That is because we have to accept the fact that we do not have political power and in politics, it is rarely about "right" or "wrong". It is always about politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by skpanda
That is because we have to accept the fact that we do not have political power and in politics, it is rarely about "right" or "wrong". It is always about politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by skpanda
If you put this in perspective, we are talking about difference between millions and thousands.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsfan33
By your argument, those millions of illegal workers would mostly take blue collar jobs and blue collar american workers would be competing against blue collar non american workers. So, americans having white collar job deserve better protection ? I do not think so.
We are not talking about sufferings on conditions of legal immigrant people. Legal immigration bill won't pass without combining that with the piece which includes illegal immigration problem which means legal immigration is held hostage to the other problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsfan33
I respect your opinion. But I do not share it.
The main reason why meaningful bills such as HR3012 have not passed is the illegal problem is not resolved. That to me is hostage. You may or may not agree with it. That is fine.
Good luck!
btw.. 1950 was just a number i threw in. Most countries paid attention to their immigration system only in the 2nd part of 20th century. Before that it was relatively easier to move around for a person who had means (money/skill/information).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsfan33
Let us not flogg the dead horse. It is foregone conclusion that 11m need solution and fast as they are here now.But to deter future problem border security needs tighteting and add new visa catagory(or add more numbers at low wage category).
It also does not not mean that legal immigration should be lax or give more rights than what they have.The name it self suggest that there should be controls and guards for the legals-depending on everchaging economy,diversity and finally the need for it - following supply and demand. Frankly If there is no demand or economically counter productive, it could even stop why not?
It like a comparing a normal skin lesion and cancer. No doubt cancer gets treated on priority and no one argues how it got there. But deal with it on top priority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skpanda
It took 40 years for your math to come to half the number of 11m people we were discussing. Of course, it had inherent assumptions that all 115k people would apply for green card and also 11m people will remain at 11m over 40 years. Nice try.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsfan33
H1b has wage protection clause which blue collar jobs do not have but still they will drive wages down but 11m people won't. Again, nice try.
I didn't mean to turn this into a fight. So I wouldn't comment any further other than just say - this forum of course is and should remain free for ALL ideas and thoughts. So long as we are respectful of each other - the discussion will remain fruitful - so lets keep it that way.
AEI Immigration Reform Discussion - http://www.c-span.org/Events/Conserv...s/10737437723/ (~1hr)
it was interesting to watch conservative viewpoint .. i kinda liked reihan salam's POV .. 11m people will complement the workforce and fill in different job category..
high skilled legal immigrants may impact native born 25 or more with not-so-high-skills but will carry weight for native born seniors ( pay taxes for next 20-30 yrs fiscal impact etc)
Then you should also take into consideration that 11m people do not remain 11m after 40 years. They are going to be married, have kids and sponsor others.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsfan33
HR 3012 did not fail because of ROW opposition. If that was the case, it would not have been again included in I-Squared bill. It did not get killed because of republicans in senate. Grassley (Republican) put hold on it and there was no willingness in democratic leadership to put it up for the vote to pass filibuster.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsfan33
Legal immigration being hostage to the illegal may be fine for you but not for most people who are waiting legally in EB and FB categories. It is other story that it is the political reality.
To rupen86
"They are going to be married, have kids and sponsor others."
When I read that line of yours-I was reminded of the last serious immigration attempt in 2007. I know members in this forum are at different stages of immigration but in an attempt to stem secondary chain immigration,there was a proposal to limit the Parents of US citizens category to numerical limits of 40000 per year. This category is currently unlimited. This debate must be watched closely because if that is brought up again then undecided people should move quickly to get their applications in for their parents
A couple of articles to fill everybody with some hope
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...r-slices-.html
http://www.rollcall.com/news/schumer...1.html?pos=adp
Its unfortunate politics that both sides are playing. What's happening is - Obama doesn't want to give in even a small victory to republicans. EB immigration is mostly republican sponsored/led. Whereas republicans clearly are not in love with hispanics - certainly not all republicans.
However the fact 4 republican senators joined schumer is a positive sign. Cross the fingers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
I do not think piecemeal approach would work given the political reality. Senate would pass the bill and then the pressure would be on Boehner to take it to the house floor even though majority of republicans in the house do not support it. Also, passing bills like STEM do not go far away in helping EB backlogs compared to the one introduced in the senate (I-squared).
http://budget.senate.gov/republican/...4-d64c557e2a1b
As Ranking Member Sessions has explained, “Encouraging self-sufficiency must be a bedrock for our immigration policy, with the goal of reducing poverty, strengthening the family, and promoting our economic values. But Administration officials and their policies are working actively against this goal.”
When the bill S.1 is drafted, OMB and the Committee on budget will assign a very big cost to it.
