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

As Per ALIA website

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=37451

On 12/15/12, in order to release his hold on hold on H.R. 3012, Senator Grassley offered an amendment that would make dramatic changes to the bill including elimination of the family per county limit increase and reducing the employment based per country limit to 15%. Furthermore, his amendment would eliminate the diversity visa program and adds in provisions that would increase enforcement and U.S. worker protections to the H-1B and L-1 visa programs.

Senator Grassley’s amendment was objected to, therefore his hold on the bill remains. While other senators may try to negotiate a compromise amendment with Senator Grassley, at this time it appears unlikely that such an agreement is likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

As Per ALIA website

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=37451

On 12/15/12, in order to release his hold on hold on H.R. 3012, Senator Grassley offered an amendment that would make dramatic changes to the bill including elimination of the family per county limit increase and reducing the employment based per country limit to 15%. Furthermore, his amendment would eliminate the diversity visa program and adds in provisions that would increase enforcement and U.S. worker protections to the H-1B and L-1 visa programs.

Senator Grassley’s amendment was objected to, therefore his hold on the bill remains. While other senators may try to negotiate a compromise amendment with Senator Grassley, at this time it appears unlikely that such an agreement is likely.

---

Does that mean there was a discussion/debate on H.R.3012?

Is it an formal (or) informal discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

As Per ALIA website

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=37451

On 12/15/12, in order to release his hold on hold on H.R. 3012, Senator Grassley offered an amendment that would make dramatic changes to the bill including elimination of the family per county limit increase and reducing the employment based per country limit to 15%. Furthermore, his amendment would eliminate the diversity visa program and adds in provisions that would increase enforcement and U.S. worker protections to the H-1B and L-1 visa programs.

Senator Grassley’s amendment was objected to, therefore his hold on the bill remains. While other senators may try to negotiate a compromise amendment with Senator Grassley, at this time it appears unlikely that such an agreement is likely.

---

I don't want to make my mouth dirty . But this Grassley is XXXXXXXXXx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by letheQ

I don't want to make my mouth dirty . But this Grassley is XXXXXXXXXx.

---

He is just an anti-immigrant paid by anti-immigrant groups from Midwest. He doesn't care about fraud, american people or the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by letheQ

Does that mean there was a discussion/debate on H.R.3012?

Is it an formal (or) informal discussion?

---

Probably informal.. formal means it should be recorded in the Senate daily proceedings. Just to lift the hold before presenting the bill. But it seems Sen.Grassley is stubborn on his views as always.

Immigration-Law (OH Firm) website


There was an important development for this bill in the Senate yesterday. According to AILA, Senator Grassley offered an amendment that (1) eliminated the provisions for the family per country limit increase, (2) proposed to reduce the employment based per country limit to 15%, (3) proposed to eliminate diversiity visa program, and (4) proposed provisions to increase enforcement and U.S. worker protections to the H-1B and L-1 visa programs. As the readers can see from the foregoing proposals, such proposals are something which the Democrat Senators cannnot accept and reportly his amendment was objected. AILA thus reports that his hold on the H.R. 3012 remains in tact. Reportedly, survivality of H.R. 3012 itself is considered dubious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

It is a setback, but I do not believe the bill is dead yet.

Grassley's amendments are ridiculous. So all he is offering is 15% in EB and everything else either remains the same or gets ADDED from his agenda. Clearly, he is against the FB increase, because he is specifically setting it back to 7%.

---

I guess, we can assume as 'Removing Hold on H.R.3012 == H.R.3012 becoming a law" .
The petitions and all others efforts should concentrate on killing the HOLD(hurdle)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

It is a setback, but I do not believe the bill is dead yet.

Grassley's amendments are ridiculous. So all he is offering is 15% in EB and everything else either remains the same or gets ADDED from his agenda. Clearly, he is against the FB increase, because he is specifically setting it back to 7%.

---

Exactly. Bill is never dead, max may have to wait for the pay cut issue in Senate now and will go for a cloture vote. with 30 hours debate, I really don't know what will they debate for 30 Hours! I think Sen Majority Leader want to avoid cloture so trying to compromise with Sen.Grassley, but it seems it is difficult

sports,
HR 3012 is going to be passed intact with none of Grassley's amendments. Lately you are behaving a bit strangely. From a cheerleader to a doomsayer.

