The republican issues are at in presidential election time and less so in congressional elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
The republican issues are at in presidential election time and less so in congressional elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
There is a generally accepted notion that Democrats are pro-immigration whereas Republicans are anti-immigration. However I don't think this is true based on some of these observation,
1. Most of the pro-legal immigration bills like HR3012 and allocating DV to EB where brought about by Republicans. Even for CIR, the man who is leading the efforts Senator Rubio is a Republican.
2. Republican presidential candidates like Romney and Huntsman openly favored legal immigration. Heck, Romney even told that all STEM graduates should have GCs stapled to their diplomas. Obama on the other hand did just lip service - like going to Facebook and telling people that they will all get GCs (this was during a townhall meeting). He infact gave an executive order to give EADs to dreamers which might have single-handedly won him the re-election.
3. Republicans have a lot to lose if the CIR come along since the illegal immigrants, who are mostly hispanics will add to Democratic vote bank. The last amnesty given by Reagan turned California from a red state to a blue state. Considering this, the republican support for CIR is encouraging.
4. There are extremists every where- there are Grassley's in Democratic party too. Just that the Democrats haven't done any thing significant to bring them to limelight.
Mostly personal opinions and observations. (Disclaimer: I am not even a GC holder so I can't vote. Politically I would call myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal which is a mystical creature which exists only in fairy tales)
IatiamQuote:
Originally Posted by iatiam
I am one of those mythical creatures too. The qualifier to your post is " legal" immigration. Republicans are very pro legal immigration. Not so much when it comes to illegals.
This remains to be seen. Current Rhetoric suggests they will do everything through regular order which means CIR won't pass. After senate passes CIR, whether they will be able to influence Boehner and others to put it on the house floor rather than through committee remains to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
I am torn between the need for immediate gratification vs long term social responsibility. In the short term, it (in its current form) will benefit us immensely from a GC and citizenship standpoint - and quick passage helps in that regard. However, given that immigration reform seems to happen every 20-25 years, i dont want sloppy reform to be passed without due process. That will just impact us down the road.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
That's my deep thought for the week :)
To rupen/vizcard
It suddenly appears that Sen.Rubio is also OK with the piecemeal approach
http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-...rticle/2528260
"The House may be able to force the Senate to break up the Gang of Eight's plan into separate bills if that is the only path to compromise. And that would be fine with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., one of the principle architects of the Senate proposal.
"I've always said we would get a better bill if it was done in individual pieces," Rubio told The Examiner. "That is not the direction the Senate has gone. I'm going to try and influence what the Senate here is doing, and ultimately, that is the way it may end up happening."
That does throw a wrench in the whole works, doesn't it? We have always known that the whole CIR exercise is only slightly more than a vote bank rhetoric. If it does become a piecemeal proposition, I am sure the visa for the undocumented will survive, but path to citizenship might be iffy. The rest (plans for backlog elimination) will depend on the lobbyists. My feeling is there are equal number of lobbyists for and against H visa and residency reform. Indian business lobby will be against both. And the WH will not like the piecemeal either. So now I have doubts that they will bring this bill on to the senate floor as it is now by June.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
The Democrats and in particular Obama don't want piecemeal legislature. That way they get what they want for illegals in exchange for legal immigration reform.
To my friend from Minnesota (if you are still living there)Quote:
Originally Posted by chengisk
That quote was from an article in the Washington Examiner which is a conservative leaning newspaper and may have been tailored to suit their audience.I do see that the Senate Judiciary Committee is moving right on ahead with its process and there should be a vote on this during the summer.
Senator Hatch has also come forward with cautious support and most likely the Bill will clear Committee with a 13-5 margin.The general consensus is about 70 votes in the Senate and we have to wait till this happens before the House even reacts.
There are some other fights before this takes center stage including the debt ceiling & a Farm Bill.In addition the House Judiciary Committee feels Benghazi is more important than immigration
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rings-coming-/
You have had a long/cold & harsh winter in the upper mid-west so please stop worrying and enjoy the weather and family. As I have mentioned before,all we should worry about is the conference report in the fall
BTW-We have started using Quinoa grain in our house instead of the Brown Basmati rice because we read that it has a low glycemic index.Something you might want to try.It is more expensive and I found the cheapest price in BJs. Have any of the other forum members had experience with this grain-if so please share here
Last year same republicans did not want to give 50k new green cards for STEM(They tried to take from diversity so that was failed). President and Presidential candidates can promise anything. But immigration is not in their hands and it is only under control of congress. Also immigration does not have any time limit like fiscal cliff. So it is always nice to have for the congress and it could be delayed many more years. But there is lot of progress compared to 2007 but I think it may not be enough. Another one or 2 atempts may be needed to passQuote:
Originally Posted by iatiam
I am almost sure that there won't be even a discussion for piecemeal in senate. Rubio was always favoring piece meal. There is nothing new about that. But I do not think he is going to push for it. In house, it is a different story. They will take piecemeal bills and there does not seem to be any urgency. After senate passes bill, we have to see if house leadership can be pressured enough to take up the senate bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
@gs1968
Yes I am still in Land of 10k lakes. Yes, you are right about not to worry about the CIR as of now, although the uncertainty and secrecy behind the whole maneuver is a bit unnerving. I assume it has been so for everyone who might benefit from this and even the lawmakers outside of the 'gang'.
