I sent an email and tried to call but call directly goes to voicemail and it is full so can't leave voice mail also.Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
I sent an email and tried to call but call directly goes to voicemail and it is full so can't leave voice mail also.Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
My comments are meant for people who believe that illegals should not be allowed to immigrate in this country. I don't believe that line. I think you are not taking an argument for what it is, "an argument/debate point". What you responded was with a personal attack, not a counter argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by indiani
I am an asian and I am not going back since I am compassionate for these illegal folks as well.
Please respond only if you have a valid point. Personal attack has no value in a debate.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/249866832...=2114913880001
Must watch to understand the new felonious "funny" arguments.
=> 20000 border security .. big government.. ofcourse. it is commonsense.. but you asked and fought for it dude !! This way it is big governement other way it is open border..
=> E-Verify violation of 4th amedment of constitution. Isn't DMV also violation of 4th amedment then in same scale at state level? Social security violation of 4th amendment?
=> New Wall will be a standing embarrasement for republican party because we asked to build it.. Wooow.. I think these folks have MENSA membership.. My head is spinning :)
Why can't they just have the face to say "you know what. we do not have any reason but just kill this bill. we like the current system"..
http://video.foxnews.com/v/249866724...=2114913880001
These guys are a bunch of loonies. No wonder they are losing the ground slowly with their ignorance and hatred. Fox news (propaganda) is just a Tea Party Mouthpiece and I feel that it has actually damaged Republican Party immensely because moderate sensible Republicans have been sidelined completely and their voice has been muffled totally. Icing on that stinking cake is people like Rush Limbaugh. I feel like puking, when Fox News says "Fair and Balanced" in their tag line.Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
Actually Fox news is a friend of S.744 as per tea party because Bill O Reilly supported or atleast did not overly attack it..Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...-news-on-board
No need to worry about this house GOP will tell thisQuote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
...and put the blame on Obama for passing a "partisan, weak, hopelessly dysfunctional" bill in Senate which does not solve any of our curent real immigration problems of getting rid of some people under the "rule of law" :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramsen
I have included the last line in my previous post anticipating some response like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
I absolutely do not want to respond to you any further as I don't have to / don't want to.
I think this is what gcq meant.. Correct me if I am wrong..Quote:
Originally Posted by indiani
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/...our-Papers.jpg
Peace..
More here.. funny and thoughtful.. http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/i...hor-Babies.htm
currently the USA is a democratic nation with its own constitution and laws.
The Executive branch (Obama and feds ) implement the laws.
whatever the history might be the biggest reason behind the CIR is "political calculation" more than compassion or anything else. here why going back in history might not make much sense ( especially beyond a century ) to make decisions about current laws:
Human migration have taken place as long as mankind existed, in fact if you understand terms like "bottleneck in human evolution" ( all humans currently living on this planet are very close knit relatives as compared to many other species ) etc. and something about anthropology etc. I can go on but I dont want to bore anyone and I am not interested trying to make any further points.
The whole debate is about rewriting those laws (combination of political reasons and human suffering caused by current broken laws).Quote:
Originally Posted by indiani
The real truth is both "Compassion" and "rule of law" are only political arguments to suit them. We should not get too much sucked into it either way.
The same people who vehemently argue "rule of law" hypocritcally support NSA leaker also(look at the circumstance at which he broke the law they said. Really??).
Also, it is not unconstitutional to use executive branch's power to uphold the "spirit of the law". If Judiciary branch or legislative branch thinks it is wrong there are means to pursue against it.
The farm bill fiasco has spooked the GOP-As I had mentioned earlier the promised vote on piecemeal immigration on Jun 28 is not happening anymore. Also the HJC was planning to markup the high-tech Bill next week but no mention now of any meeting this week. Most likely nothing will happen in July and after the Congressmen hear from their constituents during the summer recess the house Bill will be modified accordingly.
The whole debate should have been always ideally about "human suffering" and how to change the laws. But the reality is there are so many obvious factors ( politicians self-interests etc. ) that influence politics which unfortunately will stay for a while.
History is used selectively and going just as far as its convinient to drive political points.
For anyone who wants to argue based on history about who needs to stay here and who needs to leave, I have given the example above, to expand on it, everyone of us are the progeny of a small group of african tribe.
There is still significant portion of the country who are quite ignorant about lot of things ( good news is its changing rapidly, I have hope about future generations).
immigration will get fixed the only question is when, for me personally, it makes a lot of difference if CIR is passed now even for thousands of "legals" and I don't think anyone is rooting for it to fail.
"If the House resists, I think we'll see a day like we did in the civil rights movement," Schumer said. "I think we'll see two million people on the Mall in Washington, D.C., and on the stage will not just be liberal Democrats, they will be the business leaders, the agricultural leaders, the cardinals from the Catholic Church, the leaders of the evangelical churches, all saying this is the right thing to do."
