Let us wait for the blue print and see. In any case combining 11m with legals applicants would only be eye wash without increasing quota. But who knows, an alternmate definion of GC may happen, where who ever eligible will become GC holder. No quota limit at all? But a job/tax status for a minimum duration(2-3 years)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
They can become part of family Q if they have any family to sponsor. If they are working and not having family here to sponsor, they would have to be added to EB QQuote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
From Oh Law firm
Mccain says so called "hi-tech" bill can be included in CIR
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...rehensive-plan
Obama's proposal on CIR. His version is somewhat more liberal that it is not contingent on border security, but his plan also includes illegals to go at the back of the line and no separate line except for 'DREAMERS'.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...0a3_story.html
Obama's plan has drawn criticism from Rubio. Rubio won't support the bill if border security is removed from the bill and if he does not support the bill, that might be the end of it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...-new-overhaul/
I am not sure but in 2000-2001 period, illegals were allowed to file in EB3 (Those who were working in small businesses like stores etc.) That was the reason of the backlog in labor certification. In those days LC was paper based and at state level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
The Rubio/Hatch bill is introduced. This bill actually does not seem as bad as we were discussing. It seems to have many good things.
From oh law firm,
01/29/2013: Summary of Senate Bi-Partisan Bill of "Immigration Innovation Act of 2013" with Nick Name of "I-Squared Act of 2013"
The bill which is introduced in the Senate today will be made available soon but here is the sponsor's summary of the bill:
Employment-Based Nonimmigrant H-1B Visas
Increase H-1B cap from 65,000 to 115,000
Establish a market-based H-1B escalator, so that the cap can adjust ¡V up or down ¡V to the demands of the economy (includes a 300,000 ceiling on the ability of the escalator to move)
o If the cap is hit in the first 45 days when petitions may be filed, an additional 20,000 H-1B visas will be made available immediately.
o If the cap is hit in the first 60 days when petitions may be filed, an additional 15,000 H-1B visas will be made available immediately.
o If the cap is hit in the first 90 days when petitions may be filed, an additional 10,000 H-1B visas will be made available immediately.
o If the cap is hit during the 185-day period ending on the 275th day on which petitions may be filed, and additional 5,000 H-1B will be made available immediately.
Uncap the existing U.S. advanced degree exemption (currently limited to 20,000 per year)
Authorize employment for dependent spouses of H-1B visa holder
Increase portability of high skilled foreign workers by:
o Removing impediments and costs of changing employers;
o Establishing a clear transition period for foreign workers as they change jobs; and,
o Restoring visa revalidation for E, H, L, O, and P nonimmigrant visa categories
Student Visas
Allow dual intent for foreign students at U.S. colleges and universities to provide the certainty they need to ensure their future in the United States
Immigrant Visas and Green Cards
Enable the recapture of green card numbers that were approved by Congress in previous years but were not used
Exempt certain categories of persons from the employment-based green card cap:
o Dependents of employment-based immigrant visa recipients
o U.S. STEM advance degree holders
o Persons with extraordinary ability
o Outstanding professors and researchers
Provide for the roll-over of unused employment-based immigrant visa numbers to the following fiscal year so future visas are not lost due to bureaucratic delays
Eliminate annual per-country limits for employment based visa petitioners
U.S. STEM Education & Worker Retraining Initiative
Reform fees on H-1B visas and employment-based green cards; use money from these fees to fund a grant program to promote STEM education and worker retraining to be administered by the states
Please stay tuned for the full text of the bill.
Summary of Immigration Innovation (I-Squared) Act of 2013:
http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_22...ore?source=pkg
More on Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0AY7NZ20130129
Red the below section which will impact EB2/EB3 visas
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...inglePage=true
-Cut Red Tape for Employers.
The proposal also eliminates the backlog for employment-sponsored immigration by eliminating annual country caps and adding additional visas to the system. Outdated legal immigration programs are reformed to meet current and future demands by exempting certain categories from annual visa limitations.
