Printable View
No mav - Durbin opposed the process of unanimous consent rather than country caps. In other words IV and republicans put a gun to his head and said "Our way or highway". He took the highway. I don't blame him. You can not pass a legislation this serious and contentious via unanimous consent.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJMavarick
Q - Not sure if I fully agree with you here. If unanimous consent was his concern he could have said that directly. That's not the reason he quoted for his opposition. I also second the idea that just based on history and facts, R's seem to have our backs than the D's at least at this moment. I would again place my chips on the side that bets no immigration reform will come to fruition via. stimulus 2.0.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
R's back legal immigration not because of their love for us, but to put out a talking point that they are not anti-immigrant. D's favor the illegal over legal immigrants because of the number of votes they will add. There are probably 1 million legal immigrants in queue. But atleast 10-15 million illegals in the country. The problem with D's is not that they pander to illegal immigrants (I guess I am fine with that), but that they go out of their way to spit on the faces of legal immigrants as they pander to illegal immigrants. A lot of piece meal reforms could have been passed with bipartisan support but D's would rather hold us hostage to get to their goal of getting illegal immigrants legalized. That's the sad truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenzone
I think everything is always negotiable. But UC killed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenzone
R's have conned EB-I into thinking they support EB immigration. Nothing is further from truth. I have spoken enough on this.
Even historically democrats without a doubt are more pro immigrants. Some Indian EBs are playing a stupid hand here. I can only say this so many times. Those who want to inflict self harm, I can't stop you from it. But to me this is not advocacy. This is pure stupidity. Forget politics, one should at least recognize self interest.
Once again you are mixing your political biases with what is happening. That you would sumperimpose those on your prejudices for I V is a given by now.
Unlike you immigrants without a green card do not have the luxury of picking political sides and neither did I V pick any. The bipartisan support obtained by I V is a clear indication. Dems were not targeted by I V only Durbin was and very very rightly.
There has been and there will likely to be a fractured mandate (house, senate and president) for a while and nothing can be achieved by siding with one party and falsely labeling the other as anti immigrant. The net immigration is also not going to increase for a while.
The current pause of green card issuance can result in benefiting EB. It is clear which party has proposed a bill to please Hispanic voter base to prevent the spillover from FB to EB. Hopefully that bill does not go anywhere and the pause due to Trump's executive order ends up as a blessing in disguise for the EB backlogged community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
I am simply stating things as they are. The fact is IV did get played into R side by standing by UC and then badmouthing a perfectly good senator.Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostWriter
For your own selfish reasons it is a good idea to start acknowledging mistakes and at least not burn bridges. By tarnishing a good senator I have no idea how you or IV thinks they can achieve their goals. I have no respect for spineless people who cozy upto the party that clearly is racist.
I am not interested in any dialogue with any of you IV supporters. Please save your wisdom for the advocacy and stop wasting my time. I run this blog of course with a view point but objectively. I am giving specific reasons why I believe what I do.
Can any one of you tell me in your infinite wisdom WHY UC WAS NECESSARY for S388? Go back to the IV masters and get this answer. Perhaps I will learn something new.
Ghostwriter - We have all known I V and their work. Almost everyone with PD 2009 and Prior are aware of all the wonderful stuff they have done for the immigrants:rolleyes:.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
There were many reasons why Q started this blog [I V being the major one]. Many of us in this blog left I V and joined Q's blog for similar reasons.
Q.. i agree with most of your thoughts....
However, if UC was concern, what has Durbin done to negotiate on it and get the bill moving? From what i know - nothing.
The hidden intention does not seem to be UC. May be he is a very good senator who means well... but if he blocked a bill (that passed with overwhelming majority in house) he has to clearly state what he wants changed in order to support the bill. I have not seen that. He just says he wants to increase the number of GCs. That is not going to happen for decades to come. If anything the GC numbers will reduce for the next decade. US gives 1 million GCs in every year year. This is very generous. Show me another country that gives that many in a year. So instead of asking for impossible things, he should improve the system.
If you remember back in 2013, I and some others spoke to you over conference calls to see the possibility of suing US government on country caps. I remember one very good point you mentioned that now only EB-I is suffering so nobody is complaining. Once country caps are gone, everybody will feel the backlog over a period of time. Everybody will make noise and not just EB-I. This will support Durbin's call for more GCs.
So i feel Durbin has some hidden agenda which he does not want to share lest he branded as r***t with evidence from horse's mouth?
