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

sport thoughtful opinions are valuable regardless whether one agrees w them. Yours are thoughtful and so pls don't be apologetic.

As per H1B L1 amendment, even if one assumes or agrees that those amendments make sense - I would still not advocate for them "NOW" since they are meant purely to cause distraction in HR3012.

Just an opinion. So don't mean to criticize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

I was talking about ONE AMENDMENT and that is prevailing wage and making sure that H1B is not used in salary arbitrage.

Look, let me make my position very clear here.

a) I am an ardent supporter of HR 3012, have been from day 1, and I continue to support it, send elaborate responses to various anti-HR 3012 people (Pedro can testify to this) and I have gone to my state Senators offices 4 times (including one visit this week).
b) I do not know Grassley. He is portrayed as an anti-immigrant and Ron Gotcher went so far as to call him a member of the KKK. Very likely, he may be one. I don't claim that Grassley's amendments are logical.
c) I am not advocating H1B amendments *as a precondition to the passage of HR 3012*. Grassley is doing it. If Grassley never put a hold on this bill, I would debate the H1B amendments in a separate topic if any incidence arose.
d) I have first hand experienced H1B as a tool for salary arbitrage, and I wish it wasn't like this. In no way, I am advocating less friendly conditions for businesses, but what I am advocating is an "economic equivalence principle". Hiring an H1B or a PR/citizen should purely be based upon need irrespective of all other factors, and prevailing wage redefinition is a great way to achieve it. Forget about what everything else Grassley is saying, and just focus upon that one aspect.

If our own grassroots efforts can come up with a sensible bill for H1B reform, the likes of Grassley will never be heard of from again.

In any case, this discussion has diverted too much, and I sincerely apologize. I agree with others that none of the H1B provisions are relevant for the rapid passage of this bill. This is my last post on this topic, and moderators can move it somewhere else. I am an HR 3012 supporter, and ready to look for the next action item blast from the ** :)

---

gcq - The kind of work an H1B does, a normal employee would expect 20-50% more. My personal experience and gripe is that - i was underpaid by a hundred K or so. Initially when hired, an H1B may be paid similar to a normal employee. But six years is a long time and people tend to be severely underpaid by the time they are in 6th year. So LCA is not effective beyond initial certification.

Secondly, an LCA itself can be manipulated so easily. I don't want to point out who is flaunting LCA without violating the law. But one can guess it!

That said - I do not think we should support any H1B amendments NOW. This is not the time for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

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.

---

Q,
LCA is never the maximum pay that an H1B employee can get. It is the minimum pay an employee needs to be paid. I am sure majority of H1B holders are paid way above prevailing wage. LCA is just a mechanism to ensure that H1B employee is not undercutting standard wages. The real pay is dependent on our bargaining skills and market value.

I would agree that LCA establishes minimum. But wouldn't agree that majority H1B are paid way above that minimum. Majority of employers are smart and leverage H1B to their advantage by keeping the minimum much lower than what they would've to pay for the skill in the market.

Think this way ..... if theoretically if they are not able to hire an american worker in that job - the salary for that job should just skyrocket. Hence the H1B that comes to rescue by suppressing wages in the first place. Secondly the H1B person is almost made slave through GC promise. Thirdly the LCA process is very easily manipulated and so the minimum salary is pittance compared to what an American worker would get in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

Q,
LCA is never the maximum pay that an H1B employee can get. It is the minimum pay an employee needs to be paid. I am sure majority of H1B holders are paid way above prevailing wage. LCA is just a mechanism to ensure that H1B employee is not undercutting standard wages. The real pay is dependent on our bargaining skills and market value.

---

LCA is a simple process. Employer requests DOL to provide standard wages for a given occupation. DOL provides it, Not sure how someone can manipulate LCA. I have been in this country long enough. I haven't seen a single of my colleagues or friends being paid close to LCA wages. Most of them are paid way above prevailing wages.

Whether we agree or not DOL is the standard for wages. Very high wages is just a dream for the likes on union leaders. If there is a shortage of a particular skillset, companies will just move to a different country where they can hire that skill set at reasonable wages. That is inevitable. Grassley and co with their "H1B reform" is doing just that.