Reality check on immigration reform.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/01/reali...rms-obstacles/
I agree with the viewpoint that timeline is important. It should happen before Congress's summer recess.
The fundamental issue with Immigration politics is ideological divide. Democrats are socialist leaning. GOP is business leaning. Naturally these interests conflict. We are the victims of this class rivalry. Then vote bank politics comes into play. This is a curse for all democracies. Any smart thinking political party would yearn for this millions of new voters. However GOP with its traditionally anti-immigrant attitude won't allow this political smartness rein over their anti-immigrant views. George Bush though a failure in all other aspects was smart enough to understand that and hence he pushed for CIR in 2007.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
That seems right but I do not think it is going to affect the bill. I feel Obama has abandoned fiscal issues in favor of social issues which can be seen in fiscal cliff deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by pakkpk
From Oh law firm, from this law firm's point view, there is agreement for the undocumented people but not for EB immigration.
02/02/2013: CIR Proposals of Three Key CIR Players of President, Senate, and House Approach Overall Similar Approach for Legalization Issues
Various reports indicate that the three players are proposing a conceptual framework for the issue of legalization of undocumented immigrants which is very similar to those which we outlined: Legalization that assures party power balance by asking the legalized undocumented immigrants to seek green card sponsorship and stay at the end of the immigration waiting queue. Again, this proposal is widely accepted at this time as it assures the balance of power between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in the long term, and at the same time assures fairness between legal immigrants and undocumented/legalized immigrants.
Under the cirucmstances, it is upto the Republican leaders and labor unions to accept a proposal to increase the badly needed highly skilled foreign workers immigrant quota without affecting the family-based immigration system. Part of this concept is already presented in the Senate Immigration Innovation bill, but this will present a point of severe fight from the ultra-right wing concervative Republicans as well as ultra left wing labor unions. Accordingly, the forementioned three key CIR players should work hard to negotiate and reach a compromise with two far-right and far-left sectors such that CIR bill be enacted this year. Should the Congress fail to pass the CIR, all the blames are likely to be directted to these far-right and far-left political forces that should pay political liability in the future because reportedly such failure will result in no-CIR until 2016! Will see how it will play out
Now that is an intellectual and profound argument heard from GOP side - whether one agrees or not with Senator Sessions.Quote:
Originally Posted by pakkpk
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsfan33
If you actually asked the people of the host country and not the politicians, most of them would support the legal skilled immigrants over the illegals.
Call it racist, elitist, call it what you want. I will not be put in the same category as someone who jumped the fence illegally. Not all Mexicans become illegals - a lot of them choose to stay behind. You do a disservice to the ones who chose to follow the law. And you must be joking about white people standing by all immigrants...if that were the case, this bill would have been passed many years ago. This is not about cowardice or narrow-mindedness. The country simply cannot afford to pay for these 11m illegals. And even if they could, the opportunity cost is letting in 11m highly skilled people instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Give the 11m illegals temporary working visas, but I don't see why a path to citizenship should be offered to someone who violated one of the most sacrosanct laws.
We may not be citizens, but how are we not stakeholders? We meet the very definition of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsfan33
I understand legalization & official recognition of illegal immigrations as it is important for various reasons. It also recognizes the need by some businesses (farming included) where they need the extra labor force. However, there are few conflicting points that I didn't see a lot of discussion on:
1. Why push for path to citizenship for legalized illegal immigrant? Why not instead give path to a valid (existing) visa that is sponsored by the corresponding businesses? Path to citizenship can be achieved by that valid visa.
2. "Minimum Wage" - The whole reason why some business hire the illegal immigrants is because they are ready to work for low cost. Now after legalizing the labor force, what happens to the "minimum wage" requirement? It is safe to say not all businesses would choose to pay for legalization as well as higher wages. This also means not all businesses are going to retain all the illegal labor force that they hire today.
3. Point 2 leads to the next obvious point: What happens to the legalized illegal immigrant who is not hired by businesses? What prevents the person from staying illegally beyond the valid visa duration? How is that situation different from what we have today?
4. Regarding order of getting green cards, it is certainly good that the CIR is ensuring "currently waiting" legal immigrants get green cards "before" the newly legalized immigrants. However, what happens to the "new" legal immigrants who apply for green card? Now are they going to be stuck behind the legalized illegal immigrants for the green card?
To Seahawks2012
The previous attempt @ CIR in 2007 contained a separate category of visas called the Z visa and I have a feeling that a similar process may be used
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/visa-z.html
There is no way to find the back of the line as the line never ends!!
IEEE was lobbying against HR3012 from backdoor and now S.169!!!
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...on-the-horizon
IEEE commented:“The businesses that will most benefit from an expansion of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies – businesses which exist to replace American workers with lower-cost foreign nationals and move jobs out of the country, and that is not the American way of immigrating citizens,” he continued.