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...8#.UcdVk_nVCzk
Nice one ... planting the seed of an all out march. Schumer knows how to play the game :)Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
If King (Steve not MLK Jr) can do a 6 hr soap box, then I'm sure pro-immigration can get 5x that turnout.
This is MHO - CIR is a stick being used by democrats to beat up republicans and nothing else.
Due to some progressive elements from both sides, a good draft for CIR was worked out to set out rules for future immigration for the benefit of USA.
But MHO - democrats would try and block any republican amendment to score their brownies in front of their Latino audience.
By definition CIR and its rules and laws should be applicable for legals only and illegals would have no part in that except amnesty which should be one time phenomenon.
Any US citizen or law maker would view immigration to bring in outside people with high skills or skills that are lacking locally or extraordinary talents or investment to foster growth and economy.
Merit based point system is in the right direction as it categorizes and differentiates people based on their skills and strengths.
I also believe the skill areas should be re-defined every few years as steps should be taken to develop the lacking skills locally.
And where do illegals would fit in this? If they would compete with legals on the same basis! Then there is no need of separate classification.
They are not refugees who are persecuted in their own countries. Illegals could always go back to their own home country and come back like any other!
In case of father living with his son, why both of would not go back to their home country? And live with their mothers.
I agree that they are so many children grown up and living here without valid documentation. But they could get one time amnesty and that too would be applicable for certain period so that it would not encourage future similar practices. This should humanitarian and not a part of CIR blue print! They can have separate program, similar to refugee status but unlinked to immigration.
The main problem is the automatic birth right of citizenship in born in USA. I know that some countries(New Zealand/Australia) had stopped this practice as it was being misused and view them as stateless if born to parents who are neither citizens nor PRs.
Frankly I do not care if they would get pathway to citizenship? Or not. But linking this to CIR is meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiani
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
Do Moderate republicans want to beat up the conservative republicans with same stick too.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
True. You just contradicted your stick statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
This is opinion, not a fact. Please point us to the amendment you are referring to here.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
CIR is for rewriting broken immigration laws. It includes way of addressing the needs of businesses and its citizens in the best interest of the nation. This would include preventing flow of future illegal immigrants and also penalties for businesses who want to unfairly exploit them. Ideally we all want to see zero illegal immigration. Don't keep back door open and open the front gates is what everyone is asking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
Fact. Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
Country kept the back door open and posted an unofficial welcome sign on one side of the border and businesses exploited the people came through the back door to thrive. This is the fact like it or not. Lawmakers need to ensure this does not happen in future and how to deal with the people who were already here in a fair way.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
If I were you, I would not judge other's situations and decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
Isn't this DACA? Obviosuly laws of the land needs to revised to give a SSN for these folks. Legislative branch never rewrote the law in Washington and DACA ensued from executive branch. People criticize Obama for this. I will not(My opinion).Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
Agreed it may be magnet for future illegal immigration. They are not doing this in CIR as I can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
This is your opinion. I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
bvsamrat - I have 4 comments to your post
1. The gist of your post is to separate legal and illegal immigration
2. What you described is what Reagan did in 1986 which everyone - Republicans and Democrats are against... never going to happen.
3. How does one define "amnesty"? What does that mean ? It means you are giving illegals a legal "immigrant" status (even citizenship and PR are immigration statuses if you are not born here)
4. Related to birthright citizenship, I don't know how you can call it "a problem". How would you like it if your child was born "stateless"? What would your child's immigration status be? Would you like to have your newborn child deported while you wait to get your GC or file for EAD/H4 and get it approved? You have to think of all repurcussions before making such broad statements.
House Judiciary Committee has now informed that they will be marking up the Legal Workforce Act (E-Verify) and SKILLS Visa Act on Wednesday and Thursday.
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/..._06262013.html
We are so caught up discussing the illegal immigration aspects of the Bill and are forgetting how far apart the two chambers are in terms of reforming the legal immigration aspects.The House position is net Green Card Neutral and the massive expansion of LEGAL Immigration will in itself be a tough lift in the House. We already have some marker Bills in the House for the AG workforce and high-skills immigration and they are far from the Senate viewpoint. Visa recapture/dependent exemptions/unlimited masters exemption are not on the House Bills and I see no reason for them to give up any ground on this.The only positive common aspect is overall although numerically limited increase of EB GCs/elimination of country cap and an increase in STEM visas of 55000 at the expense of the Diversity visa and 25000 visas for spouses and dependents.
If it comes to conference it will be interesting to see how this plays out although that may not be till Thanksgiving
That is a huge non-starter. IMHO for this to pass the house, Mitch McConnell is the key - Boehner is inconsequential. So those wanting this done .. make yourself heard with McConnell.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
To Q
Can you please elaborate further?