All these amendments by Sen.Grassley is not valid, because the negotiations failed any way because of some of the democratic and republican senators are not agreeing, they could decide to go for a cloture vote, and yes the bil will pass without any amendments, may not be before Christmas, But we never know.

Sportsfan

Grassley's H1/L1 reform(!!!!!)

every employer is required to go to DoL -register for job opening - DoL should scrutinise the recritment process- Employer has to prove DoL that there is no american citizen to perform the required skills - DoL then Certify LCA. So for each and every H1B job , the employer is required to go through these steps ( just like perm)

Employers cannot employ more than 50% of H1b employees.

and lot more annoying regulations which I hate to read further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

Sportsfan

Grassley's H1/L1 reform(!!!!!) is every employer is required to go to DoL -register for job opening - DoL should scrutinise the recritment process- Employer has to prove DoL that there is no american citizen to perform the required skills - DoL then Certify LCA. So for each and every H1B job , the employer is required to go through these steps ( just like perm)

Employers cannot employ more than 50% of H1b employees.

and lot more annoying regulations which I hate to read further.

---

This means not many employers will hire H1B. They will just outsource everything. If an employer needs to go through all this, why does they need H1 ? THey can straight away sponsor his greencard. For all practical purpose H1B will be dead. That is what Grassley wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

Sportsfan

Grassley's H1/L1 reform(!!!!!) is every employer is required to go to DoL -register for job opening - DoL should scrutinise the recritment process- Employer has to prove DoL that there is no american citizen to perform the required skills - DoL then Certify LCA. So for each and every H1B job , the employer is required to go through these steps ( just like perm)

Employers cannot employ more than 50% of H1b employees.

---

Kanmani thanks for this summary. I hope HR 3012 passes, we have all suffered enough. Basically by these kinds of amendments on H1B it will virtually shut the door for many people who come via consulting companies. Larger companies will still be able to meet the requirements but since it is so cumbersome they will avoid seeking foreign talent itself. The 50% rule specifically targets consulting companies this provision is there already for the fee structure for H1B. By this agenda of killing consulting companies they will virtually close the door for many IT folks whose large Indian companies are not kind enough to sponsor H1 / L1 for them. I still believe that HR 3012 and all its senate variants 1857 are still very much alive, just hope that these amendments are thrown out in the same way as amendments that were proposed during the house committee debate.

Its just my opinion!!!
Because 'H1B & GC' are solely controlled by employer , if any individual decides to Immigrate to US are stay in US ,they have to get locked in to the terms of Employers , which is causing all these chaos and the fraud of the employers going unnoticed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

That's really surprising. Are you 100% sure? What stops all companies from sponsoring candidates with H1Bs in that case? There are many companies that have open jobs with specific skills that can be filled with immigrant candidates right away, but are only specifically advertized for PRs or citizens. Could you please explain?

---

There are certain procedures to be followed, certain documents to be maintained once you hire h1b. If PR/USC is available who wants to go through all that hassle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

That's really surprising. Are you 100% sure? What stops all companies from sponsoring candidates with H1Bs in that case? There are many companies that have open jobs with specific skills that can be filled with immigrant candidates right away, but are only specifically advertized for PRs or citizens. Could you please explain?

---

It is assumed that emploer did a search in 'good faith' for a USC or PR for that job. Nothing is required to be proved on paper as of now.

There is no point in discussing Grassley issue because, the negotiation proposed by him is already dead, Reason no one agreed to it. This is like Steve Kings amendment on Congress while they are doing H.R.3012 voting. Nothing serious.

Kanmani is 100% right

the reason for them to mention they need PR or US citizen is certain jobs need security clerance and some companies dont want to go through all this immigration hassles....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

That's really surprising. Are you 100% sure? What stops all companies from sponsoring candidates with H1Bs in that case? There are many companies that have open jobs with specific skills that can be filled with immigrant candidates right away, but are only specifically advertized for PRs or citizens. Could you please explain?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

There is no point in discussing Grassley issue because, the negotiation proposed by him is already dead, Reason no one agreed to it. This is like Steve Kings amendment on Congress while they are doing H.R.3012 voting. Nothing serious.