As for the slavery argument. Even gc holders and citizens are bound to their employment to a certain level. That is the best freedom one can get. Solution to that is to make sure that everyone gets their GC in a reasonable timeframe, say 2 years. Increase the number of EB visas and remove the country cap. That is the solution not a more stringent H1B. Our slavery is due to these stringent H1B requirements. Instead of tightening it we should be advocating to relax it so that we can live like human beings.

gcq - I am all for abolishing H1B altogether. If an employer wants to hire somebody - just hire that person. If capital (i.e. $$$) can flow freely then why stop human capital?

My point was about current H1B and its leverage to employers. Employers are very smart in understanding H1B and how they can leverage it to their advantage.

p.s. - If you can talk about union leaders then somebody else can comment on Corporate pigs. So lets not go there. Just keep it rational. Just FYI ... the minimum wage in this country has actually declined in real terms over last 3 decades. Generally one progresses in career, starts attending meetings with Directors VPs and sometimes CEOs. And trust me I have been doing all of the above since at least 8 years. That's when one usually starts bashing unions. I have been working with people who have had company planes to fly them around. But I would be a real pig if I lose sight to the common man whether an American or Indian. So personally I never make comments on unions for its the weak that need protection not the strong ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

LCA is a simple process. Employer requests DOL to provide standard wages for a given occupation. DOL provides it, Not sure how someone can manipulate LCA. I have been in this country long enough. I haven't seen a single of my colleagues or friends being paid close to LCA wages. Most of them are paid way above prevailing wages.

Whether we agree or not DOL is the standard for wages. Very high wages is just a dream for the likes on union leaders. If there is a shortage of a particular skillset, companies will just move to a different country where they can hire that skill set at reasonable wages. That is inevitable. Grassley and co with their "H1B reform" is doing just that.

As for the slavery argument. Even gc holders and citizens are bound to their employment to a certain level. That is the best freedom one can get. Solution to that is to make sure that everyone gets their GC in a reasonable timeframe, say 2 years. Increase the number of EB visas and remove the country cap. That is the solution not a more stringent H1B. Our slavery is due to these stringent H1B requirements. Instead of tightening it we should be advocating to relax it so that we can live like human beings.

---

I am not bashing unions. I believe unions are needed. I am not a corporate fan either. Both should be balanced. When a worker thinks his pay should be extremely high, he forgets about the business side. Businesses are there to make profits. That is why they exist. As for the attitude of corporate bigwigs, I agree with you there.

However we should not forget that any labor law has to make business sense for any business to exist. That was my point. I am not one sided. I am just in the middle. As employees we often forget the business side.

Your desire to be in the middle is good. My view is that hte corporate greed has gone so far to the right that one is going to have to pull it strongly to the left in order to be in the middle :)

Anyway ... that's my last on this topic. Best!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

I am not bashing unions. I believe unions are needed. I am not a corporate fan either. Both should be balanced. When a worker thinks his pay should be extremely high, he forgets about the business side. Businesses are there to make profits. That is why they exist. As for the attitude of corporate bigwigs, I agree with you there.

However we should not forget that any labor law has to make business sense for any business to exist. That was my point. I am not one sided. I am just in the middle. As employees we often forget the business side.

---

http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/12/...ember-17-2011/
Began the Rule 14 process of H.R.3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011.

Rule 14 is a step to bypass senate judiciary committee and place the bill on Senate calendar.

Rule 14 link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/12/...ember-17-2011/
Began the Rule 14 process of H.R.3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011.

Rule 14 is a step to bypass senate judiciary committee and place the bill on Senate calendar.

Rule 14 link

---

Thanks a lot GCQ for the update.

New development....What does this mean?

Does this mean that dems are trying to bring the bill to Senate floor by bypassing the judiciary committee? Can this be done when the bill is on "Hold" by Senator Grassley?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/12/...ember-17-2011/
Began the Rule 14 process of H.R.3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011.

Rule 14 is a step to bypass senate judiciary committee and place the bill on Senate calendar.

Rule 14 link

---

Thanks for the link. I went through the article. Hoping to have this become a good development for the bill in near future. It seems the overall support in the senate may be strong for this bill and that is the reason may be democrats are bypassing the committee so they don't have to deal with hostility from Grassley. I hope they consider it on the floor and vote to make it into a law.