Note:
a. I am not a fan of IV and do not participate in their events. My opinion on them is ....Good or bad.. they are trying something and have reached somewhere on the hill that many of us have not. Hope they work with both parties to get bipartisan support!
b. I also believe tarnishing and launching website on durbin is a foolish idea. They should work Durbin behind the scenes and try turn him around. This path they have taken is not going to help in anyway in my opinion. no body cares about these gimmicks except EB-I community. Will have no effect on Durbin since if he cared, he would not have blocked the bill in the first place and would have tried to negotiate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
There are not many of us around who remember first hand the splitting of this site from I-V. Happy to see a few old warriors still hanging around. I miss those days - we had such an analytical, numbers focused community that did amazing work. Of course - there was semi-reliable data to work with in those days. Folks with real expertise helping people out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pundit Arjun
Imdeng - First it is painful to have old timers. People don't deserve to spend 10-15 years of their lives chasing a green card. Especially a talent-rich backlogged community such as EB-IC. As you know I obtained a GC almost 10 years back and stopped doing manual calculations 8 years back. I do think that people should use this website not just to calculate and analyze but also to support each other. It takes an emotional toll on people dealing with injustice.Quote:
Originally Posted by imdeng
Hi SkPanda - good to hear from you. First I must apologize to all for my rather harsh tone in my last post. I believe all backlogged immigrants should have a common agenda that is apolitical. That will allow all to focus on their own self interest rather than get played by the American politics which is complex. Our brain likes to divide things into two dimensions or black and white. But things are multi dimensional. People are aligned to different values and goals and it does everybody a disservice when we say somebody is racist, or republicans are this and democrats are that. Specific to durbin - perhaps we need a thread. Because I have explained this so many times and yet people are confused. UC is a senate procedure. It allows bypassing the normal procedure of how a bill is passed. It is used to expedite mundane senate business. Not to pass a serious legislation. Thus it was a poison pill that not just Durbin but any senator could object to including republicans. So to blame it on Durbin is quite crafty. Second - Durbin is advocating for his own constituents. If you want any senator to advocate for you, you work in the background. Strong arm tactics will simply not work unless you are a billionaire and will commit funds against the senator. So whats going on here. Why does IV or anybody else think that Durbin owes any gratitude or latitude to you? Why? You have a view point and he has a viewpoint. The only way to change his view point is to work with him. Built connections and common ground. He has no obligation to come up with any other plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by skpanda
p.s. - US does give 1M GCs.. Do you know the fed targets 3% economic growth as 2% productivity and 1% population? But current US population produces 1.9 children per family and thus it contributes negative to the GDP objective. (should be at least 2 per couple right?). That is why Fed and all policy makers have relied on immigration historically to get extra 1%. Luckily since 1990s technology has produced much more than 2% productivity and thus immigration has become an issue. But otherwise immigration is not favor to anybody else. It is a need.
One only needs to look at who will be most harmed if S386 is passed. And what could they do prevent it. Everything else is probably barking up the wrong tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
S386 would have likely passed if it was diluted (e.g 50% no country cap and remaining as-is). S386 made sense before 2015 when the backlog was less than half as now. You can't expect professions where there are non-Indians to sit and watch Indians take up the entire quota for the next 10-15 years. They will fight tooth and nail. And so they fought and won. One of the major opponents this time came from Florida. And there was also AHA.Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur123
I still remember meeting with Zoe Lofgren in her office where in 2013-14, she said that removing country caps would add 7 year wait time for ROW. So this was a problem even back then.
About Q's argument on why only UC, the answer as I know is that Republican leadership is unwilling to allocate 7 days of senate time on this bill - they have other priorities. And you apparently need to let 7 day of debate for any opponents, if there is no unanimous consent. And any opponent can stretch it out with hearings with the likes of Ron Hira, Matloff etc.
All your points make a lot of sense, you seem to be more aware than many. In my prior posts I had also indicated that S386 doesn't pass common-sense test as it seems to impact many other professions/mechanisms by which people come here - without restraint. So even if IV has a valid position, it is proposing a solution which is probably not workable for America. (On a flip side, H4EAD would have been long gone if not for IV's intervention. That is no small feat).Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketfast
Though what remains unanswered is -
- why the very last minute intervention on such a serious issue, and that too from only one senator? (or is that just incidental?)
- there is no harm clause to take care of all other professions, which was further expanded - so what is the remaining concern? In fact if you expand the no harm clause even further then it may get to example you provided - 50% no cap, 50% with caps.
So why has that not been negotiated?
Do you know about this? And who was the opponent from Florida?
What I was alluding to with my previous post is the role of law firms in this. IMO They would take the biggest hit if S386 passes - as-is or in any diluted form.
The real US fertility rate is lower and has plummeted below 1.8. It could very well be below 1.7, and after the coming severe depression, it could plunge well below 1.5 - after all, several European countries have had fertility rate in 1.3-1.4 for almost a couple of decades now.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
The family unit in the US is a state of complete disaster across all demographics. Literally, it is only the immigrants at this point that are providing any semblance of family to the US. From my anecdotal experiences, I know several, several acquaintances with US born kids who are well into 30s and sometimes in the 40s that don't have kids (a majority are not even married). Getting married, staying put, raising kids, making sacrifices - all seem old fashioned now. It's all about the latest trends, hip bars, and the likes.
Even the stable families have both parents working and very few of them have two kids even that. (We had our second child almost 7 years after the first one - at one point, we were sure we would never have another child).