Will Obama kill or save immigration reform ?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...r-kill-it.html
Since they are sincerely considering CIR, will that have an immediate impact on the upcoming visa bulletins? Meaniing will they try to clear as much backlog as possible like for EB3 ROW before September?
No, because the discussions do not alter the number of visas currently available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caramail
Only when something is passed and if it includes extra visas and if it became effective immediately would there be any effect.
Durbin expressing concerns about H1b component. It is very hypocritical that person who supports making 11m people legal is concerned about few thousand h1bs.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...?taxonomyId=70
I haven't seen anyone highlight the fact that the proposed i-squared Act also alters the % of EB visas given to EB1-EB3.
Under the proposal, the current 28.6%, 28.6%, 28.6% would change to :
EB1 - 12.0%
EB2 - 36.9%
EB3 - 36.9%
If we just take the effect of Dependents being excluded from Numerical Limits, that has the following effect.
EB1
16,800 visas. However, EB1A & EB1B are no longer counted within Numerical Limits. Using the historical ratio for dependents, that is the equivalent of 39,800 visas for EB1C.
EB2
51,660 visas. Using the historical ratio for dependents, that is the equivalent of 103,300 visas for EB2.
EB3
51,660 visas. Using the historical ratio for dependents, that is the equivalent of 118,800 visas for EB3.
Effectively, it raises the number of visas available to EB1-EB3 from 120,000 to 262,000 and increases the numbers available to EB2 & EB3 by between 2.5-3 times.
Politico reports - I-squared sponsors ready to wrap the bill in CIR.
I-SQUARED TO GET WRAPPED IN, SPONSORS SAY http://www.politico.com/morningtech/...gtech9931.html — While neither the Gang of Eight’s proposal nor the White House’s desires are in legislative form yet, co-sponsors of the I-Squared Act say they expect the measure to get folded in when the time comes. “My view is that we can only make progress on immigration through a comprehensive approach that addresses the whole range of issues from path to citizenship, to family reunification, to agricultural workers, to due process concerns, to skill gap and high-skilled immigration concerns,” Sen. Chris Coons says. And the proposal “is not in competition with any effort,” Sen. Marco Rubio says.
Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, gave the following statement regarding the immigration proposal put forth by Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin and Michael Bennet.
“We’ve seen efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform come and go with little success. And, while efforts in the past have not been successful, most of us can agree that a long-term solution is needed. Another Congress shouldn’t be faced with this problem again. So, there’s a lot to be said for these members working together and moving the issue forward. And, while I especially appreciate the group’s focus on legal avenues of immigration, there are a lot of questions to be answered on even the most mundane of topics. The proposal also lacks specificity on a number of big, difficult issues such as preventing illegal hiring through E-Verify and reducing chain migration so there’s more focus on merit.
“In order for legislation of this magnitude to get the buy-in and support from the American people and their Senators, regular order must be restored in the Senate. Chairman Leahy and I have spoken, and the Judiciary Committee is ready for hearings to consider legislation and move the process along.”
Thanks Spectatator. However, a huge bill like CIR could be potentially effective immediately? Wouldn t they give an adjustement period to USCIS like 6 months to implement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Personally, I don't think all provisions would come into effect immediately - probably from the next FY if enacted late in the year (although if it passed in August, that is going to be pretty much immediately).Quote:
Originally Posted by Caramail
The only measure likely to have immediate effect would be setting the date for existing applications which the undocumented would have to wait to be cleared before they could become a full PR.
Currently, there are at least 5 million legal people waiting in the queue (of which around 90% are FB). Unless FB4 (which accounts for over 50% of the backlog) gets scrapped, I don't see how it will be cleared very quickly.
I also can't see how either DOS or USCIS can possibly handle the workload in the short term, so I suspect the average processing time to get a CP interview or to process an AOS case to completion is going to increase fairly dramatically. No proposal to date has suggested allocating any extra resources to DOS/USCIS.
