Pedro, Thanks for the update. Did you meet directly with your Representative or did you meet with a staffer? I am unable to meet my Rep. or the staffer. Quite frustrating honestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
Pedro, Thanks for the update. Did you meet directly with your Representative or did you meet with a staffer? I am unable to meet my Rep. or the staffer. Quite frustrating honestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
Met with the Rep this time. Didn't last more than 5 minutes, but it was positive. This was my third visit btw, I met with staffers both previous trips, although the Congressman was in the district both of those times (and in the office at least once). I think i got to meet the Congressman this time because my last meeting with the staffer went well. My district isn't very populous (or rather its spread out because of its relative population density) so the Congressman's office wasn't very busy on any of my visits. I would expect it would be tougher if you live in a large city.Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
Committee of the Whole House info:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade....ion.html#whole
Quote:
Committee of the Whole House
In order to expedite the consideration of bills and resolutions, the rules of the House provide for a parliamentary mechanism, known as the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, that enables the House to act with a quorum of less than the requisite majority of the entire House. A quorum in the Committee of the Whole is 100 members. All measures on the Union Calendar- those involving a tax, making appropriations, authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, or disposing of property- must be first considered in the Committee of the Whole.
The Committee on Rules reports a rule allowing for immediate consideration of a measure by the Committee of the Whole. After adoption of the rule by the House, the Speaker may declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole. When the House resolves into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker leaves the chair after appointing a Chairman to preside.
The rule referred to in the preceding paragraph also fixes the length of the debate in the Committee of the Whole. This may vary according to the importance of the measure. As provided in the rule, the control of the time is usually divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the relevant committee. Members seeking to speak for or against the measure may arrange in advance with the Member in control of the time on their respective side to be allowed a certain amount of time in the debate. Members may also ask the Member speaking at the time to yield to them for a question or a brief statement. A transcript of the proceedings in the House and the Senate is printed daily in the Congressional Record. Frequently, permission is granted a Member by unanimous consent to revise and extend his remarks in the Congressional Record if sufficient time to make a lengthy oral statement is not available during actual debate. These revisions and extensions are printed in a distinctive type and cannot substantively alter the verbatim transcript.
The conduct of the debate is governed principally by the rules of the House that are adopted at the opening of each Congress. In the 106th Congress, the rules were recodified for simplification and clarity. Jefferson's Manual, prepared by Thomas Jefferson for his own guidance as President of the Senate from 1797 to 1801, is another recognized authority. The House has a long-standing rule that the provisions of Jefferson's Manual should govern the House in all applicable cases and where they are not inconsistent with the rules of the House. Most parliamentary questions arising during the course of debate are responded to by a ruling based on a precedent in a similar situation. The Parliamentarian of the House is present in the House Chamber in order to assist the Speaker or the Chairman in making a correct ruling on parliamentary questions.
Hi,
based on the recent trends on this bill, how many more steps are there to become this as a law ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
There are quite many steps. Don't get discouraged. That is why advocacy is hard. Moreover, as the bill moves forward, the opposition gets more vocal. Other issues like deficit reduction may get more attention etc. So please contact your Congressperson and try to convince them to vote for this bill. Let them know this is important and must be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by EB2Jun08
HR 3012 update:
9/22/2011: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
9/23/2011: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.
10/27/2011: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
10/27/2011: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
11/17/2011: Congressional Budget Office highlights there is no impact of HR 3012 on budgets. Source: CBO link
11/18/2011 1:37pm: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-292 - click here to see complete report/bill with latest ammendments..
11/18/2011 1:38pm: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 193. From Wiki: The Union Calendar is a separate calendar in the United States House of Representatives that schedules bills involving money issues. Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12hr3012rh.pdf
Keep your fingers crossed. I am still trying to understand what it really means by putting on the Union Calendar, but intuitively it is some progress. Just hope that this congress ends up passing this bill (anything, for that matter...this political gridlock is not helping the US).
Do we have some Guru who can enlighten us on different steps for passing of bill in U.S. congress ? My knowledge is limited and all I know is that a bill can be proposed in either House or Senate and the same has to be passed by Senate/House.
Quote:
Originally Posted by self.coach
I am not aware of the process either. BUt per the belwo link, The status is:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3012
Status:
Occurred: Introduced Sep 22, 2011
Occurred: Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Occurred: Reported by Committee Oct 27, 2011
Not Yet Occurred: House Vote ...
Not Yet Occurred: Senate Vote ...
