no cap option will go anywhere close to approval - especially when it comes to EB...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

Well summarized. I am optimistic something gets done by an overwhelming majority of Democrats and a large minority of Republicans in both the Senate and the House.

The Dems absolutely want to get something done for the illegals before they go back to the voters in 18 months. If they have are successful, the Hispanic vote could help them keep the Senate in a tough year (in 2014 again, more Dem Senators are up for election than GOPs, and many of them are from red states), and further even the numbers in the House. So, they are likely to give up on family reunification (immigrants not yet on their shores) in favor of illegals (immigrants here already). Besides, the Mexican/Chinese/Philippino/Indian family reunification folks will be happy enough if the 7% cap is raised to 15% even if it is accompanied with a reduction in a couple of categories.

I don't really see the need for a pathway to citizenship for anyone other than DREAMers. Thinking about it from the perspective of an illegal immigrant, would I want to endanger the possibility of legally staying in the country in search of the vote? I think not. The vast majority of them will be satisfied with a legal framework that allows them to continue to live and work in the US, with citizenship guarantees for any kids and grandkids that they have here.

I think that's where that issue will end up. A special pathway to citizenship just for the DREAM kids, and an opportunity to legally remain in the country and get into line for a GC for the others (either through the EB path - in conjunction with some sort of EB reform that allows lower skill but high demand jobs access to a path to a GC; or through the FB path - assuming they have DREAMer that gain citizenship or US Born kids).

---

Although illegals themselves would be satisfied with some legal status, politicians(democrats) do not care about that. Their goal would be to have pathway to citizenship so that they have access to that many voters in the future. I do not agree that democrats would agree to give up on that demand. On family green cards also, it seems difficult that democrats would give up. It would depend on the democratic and republican leadership's approach to the bill. If they decide that they want to advance the bill irrespective of how many members of their party support it, it might end up getting passed with mix of republicans and democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

This is more sensible policy option. It's absolutely moronic to have very strict restrictions on people who are competent and marketplace wants them and then almost have no controls over family immigration and where the immigrants also don't value the immigration that much and are less likely to contribute to the society since their productive years might be behind.

However i do think that not having any cap on EB is the best way to go. Rather have rules in place that makes sure there is a fair game there that doesn't exploit either the immigrant labor or shortchange of the American labor.

---

Though these new proposals may make economic sense, this is a recipe for CIR failure. Family unification lobby is quite strong. They can bring down a CIR. IMO GOP senators are playing a game pitting family reunification against illegals both of which are Democrat's babies. Maybe they are using the family re-unification reduction threat to gain more concession from Democrats for undocumented legalization. If this game goes wrong, CIR can fail !

That is a very good observation. Didn't think that way. I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

Though these new proposals may make economic sense, this is a recipe for CIR failure. Family unification lobby is quite strong. They can bring down a CIR. IMO GOP senators are playing a game pitting family reunification against illegals both of which are Democrat's babies. Maybe they are using the family re-unification reduction threat to gain more concession from Democrats for undocumented legalization. If this game goes wrong, CIR can fail !

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

Although illegals themselves would be satisfied with some legal status, politicians(democrats) do not care about that. Their goal would be to have pathway to citizenship so that they have access to that many voters in the future. I do not agree that democrats would agree to give up on that demand. On family green cards also, it seems difficult that democrats would give up. It would depend on the democratic and republican leadership's approach to the bill. If they decide that they want to advance the bill irrespective of how many members of their party support it, it might end up getting passed with mix of republicans and democrats.

---

This article beautifully summarizes what I was trying to say here.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/shikha...rticle/2524332

http://www.christianpost.com/news/hi...-reform-91875/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

This article beautifully summarizes what I was trying to say here.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/shikha...rticle/2524332

---

This article was surprisingly well written.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ion-blueprint/

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...gration-reform

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ion-blueprint/

---

This seems like big news. Considering that there were members like Gutierrez and Labrador who are at opposite end of each other, if they can come up with the bill, it is big thing in itself.

To rupen86

I guess what you make of what is going on @ CPAC depends on which side of the fence you are on

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...y-at-cpac?lite

The conservative media is still not sold on the amnesty idea although the headline seems a little too strong here

http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...ration-amnesty


Finally-I feel that the FB reforms suggested by Sen.Graham will be difficult to enact as the interest lobbies especially in the Latino and Catholic community will target it

http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2...0lK/story.html

The immediate reaction from the powerful Catholic Lobby is unexpected.A more acceptable solution to the FB reforms may be to re-allocate those categories to spouses and children of GC holders

YES. FB Visa other than spouse/dependent children and (parents where the center of gravity is towards the sponsor) is meaningless; IMHO- All others categpries should be removed and I do not think no other country has these in place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

To rupen86

I guess what you make of what is going on @ CPAC depends on which side of the fence you are on

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...y-at-cpac?lite

The conservative media is still not sold on the amnesty idea although the headline seems a little too strong here

http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...ration-amnesty


Finally-I feel that the FB reforms suggested by Sen.Graham will be difficult to enact as the interest lobbies especially in the Latino and Catholic community will target it

http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2...0lK/story.html

The immediate reaction from the powerful Catholic Lobby is unexpected.A more acceptable solution to the FB reforms may be to re-allocate those categories to spouses and children of GC holders