C-Span is running Schumer and McCain interview from today morning....
Interesting points:Quote:
Originally Posted by kuku82
"The men said they wanted the legislation to go through regular committee order."
“The hope is late spring, early summer,” for the bill to go to the floor, Schumer said."
I came across this interesting counterpoint on my twitter feed-just some food for thought. Might explain the reluctance of whole-hearted GOP support so far.
Maybe as the process moves along these extreme viewpoints might change-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-latino-voters
PS-The comments section is interesting also
I do not agree with the analysis that immigration issue did not alienate Hispanic voters. There is tons of other analysis which say that that was the reason and I believe GOP has already done the analysis and come to this conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
This article is flawed. This just another proof that GOP is not ready to embrace the reality yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
GOP has always been an anti-immigrant party except for a few lawmakers.
1. ¡es la economía, estúpido!
What would you expect of a "Fox"-latino poll !
2. Latinos are liberal
Fact is GOP is too "conservative" and right wing fanatics that they consider Fox news as the nuetral channel.
It is not latinos that need to change their mentaility, it is the GOP.
3. Even "Latino-friendly" GOP politicians never did that well
This doesn't mention who that latino-friendly politician is if at all there is one.
4. Demographics don't swing elections
GOP decides to turn their face away from reality.
5. Most Latino voters don't live in swing states
Florida is a swing state and a deciding one. Author doesn't want to acknowledge that.
To gcq & rupen
I agree with both of you in terms of flaws in the article. The question this article raises is what the tangible benefit is going to be for the GOP if this passes. The credit will be shared by both parties and if the President steps in at the right moment this would be clearly become a Democratic success. Of the various senators involved in this-only Schumer & Graham are on the Judiciary Committee. The conservative opposition is already starting in the Senate as the following article suggests
http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index....ngly_nave.html
There is going to be opposition which is expected and no one expects smoother ride for it. It only needs 60 votes in senate to pass filibuster and I think it is going to get that. Schumer has predicted as high as 80 votes for it. In the house, it will have tougher situation but I think there also it is going to end up having similar situation as fiscal cliff deal where majority of democrats supported it and few republicans joined. Senators like Vitter are going to oppose anything and everything. He was the one who had problems with HR 3012 also. There are also senators like Durbin who do not have problems adding 11m illegal but have problems with adding few thousand h1bs.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
Even though President and Democrats end up receiving the credit, the problem would be solved for once and all and Hispanics would look for other issues during voting rather than immigration. Then republicans would be back in the game and can hope to reduce democrats' lead.
I agree with the top para ... but the second para is difficult to agree with. Here is why - (and this goes beyond immigration so perhaps lets not beat this to death) - any president in his second term hardly has 8-9 months MAX during which he can pursue his own agenda. So Obama MUST clear this before September. After that he can't even control his own party because of the mid term election and after mid term he is quite a sitting duck. So Obama in his 6-8 months he has - has chosen to use immigration as his agenda (Legacy if you will !!). And why is this important to him? It's because he expects this to be a lasting legacy with hispanics who he certainly don't want to flock to republican side like they did for GW Bush. That's why this is critical to him and his party.
It just beats me - how he has been able to divide the republican side - and quite a few republicans are following him on his agenda. I actually agree with the article above that talked about how latino vote is less consequential than it is made out.
I do believe that if this gets passed (and of course the chances look 80%+) that Obama will have built solid foundation within Latino base which will last democrats for a couple of decades.
I also do not believe that this solves the immigration problem once and for all. The world is getting more and more chaotic and America is the first choice for immigration and will remain so for a loooooong time - legal and illegal. So what Vitter and others say is actually true... but hey I am not on Vitter's side ... and I believe diversity is good for America and a diverse America is good for the world.