Not Yet Occurred: Signed by President ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by evoori
FWIW, Immigration Voice dot org has a good faq about this. Search on that site or google : "How a Bill becomes law": Image below
http://armine.pbworks.com/f/1272296003/howlaw.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by evoori
Excellent link leo.. thanks.
I guess it is in the "Calendared" phase right now..really boils down to the vote. The most recent vote was 6 to 23 against the bill, if you see Page 5 of this bill. Now what was defeated was not the entire bill but part of it, as it says in the attachment:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-11...112hrpt292.pdfQuote:
the Committee advises that the following
roll call vote occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R.
3012.
1. An amendment by Mr. King that would have removed the
bill’s increase in the family-sponsored immigrant visa per-country
cap was defeated by a vote of 6 to 23.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo07
No Votes were registered against the bill or part of the bill .Quote:
Originally Posted by self.coach
The voting was for the amendment offered by congressman Mr. King , which was defeated by 6-23 votes 6 yay and 23 nay.
Amendment here refers to any change to the original bill .
It sounds like it was just the ammendment that was defeatedQuote:
Originally Posted by self.coach
Do we know what was the amendment that was shot down?
If it's an amendment from King and it was shot down, then that in itself is a good sign :) ( defeating Kings amendment, because he is known to include items that can bring the whole bill down)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
I think Rep King wanted to block the increase in per country limit for family-based category (7 to 15%). This is defeated.
He also wanted to eliminate the EB3 category all together and bring the EB visa limit down to 100,000. This amendment was adjudged as 'not relevant' and was rejected (no voting required by committee)
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo07
Increasing the # of Family-based GCs.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo07
Thanks! This guy always tries to throw a wrench in the last minute...I'm sure he has more up his sleeves until President signs the paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsingh79
Guys,
Why does 85% apply to only 40K, why not 140K....
And does 85% apply to India or India and China? The way I was reading it, it would apply only to one country(India).
It applies of EB2 and EB3 only, so it's 85% x 40K each. It doesn't apply to the other EB categories (actually, It's been a while since I've read the bill so I'm going by memory, I'm not certain about EB4 and EB5).Quote:
Originally Posted by Waiting4Ever
The 85% of 40K applies to all countries based on PDs. The remaining 15% is reserved for all countries other than India and China (which were the 'states whose natives used the most EB visa numbers in 2010'). Of the 85% unreserved, not more than 85% (so 72% of the total 40K) can be used by any one country (effectively India).
In effect, In EB2 and EB3 India will use 72% x 40K, China will use 13% x 40K and the rest will be used by ROW-M-P for the next couple of fiscal years.
AGREE ACT (Senate): So it is officially a BILL now:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1866/show
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1866
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1866: - Title V
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1866/report#nation
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills...2_SN_1866.html
and News from Coons website: U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) today applauded the introduction of a companion to their bipartisan American Growth, Recovery, Empowerment and Entrepreneurship Act in the House today by U.S. Representatives Richard Hanna (R-NY-24) and Bill Keating (D-MA-10).
Part of Bill will - Eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrant visas and adjusts the limitations on family based visa petitions from 7% per country to 15%
As the bill was referred to the committee of the whole house, we won't be able to see it publicly on the calendar because for that it needs to go thru rules committee and needs debate rules. It basically now becomes a side show. Hopefully, it will be quick and in our favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackbrown_890
As some one said, For Politicians any bill which have a chance to pass in Senate and Congress and becomes law, is like if a "Dog sees a Fire Hydrant or mile stone" They want to put the mark. or want to search for another Fire Hydrant or Mile Stone!. So no wonder there are mutliple bills now from both parties.
Praying for all. and doing my 2 cents to make it happen!;)
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 11/18/2011: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 193.
Points in Favor
1. Country of Birth has no place in skills-based immigration. There is a diversity visa
category for that which explicitly disallows China, India etc...
2. America is the LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVE. Expecting an employees loyalty for
2-3 years in exchange for sponsorship is one thing. Expecting the same for 20-30 years is
only a shade away from indentured servitude and downright slavery. It is not who we are !
3. America needs these High-skilled Immigrants as much as they need us. We need the tax dollars to pay for our retirement, social security, medicare and medicaid. If the majority
of these immigrants are from China and India - these are fast growing MAJOR economies. many
of them can do just as well back home. when that happens AMERICA LOSES.
4. It is time we stopped treating the legal tax-paying immigrants worse than we treat illegal immigrants! These people make an important contribution to society and america - Think Jerry Yang Sergey Brin etc...
Points Against
1. Provides a small relief to backlog (a few years from decades) for India, China, and other countries in the bill while significantly increasing the wait time for the rest of the world.