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

To rupen86

I guess what you make of what is going on @ CPAC depends on which side of the fence you are on

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...y-at-cpac?lite

The conservative media is still not sold on the amnesty idea although the headline seems a little too strong here

http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...ration-amnesty


Finally-I feel that the FB reforms suggested by Sen.Graham will be difficult to enact as the interest lobbies especially in the Latino and Catholic community will target it

http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2...0lK/story.html

The immediate reaction from the powerful Catholic Lobby is unexpected.A more acceptable solution to the FB reforms may be to re-allocate those categories to spouses and children of GC holders

---

There will be opposition from both sides no matter what comes out as a bill from "Gang of eight". There will be amendments but if those amendments are going to change fundamental structure of the bill, the way it went in 2007, it will loose support from the sponsors and then outcome will be uncertain.

It's not as meaningless as one may think. FB immigration has a strong economic and cultural aspect. FB immigration is about 1M per year which contributes a minimum of 1/3 % GDP growth while extending the cultural fabric and preserving it at the same time.

p.s. - I was not careful in reading. You were only talking about other catgories! So yes they are not as meaningful. But they neither they are consuming large visas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bvsamrat

YES. FB Visa other than spouse/dependent children and (parents where the center of gravity is towards the sponsor) is meaningless; IMHO- All others categpries should be removed and I do not think no other country has these in place!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

It's not as meaningless as one may think. FB immigration has a strong economic and cultural aspect. FB immigration is about 1M per year which contributes a minimum of 1/3 % GDP growth while extending the cultural fabric and preserving it at the same time.

p.s. - I was not careful in reading. You were only talking about other catgories! So yes they are not as meaningful. But they neither they are consuming large visas.

---

Two words - opportunity cost.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92E0WI20130315

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...ids-over-visas

This what deralied it once, and this is what is going to derail it again! It just feels like deja vu...

An interesting take on FB immigration although the author is an immigration lawyer

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...gration-reform

Also the earlier plans of a post-Easter recess immigration blitz is not on the agenda now as this article seems to suggest Senate vote in the June-July time-frame (more July than June as we all know the pace at which things move in the Senate)
Will it allow enough time for the House to act on the Senate Bill before the August recess? The House Judiciary Committee seems in no rush to get to this as the Chairman has said that it should be a slow and deliberate process

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92D1B120130314

"On Thursday, Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a member of the group of eight, said he thanked Obama for "playing a role that's behind the scenes."

Flake said the issue of future immigration to the United States is a sticking point for Democrats, and that Obama could build support for that part of the pending immigration bill."

Does this imply that the other issues are sorted out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

An interesting take on FB immigration although the author is an immigration lawyer

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...gration-reform

Also the earlier plans of a post-Easter recess immigration blitz is not on the agenda now as this article seems to suggest Senate vote in the June-July time-frame (more July than June as we all know the pace at which things move in the Senate)
Will it allow enough time for the House to act on the Senate Bill before the August recess? The House Judiciary Committee seems in no rush to get to this as the Chairman has said that it should be a slow and deliberate process

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92D1B120130314

"On Thursday, Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a member of the group of eight, said he thanked Obama for "playing a role that's behind the scenes."

Flake said the issue of future immigration to the United States is a sticking point for Democrats, and that Obama could build support for that part of the pending immigration bill."

Does this imply that the other issues are sorted out?

---

The real issue will be Senate vs House not within each of the chambers. Both are introducing bills with different priorities when it comes to illegals.

From Oh Law firm. Don't know why such pessimistic reading by Oh Law firm. May be reporter is referring to reports to cut FB numbers.

03/16/2013: Bleak Future of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation in 2013

After the November 2012 election, this site has spent enormous amount of time to review the issues and bottlenecks for past CIR efforts, including the history of Reagan CIR proposal in 1980s and Kennedy-McCain CIR in 2000's. Shockingly enough, the current CIR players in the Congress and the White House are moving towards a direction more or less copying the past efforts that ended up with a failure. As we suggested, the success to the CIR this time around would depend on these leaders to accept overall increase in "legal" immigrant visa numbers rather than being messed up with power struggles between the Republican and Democratic parties relating to the demographic changes and attempting again to achieve xenophoebic agenda of the immigration reform to contain and control of the number of "legal" immigrants in the long haul. This CIR move in 2013 is doomed to failure. The country may as well focus on piecemeal immigration reform efforts focusing on the reform of the immigration system that can boost the country's economy first. How disappointing these political leaders are. We have lost faith in these political leaders.

Perhaps because of this observation ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

.. the success to the CIR this time around would depend on these leaders to accept overall increase in "legal" immigrant visa numbers rather than being messed up with power struggles between the Republican and Democratic parties relating to the demographic changes

---

I think that's exactly what's happening. Although I am not sure where this is going to land up..

http://thehill.com/video/senate/2886...migration-deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us...ds.html?ref=us

interesting developments. nothing for legals yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us...ds.html?ref=us

interesting developments. nothing for legals yet.

---

I do not see any specific solution here. The article continues to highlight the problems that need to be solved.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...reform-report/

Whether the congressmen/Senators who have to face primaries/elections will heed this report is a different question