Now coming back to what republicans would get out of this... the answer is zero. Had they opposed this - they would be punished again. But if they support - this would still be seen as democratic victory. So perhaps that's their logic.... to blunt the latino wrath by being supporting of this. But republicans are going to have different winning strategy such as - allow rich to pay more taxes - oppose stupid wars - support obamacare in some form - stop beating on gay lesbians and women. That's the ONLY way they are going to win. They have divided america into too many slices already and have cornered themselves as the party of white middle aged disgruntled men. If Paul Ryan is their 2016 nominee then god bless their ambitions to catpture white house. I will bet my money on Hillary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
White House is participating in a Google Hangout on the immigration reform efforts -
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/imm...n?sid=24774966
Even though Republicans may not end up receiving support from Hispanics, the fact that they are talking about it and participating in the reform process suggests that they have taken calculated decision at high level that doing this might be one way of getting out of the pain caused by presidential election. They would not have come this far if they thought it is going to cost them more.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
House hearing on 2/5
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/..._02052013.html
Senate's hearing is scheduled on 2/13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ration-feb-13/
Fun starts now !!!
Why Silicon Valley needs immigration reform
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/30/39...eform-congress
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why...orm-2013-01-31
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/...-point-of.html
Today saw an ad on CNN by anti-immigrant group FAIR targeting H1B in CIR.
Yes, don't go after the other 11 million uneducated and underskilled illegals who will suck at the taxpayers' teat. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
It's disgraceful that we're the bargaining chip for 11 million illegals. We who obeyed the law, we who are usually highly qualified (yes, even the IT bodyshoppers - at least relative to the strawberry pickers), we who are net contributors to the economy, we... - we are the same as the illegals.
Good job, Mr. President and Democrats. If I ever do become a citizen of this fine country, I will surely reconsider my allegiance to the Democratic party.
Dick Durbin and Chuck Grassley are surely going to put amendment on H1B but I hope provisions related to EB are not touched.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
Whether it is good or bad these 11m are a factor in economy, low paying jobs in shops/hotels/restaurants. I was surprised to see mexican cooks and waiters in many Indian restaurants. USA wage rates for these jobs for these are the lowest in developing countries. In Aus/NZ/UK these rates are almost double.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
I echo that samrat.
Another point is - who is to call them illegal? Arizona Texas California were all part of mexico and US took them all by force i.e. illegally from Mexico! How about the rest of the US (except Louisiana) which was taken from various different Indian Americans - again through wars - i.e. illegally. Same with Hawaii .... just one fine day US felt like having Hawaii and made it part of their territory.
The funny thing is - even white people show the decency and honesty to admit this and stand by all immigrants. Heck - if that was not true - Obama would never be the president. But it's a pity that some Indians coming from India remain coward and narrow minded when it comes to self-interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
If we do not deserve to discuss what is going on in politics, we have no business in opening this forum. On the same ground, Piers Morgan can not discuss gun-control whether it is good or bad. The reason that we discuss about this is that we are living here and what is going on affects us as well as this country. Freedom of speech gives this right. It does not give this right to only citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsfan33
You are right that our fate is linked with CIR, so crying about "illegal" or "undocumented" people does not help our cause. But it is just logical to think that way. That's what even politicians including President is suggesting when he says they will have to go at the back of the line so that people who played by the rules are not punished. When you see that politicians do not have problem with 11m "illegal" people but problem with few thousand h1bs, it raises logical questions.
Could not agree more!!
My biggest problem is why is Legal Immigration held hostage for 11 million+ undocumented immigrants?
People talk about America being a land of immigrants - yes that is correct. before 1950 it was easier to move around to different countries (legal/illegal) and the host countries did not care much since that was not huge number. But after 1950s most countries put controls. if that did not happen then whole of India/China/Mexico/Easter europe would have flooded US/Propsoerous countries.
There is a legal immigration process. Everybody needs to follow that. period.
Even if US prefers to give Amnest to there 11m undocumented people on humanitarion grounds, that is ok. But why do I (who followed the rules) need to held hostage for those who did not follow the rules?
Even Bill Gates says the same thing.
http://earlystart.blogs.cnn.com/2013...-held-hostage/
Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86