2. All unused green card numbers from other countries' quotas are already allocated to the countries that are over their quota, each year.
3. Has nothing to do with fairness. Immigration is a privilege, not a birthright, US can institute policies on immigration that it deems beneficial to its interests. While it can be argued that having more highly skilled immigrants is in the best interest of the country, it cannot be logically argued that having more skilled immigrants from India, China, or Mexico will be MORE beneficial to US compared to immigrants from other countries. The selection process to determine the "high" skill of the applicants is same for all applicants regardless of their country of origin. The reason for the per country limit was to keep diversity in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics fields and to encourage immigrants from smaller countries to become permanent residents as well rather than having individuals from one or few countries dominate the STEM
Hearing in House is confirmed. Please look at the majority leader link
http://majorityleader.gov/floor/weekly.html
Great news. Among the four bills up for vote on Tue, 3012 has the most co-sponsors. It also seems like the other three are non-controversial, slam-dunk bills - so perhaps 3012 is also being seen as such. If the bill passes with a large majority then it will help it get a good chance in the Senate as well.
Have we had any progress in the Senate version of 3012? It is possible that the bill might stop in Senate if Rubio/Coons bill gets precedence over the senate companion bill (S-1857).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umesh1209
Also - its great that the bill is being voted "under suspension of rules". This is typically done for non-controversial bills that are expected to pass very easily and quickly. This ensures that the debate will be limited to 40 mins and no amendments can be added.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imdeng
imdeng, I dont see it on Eric Cantor's link mentioned by you. Where do you see it ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by imdeng
Imdeng, I agree the way how it is introduced is very encouraging.
In my opinion the toughest phase for this bill is in Senate. Also Senate is known for it slow pace. Given the stance taken by the republican candiates in their debate yesterday, it appears to me that the republican establishment is in favour of strengthning legal immigration.
On a pessimestic note, I have not seen enough news from the Dems side, although bills are introduced in the Senate , it is still not showing very encouraging signs. Atleast not yet. It is possible that they want to keep this as a low profile bill and pass it without much controversy. If that is the strategy then it most welcome and we can see some light at the end of tunnell sooner than later.
http://majorityleader.gov/floor/weekly.html - the text clearly mentions that the bills below are being considered under suspension of rules.
Suspension of rules essentially means that Dems have agreed to support the bill. This does increase the possibility that Dems will also support the bill in the Senate. This would be vital since Dems control the Senate Calendar and they will decide when (and if) the bill gets voted on in Senate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by longgcque
I still dont see where it mentions that 3012 will taken up for discussion/vote on 11/29 at 630 PM EST. Am i missing something
Quote:
Originally Posted by imdeng
I am sorry that you were not able to see it or read it. I am Quoting the text on the page with HR 3012 bolded below.Quote:
Originally Posted by longgcque
Quote:
THE LEADER'S WEEKLY SCHEDULE
WEEK OF NOVEMBER 28, 2012
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28TH
On Monday, the House is not in session.
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29TH
On Tuesday, the House will meet at 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.
Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules:
1) H.R. 1801 - Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of the Armed Forces Act (Sponsored by Rep. Chip Cravaack / Homeland Security Committee)
2) H.R. 2465 - Federal Workers Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act (Sponsored by Rep. John Kline / Education and the Workforce Committee)
3) H.R. 3012 - Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (Sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz / Judiciary Committee)
4) H.R. 2192 - National Guard and Reservist Debt Relief Extension Act of 2011 (Sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen / Judiciary Committee)
Whats meaning of 'Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules' ? TIAQuote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
Thanks KD. Based on Aman's note it is expected to pass with 90% majority. Lets hope it sails thru. I did my part by contacting all NE congressman's and they all Republicans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives.
A motion to suspend the rules is in order on Mondays and Tuesdays and towards the end of a session of Congress and may only be made by the Speaker of the House or their designee, though it is customary for committee chairs to write the Speaker requesting a suspension. Once a member makes a motion to "suspend the rules" and take some action, debate is limited to 40 minutes, no amendments can be offered to the motion or the underlying matter, and a 2/3 majority of Members present and voting is required to agree to the motion.
A suspension motion sets aside all procedural and other rules that would otherwise prohibit the House from consideration of the measure, but the specific rules that are to be suspended are never mentioned in the motion. Typically, a suspension motion is phrased as a motion to "suspend the rules and pass the bill," and, if the Motion is agreed to, the bill is considered as passed by the House. A Member can also move to suspend the rules and take another action, such as to "suspend the rules and consider the bill," and the House shall take the proposed action if two-thirds of those voting are in favor of the motion.