---

Positive side of all this news is there is some development for HR3012 and some negotiations are indeed on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

Exactly. Bill is never dead, max may have to wait for the pay cut issue in Senate now and will go for a cloture vote. with 30 hours debate, I really don't know what will they debate for 30 Hours! I think Sen Majority Leader want to avoid cloture so trying to compromise with Sen.Grassley, but it seems it is difficult

---

I agree with you that bill may not have died yet. The reason I am saying this is because one thing that no one has bothered to look for is that if Grassley really wanted to kill the bill, he could have done nothing with his hold, just keep sitting tight and let the bill die. Why would he introduce these amendments?

Now here are 2 possibilities.

1. Grassley knows that bill has broad support in Senate. He knows that if cloture is brought, the bill may pass and so he wants to add his amendments and give it a try if not all but at least 1 or 2 amendments are accepted. Worth a shot!!

2. Grassley really wanted to kill the bill but just wanted to show that at least he did offer amendments and did something to let it pass. Now, he well knew beforehand that democrats are going to oppose them and so the bill will die.

Unless Mr. Grassley rises again from his chair and inform us what his real intentions are, we just have to play a guessing game.

For a little history why H1B was introduced. With the current backlog and retrogression due to country caps, it was not practical for employers to hire gc holders if H1B was not available. Let us say your company has an immediate need for an employee for an immediate business necessity. If the employer had to wait for 6 months or more for the perm to be done, then some more time for I-140 to be cleared. Then wait for the employees turn to come up in the GC queue due to country caps, company's competitor would be winning for sure. Which company needs such an immigration system. To circumvent this short coming H1B was introduced so that company could hire people on a short notice and go on with their business. Grassley is trying to kill this convenience and forcing companies to go through the GC process.

If the country cap is in place ( Grassley's 15%) and H1B is reformed as per his requirement, the only people who will end up working here is people from ROW countries. Companies will realize, there is no point in hiring Indians and Chinese for GC anyways as there is country cap. Do we see his evil design ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

That's really surprising. Are you 100% sure? What stops all companies from sponsoring candidates with H1Bs in that case? There are many companies that have open jobs with specific skills that can be filled with immigrant candidates right away, but are only specifically advertized for PRs or citizens. Could you please explain?

---

I agree with Kanmani. I don't believe there is any wage criteria / ability to hire Americans attached to the H1B. My current firm created a position to hire me, because they knew me and wanted me to work for them. They hadn't tried to hire an American / LPR and failed. My H1B came within 3 to 4 weeks of my getting my offer so they couldn't have tried very hard if they did.

As to your other point on fake desi consultant recruits taking up genuine H1B slots, I couldn't agree more. My wife had a job offer from a fortune 20 company in 2007 that she couldn't join because the H1Bs ran out on day 1. Her lawyers had applied for her visa on the first day but there were so many applicants that people were selected in random. My wife's sister in law got one of those fake H1Bs that year without a job. Needless to say, they didn't talk to each other for many months. :)

Still, as much as I'd support stricter enforcement against fraud, it's a different subject that ought to be discussed in a different bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

Thanks for the perspective Teddy. I did not understand the point of how the 50% rule affects the consulting companies. Not that I support a rule like that, but I was curious to know why you thought the 50% rule was a hindrance. I do agree that by increasing the paperwork, small consulting companies will be negatively affected, and already, many in the financial industry are not sponsoring H1B any longer (my wife experienced that first hand). The *reform* should make it easier for genuine employers to hire talent easily while weeding out the fraudsters. It is possible to do this, and maybe Grassley's reforms do not do it. Grassley might just want to kill the H1B, which needs to be opposed at all costs. However it should not be difficult for interest groups to come up with an alternate proposal that achieve the *right reforms*. Just my opinion, and contrary to what has been noted about me, I remain very positive about the prospects of HR 3012.