Sen. Grassley:
A spokeswoman for Grassley said the Iowa Republican understands the need for high-skilled workers and noted that he tried to bring up a House-passed high-skilled immigration bill by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in the Senate last year. The move was blocked by Senate Democrats in part because they wanted to push comprehensive immigration reform in 2013.
Still, Grassley has concerns about the H-1B program.
“He has long argued for enhanced and expanded legal avenues for U.S. employers to hire foreign workers. However, he is just as concerned about including protections for American workers and reforms to root out fraud and abuse from the high-skilled visa programs, like the H-1B program,” the senator’s spokeswoman said. “He appreciates the proposals on the different aspects of immigration reform that are being put forward and will evaluate each one as it is introduced.”
I don't know...IEEE's and Grassley's stand is reasonable as long as they don't oppose GCs at the same time. IEEE is not -Quote:
Originally Posted by pakkpk
That seems fair to me. Desi consulting firms and IT outsourcing firms are clearly abusing the H1B program, and they are almost certainly not bringing in the best and the brightest. I think they should simply have a rule that discrimates against businesses over a certain size (say 50 employees) that have >= 50% H1Bs. That way you still allow the startup with two foreign co-founders, while blocking most Indian IT shops. I'm not necessarily against greater restrictions on H1Bs as long as they are accompanied with a clear path to GC and citizenship (say after a fixed time period as in every other country). That is in everybody's interest - even the H1B holder. Today too many H1Bs are abused as indentured servants - unable to switch jobs, unable to ask for a raise...Quote:
“Any system for adding skilled workers to our economy should be based on citizenship. IEEE-USA supports provisions in S. 169 to expand green cards for advanced-degree STEM graduates of our higher-education institutions to become citizens. Doing so will strengthen our economy and create American jobs,” said IEEE-USA President Marc Apter in a statement to The Hill.
“The businesses that will most benefit from an expansion of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies – businesses which exist to replace American workers with lower-cost foreign nationals and move jobs out of the country, and that is not the American way of immigrating citizens,” he continued.
Another way for them to fix the 'H1B IT outsourcing hole' would be to exempt any company that simultaneously applies for a GC from the cap.
BTW, I think the 300k might be a clever gambit. They may eventually decide to drop that and keep it at 65k or agree somewhere in between. Might just be a negotating ploy.
As long as the EB stuff gets through, who cares...seems nobody has complained about those provisions yet. All the noise is about H1B...
IEEE for a long time was an anti-immigrant organization. They used to oppose skilled immigration. It is only recently they changed their stance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pakkpk
As long as Green card provisions are kept, we would be ok. When it comes to high skilled immigration, the only talk that I see is STEM graduates and still when it comes to job, most of the companies ask for experience and still we do not see any talk about experienced people waiting in the green card backlog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
If new category is created, it would break one of the principles outlined in the framework that they would go at the end of the line.
abcx - I said exactly what I felt and it applies to you without a doubt. You can gloss it with your cries - i could care less.
As per white people supporting immigrants - I can say without a doubt that yes majority actually are NOT racist - because if they were - America wouldn't be what it is today. You really need to read the history and get into American society a bit more before you write such stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
Being in the same category would help us if they are at the end of the queue because then politicians would be forced to clear the existing queue. If there is separate queue, they do not have to care about existing queue.
The facts belie your position - if the majority of people supported immigrants, we would already have had reform. All immigrants were ostracized at first - where do you think terms like spics, Micks, and pollocks came from? Or the N word for that matter. Did you think they were terms of endearment? Studying history is pointless when you want to ignore the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
And what do you propose as compensation for the Americans taking over the lands of the Native Indians and Mexicans? An open border? Free health care and education for all? How do you propose to pay for all/any of this? The fact that their lands were taken is water under the brigde, and you, the student of history, will doubtless know that this has been happening since time immemorial. Borders change. People live with it. People aren't jumping the fence because this is where they think they rightly belong. They are jumping it because they think the economic benefits outweigh the repercussions and consequences of getting caught. Granting amnesty will not change that. It will only make it worse (as Reagan's amnesty has). If the US actually cared about Mexico (which is where the majority of illegals come from) it would be much smarter to put an end to this asinine war on drugs which has ripped the country apart.
I have anything against anyone who migrates legally from Mexico or anywhere else. Yes, I have a problem with the illegals and I don't care where they come from (it so happens that a lot of them come from Mexico, but I think all of them should be treated the same).
P.S. - The expression is actually I couldn't care less. I could care less makes no logical sense if you think about it.
Immigration Lawyer's cry even though she is doling out hefty money from the H1B applications: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion...k_visas_fairly
That's faulty logic you have. According to your logic -
1. Americans are anti immigrant unless they already solved immigration problem.
2. All Americans past present future are racist because of things that happened in the past.
I think that's quite ridiculous.