Read the pdf n it has good info about how a bill in processed under Rule 14 and what are the objectives of it. It does not explicitly say that this can be done when a bill is on "Hold" but the objectives are in line to do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ra.One

Read the pdf n it has good info about how a bill in processed under Rule 14 and what are the objectives of it. It does not explicitly say that this can be done when a bill is on "Hold" but the objectives are in line to do the same.

---

Hold is a notification that a senator would not like the bill to be taken up in the senate. It is just a "wish". Senate has procedures to bypass holds and filibusters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/12/...ember-17-2011/
Began the Rule 14 process of H.R.3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011.

Rule 14 is a step to bypass senate judiciary committee and place the bill on Senate calendar.

Rule 14 link

---

Thanks for posting all the details. This is a very good development for the bill. If the bill reaches the senate floor directly there is a very good chance of it passing because it is common sense legislation. It only requires a simple majority to pass in the Senate. Thanks to you for posting and doing all background research around rule 14.

gcq thanks for the details.

Senate is done with this year's roll call voting. Next vote is expected to be on January 23 2012.

Hope we have enough time to draw attention from the senators ( atleast 60 votes required or 3/5 of the quorum )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/12/...ember-17-2011/
Began the Rule 14 process of H.R.3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011.

Rule 14 is a step to bypass senate judiciary committee and place the bill on Senate calendar.

Rule 14 link

---

This is great development. Thanks for sharing.

Again, thanks for the link, gcq.

Here is a slightly short and a little easy explanation of the Rule XIV in Senate.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/..._2003Aug04.pdf

Read the second last paragraph because that is the most important part.

A measure placed directly on the calendar under Rule XIV is not guaranteed floor consideration. It must be called up for consideration, either by unanimous consent or by a motion that usually is debatable, like any measure that is placed on the calendar after being reported from committee. In the 107th Congress, only 41 Senate bills and joint resolutions were placed directly on the Senate Calendar; of these, 10 were ultimately passed by the Senate and 7 became public law.

Try to contact Senators and educate other friends and families about it to support it.

Try your best at least till it gets a consideration on the Senate floor by unanimous consent or by a motion that is debatable.

Those bills were senate Originated bills which bypassed the Senate committee.

Our Bill had already passed the House judiciary committee and as I mentioned earlier it is very common that any House bill which has an overwhelming bipartisan support is expected to pass by unanimous consent in the Senate and vice versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes

Again, thanks for the link, gcq.

Here is a slightly short and a little easy explanation of the Rule XIV in Senate.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/..._2003Aug04.pdf

Read the second last paragraph because that is the most important part.

A measure placed directly on the calendar under Rule XIV is not guaranteed floor consideration. It must be called up for consideration, either by unanimous consent or by a motion that usually is debatable, like any measure that is placed on the calendar after being reported from committee. In the 107th Congress, only 41 Senate bills and joint resolutions were placed directly on the Senate Calendar; of these, 10 were ultimately passed by the Senate and 7 became public law.

Try to contact Senators and educate other friends and families about it to support it.

Try your best at least till it gets a consideration on the Senate floor by unanimous consent or by a motion that is debatable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

Those bills were senate Originated bills which bypassed the Senate committee.

Our Bill had already passed the House judiciary committee and as I mentioned earlier it is very common that any House bill which has an overwhelming bipartisan support is expected to pass by unanimous consent in the Senate and vice versa.

---

Good to know that. Thanks again.

Paragraph 3 indicates (1) that no bill or joint resolution shall be referred to a
committee until after its second reading, (2) that referral to committee after the second
reading is not mandatory, and (3) that unanimous consent is required for a bill or joint
resolution to be read twice and considered on the same day

From Oh Law Firm

12/18/2011: H.R. 3012 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar

Yesterday, in the Senate, H.R.3012, Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011, was read the first time on the floor and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. It will be interesting to watch how and when this bill will sail through. A bill must be read second time and if motion to proceed and motion to cloture are presented, we will learn whether there will be filibuster by Sen. Grassley.