After spending a few years growing up, getting mature and getting more experiences, I can now look back at this more objectively. Why is the US allowing so many immigrants? As an immigrant, you have to wonder. But what's overlooked is that *we are all over here, and not in India*. Some ~4 million of us - collectively the cream of the Indian crop - are contributing to the economy of the US and are doing nothing for India. The US has collectively stole from India and many other countries - plain and simple. It is true there were no opportunities back in India and the US has a free-thinking, law-abiding and capitalistic system in place. However, this system needs the right people to perpetuate it, and immigration is how the US fills the gap.
It is just a wonder how the policymakers passed the famous INS act back in 1965, a result of which is why we are here and the world is what it is.
I hope we pass these days and a solid solution is accepted by policymakers at both ends of the aisle.
I am not dissing IV. Volunteered for them as a foot soldier. But at the end of the day, you use common sense and realize that you are fighting a losing cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur123
IMO, just like every place, some immigration lawyers support s386 and some don't. Since s386 will not increase green cards, the backlogs will only increase. So, lawyers will have enough business one way or the other. Some lawyers will lose some business (and they may oppose) and some will gain.
About Durbin: You can google about it, but there are a bunch of H1B reform legislations where Durbin and Grassley worked together. So Durbin knows that H1B program is a program being abused by Indian tech companies. So he has seen the ugly under belly of the program and he does have a prejudice against Indian IT workers.
So his condition for removing hold was the heavy penalty for Indian tech companies (50-50 rule). But obviously, they lobbied and made Mike Lee postpone the enforcement by a few years. And Durbin promptly withdrew from the agreement.
When the bill passed the house, the opponents were alarmed. They were desperately trying to find that one senator who will put a hold. I think (conjecturing) initially Durbin thought it has no chance among the racist republicans. So he simply decided against acting. Once Perdue and Rand Paul removed their hold and it looked like they are no other opponents, he put his hat in the ring.
Whether we like it or not, Indian tech companies will fill increase the demand as soon as s386 passes. They will make it impossible for any one else to benefit. You can see the state of EB1C on what will happen once s386 passes.
Sport - I wholeheartedly agree with your post. Lest somebody pick negative connotation please allow me to clarify your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsfan33
The industry thrives where rule of law exists, Where liberal democracies exist. Where competition and innovation thrives. US is absolutely the best place in those terms.
Immigrants always make positive difference - be it US, or Maharashtra or Bengaluru. I am a big supporter of immigration not just in US but anywhere in the world. Talent will always travel and travel to places that are just and rewarding.
Believe it or not .. it's not lawyers. Their workload remains the same whether person A waits in the line or B. The real parties not interested in solution to EB-IC backlog and their motivations are (in that order):Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur123
1) The corporations (captive IT workforce)
2) Some elements in the government and administration (racism)
3) State department ( diversity reasons)
Someone did a quick calculation on twitter for lawyer fees for EB-I and it amounted to $1.75 billion a year for extensions, transfers, h4s, rfes, premium processing and multitude of other applications which come along your way - which are directly proportional to length of time you spend in backlog. And there are hundreds of thousands in backlog now.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Of course the backlog would be handled some day one way or the other - but they can keep the gravy train going till they can. It is easy money - and lots of money for mundane, repetitive work.
Thanks for the reply. The whole saga is just unfortunate.Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketfast
I thought about that. But then wouldn't that be true for anybody who is in the backlog?Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur123
The aggregate time in backlog is same but now spread across more people. Won't that reduce extensions and transfers and so on? And of course less the time you spend, less desperate you are to pay higher fees, and lesser you spend on consultations.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Also for the firms who have existing business model going on, they may not be serving the same industry, clients or regions who would now be added.
Siskind has started his fear mongering again, but who knows, he may be vindicated come Oct.
https://twitter.com/gsiskind/status/1263206427776233474
For those not interested in reading, the gist is that he is asking why are the FB dates not current with almost 95% of them being CP cases. He is also cautioning EB folks that don't think the excess FB numbers are going to be re-allocated as required, there are going to be games played with that too.
I do not know Greg Sisking. When I went through his twits, they are logical and just to me. If EB was in same situation, we would be worried about dates not moving fast enough The same is true with FB. The only problem is - there is no law that states that DOS must allocate the visas. There is a practical difficulty in moving forward dates - a lot of the folks 6-12 months beyond "current dates" have no realistic chance of getting their background check done etc. So simply moving the dates does nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbulent_Dragonfly
As per unused visas falling across to EB - the only way that will not happen is by the act of congress. The congress will have to make a new law. In my judgement there is almost zero probability of that happening because it will be such a contentious bill. So I guess EB-I backlogged folks can safely assume that they will see a lot more extra visas next year. But of course strange things have happened in the past ... So don't hold me to this!
The lawyers seems pretty outraged that dates for FB didnt become current, never saw themQuote:
Originally Posted by Turbulent_Dragonfly
showing this outrage when EB India dates moves up by a day or sometimes dont move at all. They want even EB India to join them in their outrage. Pretty funny actually. Just last week they were happy that House version of stimuls bill has clause to stop spillover from FB to EB for next 2 years.