---

Let me give you some history on how this started.
- From early 2009 client letters became the norm, however it was supposed to be a simple client letter. This way USCIS compiled a good list of all clients and client letter RFE's became the norm.
- Early 2010 E2E memo came by which stipulated that the petitioning employer must supervise day to day work. This requirement is almost never followed by Indian consulting companies and big US consulting companies; it is followed by Indian bigwigs.
- Most Indian consulting companies have more than 50% people who are on H1 in fact many large US consulting companies have separate offshoot companies for h1 consultants. Now both these groups will definitely not meet the requirement. With the Zadroga act (9-11 relief bill) these companies already have to pay a higher fee.
Now while it may be true that some consulting companies in the name of profit or their narrow agenda may have treated people badly but there are many good ones. On another note many big companies are treating people from I/C like slaves by filing in EB3 even if they could have possibly filed in EB2. Look at another angle consulting companies may have issues most consultants are just fine they have 4 year engineering college degrees or MCA meaning thereby most of them have gone through the rigors of an entrance exam. The idea of punishing consulting companies also leads to collateral damage by punishing consultants and their families. Some of my views could be biased because Iam also a consultant.

neelu8 on I V reported that it was good that HR 3012 contents were getting added to other bills. It implies that there is little opposition to it. More likely Senators want to capitalize on it to get their own pet things approved. When everything else fails, people will come back to HR 3012 realizing that anything that is strictly not limited to HR 3012 will get shot down. Senators don't need to add stuff to a bill to poison it, they simply oppose it.

She also said similar "processing" went on in the house but no one was paying any attention.

HR 3012 is not going to get voted on before Christmas or any time soon. It will take its due course and time. Patience and persistence is the key.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

For a little history why H1B was introduced. With the current backlog and retrogression due to country caps, it was not practical for employers to hire gc holders if H1B was not available. Let us say your company has an immediate need for an employee for an immediate business necessity. If the employer had to wait for 6 months or more for the perm to be done, then some more time for I-140 to be cleared. Then wait for the employees turn to come up in the GC queue due to country caps, company's competitor would be winning for sure. Which company needs such an immigration system. To circumvent this short coming H1B was introduced so that company could hire people on a short notice and go on with their business. Grassley is trying to kill this convenience and forcing companies to go through the GC process.

If the country cap is in place ( Grassley's 15%) and H1B is reformed as per his requirement, the only people who will end up working here is people from ROW countries. Companies will realize, there is no point in hiring Indians and Chinese for GC anyways as there is country cap. Do we see his evil design ?

---

Very interesting..... I never thought about a world pre-H1B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

I am trying to understand this. Is the hold by Grassley still valid? Or is Grassley essentially asking the committee to vote on his amendments, and will take the hold back no matter the outcome? If this is just a posturing move by Grassley to please his constituency, more power to him. But I understand that the hold remains, and negotiation is going on to "amend his amendments".

---

Sports,

Hold by Grassley is still valid Reports shows that there was immense pressure upon Sen. Grassley to lift the hold, so naturally he want to insert his intentions as amendment to the bill which is hardcore and anti busines, according to some of the senators on both sides so negotiations was turn down, by him. but Sen. Majority leader can still pass this bill in its present form calling for a cloture vote (with 30 hours of discussion on present form of HR 3012) so supporting Senators can vote in favour, so 60 votes will pass this bill in its present form. This is only my understanding. For the bill to pass it is not necessary that they need to amend the bill.

The bill is not dead , but missed its smooth and silky way to passage indeed.

Anybody watching Senate procedures might have noticed, right before the closing statement from Senate majority reader Reid, he would ask for unanimous consent to pass some HR bills . He would request to suspend the debate and pass the bill and the chair person passes the bill without any objection heard. I have heard only one aye sofar from the floor and that aye is from the senator himself ( usually Reid) who asks for unanimous consent ( at the time of closing the senate floor is left with only clerks )

So our Bill H.R.3012 missed the above procedure only .

We are left with another lengthy procedure ( as explained by immitime in the above post #1035)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes

I agree with you that bill may not have died yet. The reason I am saying this is because one thing that no one has bothered to look for is that if Grassley really wanted to kill the bill, he could have done nothing with his hold, just keep sitting tight and let the bill die. Why would he introduce these amendments?