PS: At home just a week or two back we discussed about trying quinoa. Thanks. Cheers.
This article presents positive assessment on house process.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...gration-reform
To rupen
The following article is probably the closest to what I think will eventually happen
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ement-momentum
A question to Spec/Q/viz and others who have spent enough time reading the Bill.Before the elimination of the sibling quota 18 months after enactment of the Bill,are new applications still accepted in that 18 month window.I can see a tremendous surge in applications as it almost guarantees a Green Card within 10 years.
Please explain
House Speaker John Boehner has to summon enough strength of mind to put country before party and do the right thing for immigration.I saw this piece recently again reinforcing the piecemeal approach favored by the House Judiciary Committee.It is disappointing to see House Majority Leader Mr.Eric Cantor play down prospects for reform especially when the Senate Majority Leader Mr.Reid had just sounded so positive
http://qz.com/79547/even-the-junk-bo...rking-threats/
Thats all political bs. Cantor is trying to use CIR as leverage against the debt ceiling discussions. Besides it appears that a lot of conservative republicans are also open to the path to citizenship concept as long as the border security triggers are ok. Also, in my opinion, Boehner has way more sway in the House.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
From Oh Law firm,
You can suggest amendments on Rubio's site. I think it is a good opportunity and worth a try. Most of the provisions related to us have effective date after 1 year and if we can get them to change this through amendment to make it effective immediate rather than 1 year, it would be tremendous value to us.
http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/i...veComment=true
To vizcard
The Senate Bill not only relies on a path to citizenship but also a tremendous increase in legal immigration to get an end result of 13 years or so for the RPIs to get their citizenship.We have to wait and see if the House will agree to that. A couple of more points for your thought
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...6_story_1.html
An excerpt from the above article
"He envisions a legal status short of citizenship for them, and from there the potential to make use of the existing legal avenues to naturalization, whether through work or family connections.
Another quote from one of the House Gang members in the following article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3180612.html
""It has compassion. It allows people to be human beings, to live a normal life, to have a job, to take care of their family, to pay their taxes, to obey the law and go about their lives."
The 13 year target is not possible if they insist on going to the 'back of the line' without significantly increasing legal immigration to clear backlogs and I am hoping that the House incorporates that in their Bill.So far we have seen no evidence of that in the press releases but the House Gang has also been more secretive.We shall wait and see
The voice website about immigration posted that "We have received confirmation that there will be change to the bill that will exempt all US STEM applicants. The current language allows exemption for US STEM in EB-2 only."
Not sure what data about undocumented 11m they used to arrive at this figure of 13 years. We are talking of interplay of numbers between the legal immigrants and the undocumented ones in steady state mode for the first 13 years. The model would be quite complex. Already USCIS cannot handle legal immigration numbers alone accurately.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
Frankly CIR does not do much help to EB2- I with PDs 2007-2010 as they had already waited enough. No doubt, it will generate future surge in applications.
Only by chance - if a few piecemeal legislations sneak through with immediate effect: such as removal of country cap/removal of dependents etc>, then it would give good releif to 2007-2010 PDs.
Is there any chance for this to happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
IMO, single fact of not counting dependents against the green card count itself is big! This will double the green cards immediately (helping everyone in EB). Second fact is that EB1 & few others would not be counted against the green card count. That is also big.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
For me the irritating restriction is about the Master Degree in the last 5 years requirement. So, applicants who got their degree in early 2000s & still stuck in the green card limbo would not be benefited.
http://www.myfoxal.com/story/2212588...annual-rallies
Quote:
Now, immigrant advocacy groups are focusing heavily on calling and writing members of Congress, sometimes targeting specific lawmakers at key moments in the debate. Reform Immigration for America, a network of groups, claims more than 1.2 million subscribers, including recipients of text messages and Facebook followers.
I may be wrong, but does it not say that the beneficiary should have obtained an MS degree within the last 5 years from the date of the petition? I take it to mean that 5 years prior to the I140 application and NOT within the last 5 years when the law actually takes effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawks2012
It would be great to get some Gurus to shed light on this.
Yes that it what is says. But a case like mine where I finished my MS in 2001 then worked, then got my MBA and then had my GC application in 2008, I don't get that benefit - even if I work in a STEM field.Quote:
Originally Posted by pdfeb09