That's why it makes sense for all immigrants(legal or illegal) to stand together in everyone's interest. "United we will stand. Divided we will fall".Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
I would like us to remember fate of HR 3012 -- "Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice. Shame on me" :)
It is an mischief to be "net green card neutral" and also support "GC for illegal immigrants".. Just pitting one against the other(Divide and Conquer).
My coments
1) YES. because illegal immigration is static issue as of now and create a solution as of now (amnesty or any other status as you like). and legal immigration is dynamic and will change with time.
2) But that is the right path again- IMHO and otherwise illegals will never stop if there are rules being formalised to help them in future
3) Treat them like refugees and grant them whatver you like. But no link to legal immigration unless otherwise they meet the selecton criterion
4) It is happening in other countries. Ciitizenship is not a new born birthright in NZ and Australia. You child as dependent will status based on your status. If you are parolee, so he/she would be. It is not difficult. But I bet this will happen in future in USA also.
.
What I stating is that these countries in late 2000 changed to this new rule exactly to face issues with overstayers
Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
It looks like people are willing to move back to the public policy debate in Congress from this weekend's escape into ideological arguments, so I was considering just passing on this post, but decided it would be a disservice to gs1968. His post was well thought out, well expressed, balanced, and provided much needed perspective and I think it's relative length discouraged people from reading it. I have it attached below, please read it again if you skipped it the first time.
Indiani, that's unfair. If you are going to be responding to his post, and expressing your opinion to him, you ought to have given him the respect of reading the entire post. The crux of his message was in his last few sentences.Quote:
Originally Posted by indiani
abcx13, you just shot down somebody that's making a point that strengthens your argument because a) you probably didn't bother to finish reading his post, and b) he shows compassion towards people that you don't think worthy of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
gs1968, thanks for the perspective. This was my viewpoint well before the current Go8 bill came out, but I did not have the benefit of your real world examples. The 11 million illegals that are the supposed beneficiaries of the bill would in most cases be happy with documentation legitimizing their stay in the US, and the ability to stay on for good. Citizenship is gravy that they probably couldn't care about at the moment. If the GOP offers a reasonable alternative to the Go8 bill without a pathway to citizenship that the Dems reject outright, Latino voters will quite possibly blame the Dems as much if not more than the GOP.
My bottomline views on the subject of illegal immigration:Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
a) Of course the Dems are holding legal immigration hostage to illegal immigration, but that's how politics has been performed (i don't like the word 'played') for centuries and something we have to live with, however much we may dislike it. You don't see too many republicans vocalizing this argument because they've done exactly that on hundreds of bills in the last 4 years, and realize how hypocritical it would sound.
b) Illegal immigrants are here, and despite being out of the formal economy, they're performing a vital role that can't be easily replaced. In any case they are unlikely to leave, so legalization now is in everyone's best interests. The compassion argument, the cost of business argument, the increasing tax base argument all support this view.
c) You have to set in place mechanisms to disincentivize further illegal immigration, or it won't stop. Everyone agrees that illegal immigration is bad, the real argument here is whether the answer is to put in place a simple, convenient legal immigration mechanism to help meet the need that the illegals meet and to provide an alternative legal route that the illegals could follow (the pro-immigration stance) or to shut the border up and not let anyone else inside (the anti-immigration stance) whatever the result of that is on the economy. Both arguments do have their merits, its an issue of a) whether you buy into the growth-centric or resource-adequacy models of economic theory and b) whether you think the costs of achieving a secure border are realistic or not.
d) The Southern Wall (just realized that expression would suit Rahul Dravid very well) would be ridiculously expensive and would only addresses about half the source of illegal immigration to the US. For that amount, we ocould easily set up strong entry/exit and e-verify programs that would be a lot more effective, and pump a significant amount in targeted aid to Mexico and other Central American countries to help stem the flow at the source.
e) As Q, idiotic (not a moron, an oxy-moron) and some others have mentioned, right now, as legal immigrants, our best hope is the success of CIR.
In extreme right language you are proposing "special pathway to citizenship" to illegal immigrants. "Asylum" is legal immigration by the way. "Asylum" also means GC without numerical limits and following Citizenship. :) It is really an nice idea and you should have proposed this as amendment to CIR in Rubio's list of ideas during the time he openly invited them.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
Let them get whatever they deserve, but unlinked and in that way both will get right attention.
The house bill might be heading in the same direction of piecemeal solutions which might really succede if senate accepts it
Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
Grassley and Sessions will put hold on it and reid will not file cloture :) We will be stuck where we are discussing and calculating our future for years to come :(Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
bvsamrat - the dynamic is such that legal immigrants have no chips whatsoever. The illegals have only one chip which is the latino vote bank and that's a quite powerful chip.