As a side note, there was a small political development in the State of Utah. Its Senior Senator Orrin Hatch will have to rerun for his seat and there was educated rumor that the rising star House Representative Chaffetz, the sponsor of H.R. 3012, would challenge his Senate seat in the election, but yesterday there was report that Rep. Chaffetz had decided that he would not challenge Sen. Hatch's seat in the coming election and this news was taken as a huge relief for Senator Hatch's political career. One may speculate what might have gone on behind the scene between Sen. Hatch and Rep. Chaffetz relating to the H.R. 3012 which had been on hold in the Senate. Sen. Hatch is one of the longest Senior Senators in the U.S. Senate, and should he lend his hands on this bill, it would help tremendously to crack the barrier. Please stay tuned to this website for the interesting development of this legislation. This reporter is very interested in the move of Sen. Grassley and the sponsors of S. 1983 (numerical limit elimination & Irish visa bill), Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Dick Durbin, and Sen. Patrick Leahy - all heavy weights in the Senate. Very exciting!

As for the timing, the Senate has reaached unanimous-consent agreement yesterday that when the Senate completes its business on 12/17/2011, it adjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only with no business conducted on the following dates and times and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the following pro forma session: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 11 a.m., Friday, December 23, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, December 27, 2011 at 12 p.m., Friday, December 30, 2011 at 11 a.m.; and that the 2nd session of the 112th Congress convene on Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 12 p.m., for a pro forma session only with no business conducted D1384and that following the pro forma session, the Senate adjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only with no business conducted on the following dates and times and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the following pro forma session: Friday, January 6, 2012 at 11 a.m., Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11 a.m., Friday, January 13, 2012 at 12 p.m., Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 10:15 a.m., Friday, January 20, 2012 at 2 p.m.; and that the Senate adjourn on Friday, January 20, 2012 until 2 p.m. on Monday, January 23, 2012. The House is also adjourned for a constituent work period. During this period, members of the House return to their districts to meet with constituents. House will also have in pro forma session, but no legislative actions will take place until next year.

It thus appears the readers may be able to hold their long breathe for a while to hear exiciting news, if any. Believe me, there will be a lot of things going on during the recess!! In this regards, H.R. 3012 is not quite dead yet.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU, DISTINGUISHED LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE!!!

BTW, I have become "infamous around these parts (red squares) on ** forum from "going to be famous soon (green squares)" overnight suddenly. Probably they saw my post talking about HR 3012 being put on Senate Calendar. I can't believe they think that in this current time where information spreads faster than a jungle fire, EB ROW guys are not looking at every possible news related to HR 3012. They might have thought that once I put the message, EB ROW will find out and jeopardize their efforts. I can understand their concern to some extent but if I had not posted the message, somebody else may have posted it or people will find out in few days in any case. Its not that I posted something very secret which only a bunch of people working behind the scenes knew. It was already on Senate Democrats website and on Oh Law Firm. I mean how much time does it take for someone who devotes a lot of time on these forums and particularly to this bill, to search in Trackitt or Google news items for HR 3012 before the updates and news show up. Unbelievable!!! I am not offended at all but I can very well imagine now why Q left **. Why don't they just remove my post instead if they think its damaging to their efforts? Strange behavior. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes

...there was educated rumor that the rising star House Representative Chaffetz, the sponsor of H.R. 3012, would challenge his Senate seat in the election, but yesterday there was report that Rep. Chaffetz had decided that he would not challenge Sen. Hatch's seat in the coming election and this news was taken as a huge relief for Senator Hatch's political career.

---

Jonty .... thanks. The paragraph above is a very good indication that 3012 might indeed pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Jonty .... thanks. The paragraph above is a very good indication that 3012 might indeed pass.

---

Amen!!!!!!!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...mp/~r112lgQ2HP

Was Mr Reid behind bringing the motion? That is great news, no?

Senator Reid is the majority leader , hence he is behind all the bills which comes to the floor( likewise Eric Cantor in the house)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vishnu

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...mp/~r112lgQ2HP

Was Mr Reid behind bringing the motion? That is great news, no?

---

Update:

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Dem...135848473.html

HR 3012 on risk...

Still unclear - HR 3012 is still only the removal of caps (no Irish provision) - so what Leahy may have introduced (as per article) is the Senate bill which has the removal of caps + Irish provision. The latter could have been blocked by GOP...