Now here are 2 possibilities.

1. Grassley knows that bill has broad support in Senate. He knows that if cloture is brought, the bill may pass and so he wants to add his amendments and give it a try if not all but at least 1 or 2 amendments are accepted. Worth a shot!!

2. Grassley really wanted to kill the bill but just wanted to show that at least he did offer amendments and did something to let it pass. Now, he well knew beforehand that democrats are going to oppose them and so the bill will die.

Unless Mr. Grassley rises again from his chair and inform us what his real intentions are, we just have to play a guessing game.

---

Yes, this is what I thought too.! May be as people suggested here it may take some months before it passes in the present form, but there is always hope :-) particularly the same kind of amendments failed in congress if you remember the voting during HR 3012 in the House.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

The bill is not dead , but missed its smooth and silky way to passage indeed.

Anybody watching Senate procedures might have noticed, right before the closing statement from Senate majority reader Reid, he would ask for unanimous consent to pass some HR bills . He would request to suspend the debate and pass the bill and the chair person passes the bill without any objection heard. I have heard only one aye sofar from the floor and that aye is from the senator ( usually Reid) who asks for unanimous consent ( at the time of closing the senate floor is left with only clerks )

So our Bill H.R.3012 missed the above procedure only .

e are left with another lengthy procedure .

---

Does it happened today?

Who is pressurizing grassley? AFAIK, he is the republican nominated immigration watchdog in senate. Any thoughts on who exactly is driving the negotiations and pressure on grassley?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

I apologize again, but pardon me for playing the devil's advocate.

So what if Grassley said let's reform the H1B and remove the country caps?

After knowing that H1B is a "good faith" based system, actually I am surprised that a mere 65000 visas last almost an year (with the exception of 3 bad years in between 2005-2008). 65000 is not a large number compared to even the skilled labor pool in the US. So the "good faith" is working by and large and that part of Grassley's reform is never going to make it. It makes sense for a company to quickly hire an H1B without the drama associated with the PERM.

However he does have good proposals for restricting the number of H1Bs to a certain percentage and redefining prevailing wage. I think we would not see another infamous VSG if the better parts of Grassley's proposals were considered.

---

No matter what laws are made, there will be people exploiting the system. This is not limited to H1B. It happens at even larger scale on FB side. So fraud is always going to be there in all immigration categories. USCIS has fraud division handling these issues.

H1B has to confirm to LCA requirement for wage standards. That is already in place. This higher median average wage proposal is coming straight from some of the anti-immigrant groups like PG. There are many anti-immigrant groups. This higher median wage is purely their proposal. Grassley is well connected to these anti-immigrant groups.

What is the real solution for H1B ? Double the greencard quota and lift country caps. That way employees are free like a bird and has no stigma or restrictions associated with H1B. Is any of these senators proposing this ? No. Reason being, they are not at all interested in making it easier for anyone to immigrate. They want to make the life of H1B holders hell through additional restrictions.

All these additional restrictions will only lead to more outsourcing. They are worried about their anti-immigrant or pro-union agendas only. Nobody cares about america.

[QUOTE=sportsfan33;16363]What is the downside of Grassley's prevailing wage proposal?

http://www.immigrateme.com/senator-g...ills-h-r-3012/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

We are left with another lengthy procedure ( as explained by immitime in the above post #1035)

---

I think the best thing can happen to this bill now is, the pressure on Grassley eventually will make him drop his hold..i am assuming pressure is from republicans, specially house republicans such as Chaffetz and others and senators like Mike Lee,,,both said they were going to talk to Grassley..and i am assuming they did.. but once Grassley drops the hold..i think he will be allowed to offer the amendments when there is a vote on the bill..(there is always a possibility Grassley will stand on his position and keep a hold) Dems have Senate majority and they are not gonna allow some amendments to go thru specially removing diversity visas and few other...
I noticed 2 things last night on TV..not too big, but good for LEGAL immigrants..Eric Schmdit was on CNN and allowed cameras first time in their building ..but the important thing is he talked about making visa procedures simple and stuff which helps our cause.. Schimdit is no politician but I think his opinion helps us a littlle since no matter what Google is Huge company and since Brin is Russian immigrant,, GOOGLE supporting us always helps..and specially in National media..big help..
2nd,, GOP Debate last night..I was little disappointed that they didn't talk much about LEGAL Immigrants...I only heard Huntsman talking a little about reforming LEgal immigration and keeping high-skilled immigrants here..