Most often, bills "on suspension" are non-controversial legislation -- such as naming Post Offices of the United States Postal Service or federal buildings -- and nearly all bills that are considered under suspension rules have bipartisan support. Both major political parties in the United States -- the Democratic Party and Republican Party -- have internal rules that prohibit proposing or supporting a bill under suspension unless it costs less than $100 million.
Source: Wiki
Quote:
Originally Posted by suninphx
It does feel like it will pass in the house without any major hurdle. I know it is early but congratulations and thank you all for your efforts in making it possible for 3012 to house floor for a vote.
Lets regroup everyone after thanksgiving and as other people also mentioned here, shift our focus on Senate.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-707921
I also posted the news on CNN Ireports in hope to get some national/media attention. Please visit the link and try to spread the word in national media to generate more support for senate version of the bill.
Can someone, who has good writing skills give me some text to go with this iReport?
Thanks
Please be careful in gathering media attention. The bill is still in delicate stage. And we don't want to invite outside scrutiny and the antis yet. Rather use your enthusiasm to gather and reach out to people who will pick up the phone and call Senators when the time comes.
The thing about advocacy is we want attention of lawmakers esp now that we have a bill but not general distracting chatter from media. A simple out of context case of someone abusing the system will undo the whole bill.
Very good information. Thanks Leo4ever!
I agree. No need to go to media now. That stage is over. We are in a much advanced stage.
sportsfan33,
I think this bill will make through senate in one form or another. As many people think (especially those opposing the bill), it won't be face a hurdle in senate. Even in Senate judiciary committee, I don't see much opposition to this except maybe from Grassley. Also remember Senate Judiciary committee held the hearing for Dr Puneet Arora.
I definitely agree with you. It is a thin line here. But the main reason/intention behind media attention is to get Hispanic support since it does affect FB category visas.Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
Plus we already know both the parties support legal immigration reform and as it is bi-partisan in the House, my thinking behind media attention is to get bi-partisan support for S.1857. I may be wrong but i think there are many bills passed in the house and don't move in senate. Getting some media attention may bring some Hispanic support and thus making it desirable to move fast in senate to attract voters for both parties.
And i also agree with you about contacting lawmakers. We definitely need to do that this is just another side step to help 1857 move in senate.
I also have no problem in removing iReport if more people think this is not a good idea to generate media attention.
Let me know.
Thanks
My comments in RED
[QUOTE=sportsfan33;14529]Forgive me for looking ahead at this juncture, but I believe all would agree that this bill will almost surely pass in the House. If it passes with something like 80-90% ayes (as the I.V. is claiming), it will make the case that much stronger.
The advantage of the AGREE act is that it has 4 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, has gotten decent coverage in the media so far and may actually go somewhere in the Senate.
- Assuming the bill passes the House and that the president has a good pen on his desk to sign the bill (aka the president signing not being a problem), the dangers to this bill are as follows:
A. The bill never comes to the Senate for the vote. This is the most likely reason the bill will ultimately fail. I personally think the bill has generated enough of a stir for the Senate to consider it at least, but I am no political expert and cannot really make a judgment on this issue.
I have the same concern since it is proposed by a minority party in the senate and no dem. co-sponsors yet for S.1857
B. Someone is crazy enough to filibuster it. I personally think it's far fetched since the bill is noncontroversial, and no one will unnecessarily spend his/her political leverage by filibustering something that resembles an *administrative fix type of law change*.
It will be easy in the house but senate needs 60 votes. so again if we get bi-partisan support to this bill, i think with huge majority in the house passing the bill, it will be far from anyone using filibuster (as long as it makes to the floor for vote)
C. The American public takes this bill the wrong way and attacks the politicians for passing a bill that will result in more American job losses in these times. I think this is lesser possibility, but nevertheless a danger we should watch out for.
I totally agree. Since they are not adding new visas thus not allowing more immigrants, this shouldn't be a big issue.and in my understanding even so far FAIR organization hasn't opposed this bill yet, i don't think they will support it but as long as they don't oppose, it is good for us.
D. The bi-partisanship goes bad: Considering the fact that the super-committee has failed and bipartisan efforts will soon start disintegrating as the presidential campaigns heat up, the window is narrow for this bill to sail through while there is still some semblance of bi-partisanship left. At this point, the probability of this is almost NIL, but this is a time dependent variable and as time goes by, this probability increases.
I agree - possibility is NIL. Super-committee failed but the main reason was ideological differences between 2 parties on spending and taxes. This bill has no cost nor its related to taxes so that shouldn't be an issue.E.
The bill fails the Senate vote: I think we can discard this possibility.