HR-3012 is not at risk right now. It is under Rule-XIV process in the Senate. Dems have used a lot of Rule-XIV in past few months to bypass a discussion/delay in the committees. This is perfectly fine and it means that the bill *can* be placed on the calendar when the Senate reconvenes. This is a pro-active and strong measure by the Dems. Now, when it gets considered again then Grassley will again have options to delay the voting on the bill. For all of those options, there are counter-options available to Sen Reid and supporters of the bill.

What we need to do is to show our support for the bill to the Senators (call/meet your Senator). This will ensure that when the bill comes again to the Senate floor, there is enough backing to nullify whatever Grassley and his fellow nativists try to do to derail the bill.

thanks for the clarification, hope this will become law before mid feb 2012....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lalaji

thanks for the clarification, hope this will become law before mid feb 2012....

---

lalaji,
If you have a question, pose it as a question rather than making a statement like "hr 3012 at risk". This will spread panic across the supporters. If you want this bill to pass, it is very essential to keep its supporters including you excited about it.

sorry, going forward will do the same

FYI, Sen Boozman, John [AR] - 12/17/2011 is a new cosponsor for S.1866 Agree Act (which implies he supports H.R.3012 as well)!!

Reading a little bit of Senate strategy. Please read http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/18/...in-the-senate/

Please do not get confused. The link is about "Repealing Obamacare" and not for HR 3012. But it talks about using Rule XIV.

Quote:

---

Once the Senate receives the bill, any Senator can use Rule 14 to object to the second reading of the bill. This procedural objection will “hold at the desk” the House-passed bill and allow the Senate to act on the full repeal measure.

Any Senator can use Rule 22 to commence debate on H.R. 2 if they have held the bill at the desk. Rule 22, the filibuster rule,...

Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule ** or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: “Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?”

And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

If any Senator can gather 16 signatures on a cloture petition, then they could file that petition with the clerk of the Senate. This would commence a proceeding that would end with a vote requiring 60 votes to shut off debate on a motion to proceed to a full repeal of Obamacare within two days of the filing of the petition.

---

Depending on which way the winds blow come Jan 23 or a few weeks after that, we may see a motion for cloture with more 60 votes in Senate and then a final vote on HR 3012.

Didn't the E-3 Irish visa thing got added to HR.3012 by Sen.Schumer? If so, assuming this gets passed by the senate, it has to go through the House again to vote on the amended bill.
What are the chances of HR 3012 being turned down at the House, because of the E-3 visa provision?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sudkal33

Didn't the E-3 Irish visa thing got added to HR.3012 by Sen.Schumer? If so, assuming this gets passed by the senate, it has to go through the House again to vote on the amended bill.
What are the chances of HR 3012 being turned down at the House, because of the E-3 visa provision?

---

E-3 visa thing did not get added to HR 3012. Sen Schumer proposed a separate bill that had HR 3012 goodness + Irish visa thing in it.

I know senate went into recess yesterday but it looks like speaker of the house made a sudden U turn not to accept senate's version of bipartisan payroll tax cut bill. So, it looks like senate needs to reconvene again. What will happen to HR3012 as it is already under rule 14. Will it go for another read and if no objection can we consider it passed :cool:

yeap you are right....definitely senate will not take up other bills till tax cut bill issue is resolved

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

Yes I too watched this news in CNN , House is gonna reconsider the senate passed bill with an amendment , in that case Senate has to break recess. ( It is also said that Senate is not under complete recess in view of this )

I dont think our bill would get attention during this chaos .

---

From Rule XIV document

"Second, at the end of morning business on the next legislative day, which may begin days or even weeks later, the presiding officer directs that the measure be read for the second time. "

Is senate reconvenes for another legislative session to resolve payroll tax cut issue, they need to mandatorily consider HR3012 as per constitution. :)

Yup. Since house rejected senate passed version, if they decide to agree on another bill worded one letter different from previous versions, then another legislative day in senate is required. Let's enjoy the political circus of payroll tax cut for now.

The No-Brainer Issue of the Year: Let High-Skill Immigrants Stay

Behind Door #1 are people of extraordinary ability: scientists, artists, educators, business people and athletes. Behind Door #2 stand a random assortment of people. Which door should the United States open?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...s-stay/250219/