CLoture has to be filed to get this bill to debate now. Initially Senate was planning to pass the bill using "Unanimous Consent Agreement" but Grassley came in the way. Now 16 Senators have to sign to file a cloture motion to end the debate and bring the bill to vote. 30 hours max debate is allowed, it is usually much less than this. One Senator can speak for a max of 1 hour. No other business is allowed during Cloture.

Now the only question is whether the Senate leadership considers this bill important enough to make it go throughthis process??

Thanks to Kanmani for summarizing Grassley's ammendments and its impact.

Sports buddy!

In simple if Grassley's Amendments were to become a law, it will make USA another UK! I have been in the UK for four years before moving into the USA and the laws are so stringent that require an employer to advertise for a job in the UK and then in the European Union countries and only after that they will be allowed legally to employ a candidate from ROW only if they dont find any in Europe! So, except for companies like TCS, Wipro etc there is no such concept of Desi Employers hiring in the UK! There is no or limited Desi Employer model in the UK! This will literally kill the concept of Desi Employer here, forget about the wage determination & to other additions!!! At least there is a lot of awareness with the candidates applying for H1's these years. Thanks to the internet. So,I believe the so called fraud and misuse has reduced to some extent. But hey, think of it this way...In the 1900's when Irish, German's and other countries migrated into the USA, I am sure there is some level of fraud and misuse by the middle men then. It will happen at any period of time no matter how stringent these laws are! So cheers, Lets hope this HR.3012 gets approved soon!

LOL! that was my first post on the blog and didnt knew my Thumps up-emoticon appears right next to my Subject Line. I meant his ammendments a Thums-down. I guess I got it correct this time :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

ayya ungala aani thaane pidunga sonnom , neenga veetaye idikireengale? ( Tamil friends pls translate this on my behlaf)

---

My humble efforts....

Bhaisaab, humne sirf keele ko nikaalne ko kaha, aap poore ghar ko gira kyon rahe hain?
Sir, we only asked that you pull the nail out, why are you tearing down the whole house?

sports,
You are probably basing your opinion on your own experience regarding H1B. H1B has to be paid the market wage. That is fair. Current laws already have that requirement in the form of LCA. In your case I guess you are working for a good salary now. That means current laws are working just fine. If some company pays lesser than prevailing wage or any other H1B violation, you can report them to DOL and USCIS. This can even be done anonymously. Fraud prevention and correction systems are already in place. You don't create laws to fix fraud in a system. You institute fraud handling system. Grassley being an anti-immigrant, is trying to kill H1B program itself. This is not good for us, not good for america.

If he wants to introduce an H1B reform on his own, let him introduce a stand alone bill. We will see how far it goes. He has introduced this amendment to kill HR 3012, nothing else.

If somebody wants a higher salary, they can go to an employer that provides it. We shouldn't be asking an anti-immigrant lawmaker to introduce an "H1B reform", so that we can have higher wages. IMO you are generalizing based on your experience.

From Oh Law Firm

Sen. Grassley's proposed amendment was not acceptable not only from the Democrat stand points but also from the Republican standpoints. Accordingly, even if it makes through, hypothetically, the Senate, there is no chance that such amended bill will be able to make through the House. Sen. Grassley was throwing a chip of increasing EB per country limit upto 15% (without eliminating EB per country limit and without incresing FB per country limit to 15% ) to achieve his goal of practical choking of the throat of H-1B and L-1 nonimmigrant professional worker programs to the death, which will result in devastation for high tech businesses, higher learning institutions, and other industries that need foreign brains.

Any surprise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

sports,
HR 3012 is going to be passed intact with none of Grassley's amendments. Lately you are behaving a bit strangely. From a cheerleader to a doomsayer.

---

You don't say ....