There are people who were racists and are racists. And you know what those are more likely to oppose immigration - legal or otherwise. And interestingly you are drawing lines between immigrants - legal and illegal and opposing the "illegals". I certainly don't think one immigrant should bad mouth other one.
It's also funny how you used all the facts I talked about - why the case for illegal immigration is weak - upside down; to call all Americans anti-immigration while being an anti-immigrant yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
Dude .. first of all, you need to calm down. From a lot of your previous posts, it appears that you are kind of a trigger-happy guy, ready to go off on anyone who thinks differently than you.Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
Second, when you say "put an end to this asinine war of drugs", what do you really mean and what do you think will the consequences be?
"Yes, I have a problem with the illegals and I don't care where they come from (it so happens that a lot of them come from Mexico, but I think all of them should be treated the same)."
Legal and illegal is defined by the congress. You are here for economic reasons too. Lets face it, you wouldn't be here for any other reason. You are mad because it takes a long time for the system to recognize you as a permenant resident. What if the congress tomorrow decides that anybody in your shoes is considered illegal because you are hurting the job prospects of the current citizens? I guess you would hate yourself too ... yeah, I know rediculous, right?
PS: Please read your own words before pointing out the syntatic or grammatical mistakes in others' posts. Read the line in RED. I make a lot of them so don't go off on me with that .. just try to get the message. In these forums, "you" "could" really "care less" about the propriety of the sentences.
I agree with the part that just completing degree course should not be enough for getting green card. That being the case, there would be influx of colleges and universities and influx of students whose purpose is to get green card. If it was to be done, it should be limited to top 50 or 100 universities.Quote:
Originally Posted by pakkpk
Perhaps read your own posts before replying? You made a big deal about how America is a nation of immigrants, yada yada yada. I was just pointing out that it has always also had a racist element to it. There was segregation in this country until the 60s and 70s. Some of those Americans are still alive and still feel the same way. People on this thread have called some Congressmen such as Steve King and Grassley racist. The fact that the birther debate became so big suggests that nationalism still plays a big role in the national identity even though this is supposedly a country of immigrants. Also if the population was so friendly and open to immigration, there would not be annual quotas or country caps (the latter are by definition discriminatory, if not racist).Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
By the way, I didn't know that I had to support illegal immigration to support immigration. I'm sorry - thanks for setting me straight. I guess I must not support immigration since I'm only in favor of legal immigration and not in favor of giving amnesty and a path to citizenship to people who broke the law. If you break the law today and work without an EAD even for a day, you are in violation of your status, ineligible for reentry, and can get deported. But when 11m people do it for years, they get amnesty and citizenship. See the idiocy?
Um yes, as are all laws. Your point is?Quote:
Originally Posted by pdfeb09
This will probably be my last on the subject. If you guys don't want to draw a line between legals and illegals, that's your prerogative. There's an old saying - people get the government they deserve - so if you want hitch your wagon to the illegals because it is politically expedient, well, you can't expect any less from politicians (and I realize you didn't vote for these guys, but you probably will someday).Quote:
Originally Posted by pdfeb09
My 'madness' has nothing to do with my wait. It has to do with principles. I would feel the same way if I got my GC tomorrow. I am mad because both the letter and the spirit of the law are being cast aside (as they often are these days with Obama), because lawbreakers are being rewarded for breaking the law (just as Wall Street was), because these illegals will be a net drain on the exchequer, i.e. taxpayers like me and you, and because of the opportunity cost of not letting in more qualified people or people who haven't broken the law (yes, that includes low-skilled/low-wage immigrants who would be eligible for the temporary agricultural program, which this country does need).
And yes, if Congress tomorrow decided that H1Bs are illegal, I would go back. You can stay here and hope for amnesty. And since they can't make ex-post facto laws and retroactively change my legal status, I don't know why I would hate myself. While illegals and legals are both here for economic reasons, Congress and the country has decided that legal immigration is a net boost to the economy as opposed to illegal immigration. So there is a nuance there that you are overlooking when you say both come for economic reasons.
I don't see what is wrong with asking for legals to be placed ahead in the queue or not to offer citizenship for illegals. So far I have not seen anyone except you guys say that illegals and legals should be considered alike.
Look at all the drug violence in Mexico. Why do you think it happens? Where do you think the demand for drugs comes from? What do you think will happen if marijuana, a major source of the cartel's profits, is decriminalized? The consequences will be that the USG will spend less on fighting drugs in the US and overseas, stop running ops like Fast and Furious, drug violence in Mexico will go down, and maybe, just maybe, the USG could take the money they had allocated to fighting drugs and spend a part of it on education in Mexico so there are improved opportunities there and less illegal immigration (migration flows have already reversed given the poor economic climate in the US). Of course, none of this will happen because it makes too much sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by pdfeb09