If you think legals have one chip with tech industry - you couldn't be more mistaken. The tech industry only employs a handful of all the H1s. Plus those that it employs - is able to exploit them while their GC is stuck. Thus legals are completely on their own and they have no power or so whatsoever in this whole debate - at least for now.
The CIR is the ONLY chance for legals. They need to come to terms with this HARD TRUTH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
I agree. That is where our focus should be. I am very concerned about this bill. If this bill is passed and in the conference committee, senate provisions are not included, we would be in worse situation than we are today. On one hand, it would have increased H1b, and on other hand, there won't be significant increase in green cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
I think you mentioned it in your previous post. Just adding for more clarity.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
gs - my understanding is that the dems threw in legal immigration expansion as a bone to GOP. Now if GOP fails to pick up that bone by saying the legal expansion itself needs to be visa neutral then dems have thrown a wrong bone and eventually they will have no bone left for GOP on this topic (as far as house is concerned.). And at that point senate's wish doesn't matter thus sealing the fate of the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
As per Boehner - although he is speaker, he can and should round up his guys in the house. But he has consistently failed at it. Latest example being the farm bill.
Mitch McConnell on the other hand is the chief architect of opposition to all-things-obama. If you remember he is the one who infamously said that his GOPs biggest agenda would be to prevent this president from getting a second term. And although he failed at that- he has granted obama little to none success on the legislative side. Obama - other than health care - has been utterly unable to achieve any significant legislative victory in the house. Latest there was failure of a gun legislation. So the only arrow obama has left in his sack is CIR. If McConnell make him fail in CIR -- obama then loses all the momentum since this will be a second big blow to him this year. There really aren't any other issues left that are as impactful. IMHO rebuilding of infrastructure is one that Obama gave up very easily. Anyway .. but that's why McConnell is the key here.
Makes sense? What do you think?
Another dubious argument for number of pages in senate CIR bill (1200+) is too long, another obamacare, etc, etc..
I would like to see how many pages all piecemeal legislation adds up to (which will add be added up into one omnibus bill -- house version of CIR).. so far page count is (173+53+61+101) without even touching many topics which senate bill comprehensively covers
If they cannot read and comprehend a large bill, they should not be lawmakers to begin with !Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
They are circulating an argument that amendment was 1200 pages long (where as it it is around 190 pages of correction to underlying bill) and 75 hours is not sufficient to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
Republican senator sponsoring the bill rebuffed Mr.Sessions that "high school student in tenessee can read triple spaced 1200 pages in 45 minutes and you are an experienced attorney keep complaining 75 hours is not sufficient to read this" :)
Even moderate republicans cannot stand this nonsense and beating around the bush.
Q- I disagree on one point - I never counted on Tech Industry supporting legals as the tech industry is interested in only H1B or temporary nonimmigrant workers and nothing else
Any legal here is here due to his skills and expertise only and nothing else.
But due to overcrowding, we are in heavy back-logged situation which some never anticipated. That I agree.
Despite knowing the fact that it would take decades, they are many EB3-applicants even at this moment who might think that it is still better than their home country with or without CIR.
Future GC applicants will continue irrespective of CIR, but quality of immigrants would decline without CIR as it would attract people who are willing to wait for a lifetime to get allusive GC.
This had been the crux of all my past and present posts. How to acquire best of the talents?
The policy set by law makers should be transparent to future applicants and not as dark as of now.
The set of rules should be framed by the policy makers and not tech Industry and I am afraid it would get diluted by sympathy and compassion shown to illegals, which do doubt they deserve, but separately.
So far merit based system and all other suggestions looked very good, but DEM's determination to hold these at ransom against illegal's pathway appears to be the stumbling block at the cost of CIR.
Only time will tell what might happen. But life will go on and GC - Q will keep on increasing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
bvsamrat, thanks. I only meant if at all you thought Tech industry was savior for the legal ones - then that was not valid. So I guess we r on the same page there.
Agree about merit based system's virtues. It is a shame that the immigration system is based on geopolitics and wrong ideas about what constitutes diversity (i.e. 7% country quota) rather than the merit of the immigrant.
However, I wouldn't say that dems are opposed to merit based system. I think legals are not important enough for them and so it is not a priority for them. This is just as much true a statement about GOP as well as Tech industry. So if anybody is villain here then its all of the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
I do not agree with you here. Vote bank is not the only chip. We need to think out of the box: Something revolutionary. Think about it: Many legals here are very influential people making a difference in our society. Many are doctors, engineers, lawyers and PhD's making life saving drugs, next generation xbox consoles, re architecting facebook, google and twitter, exploring alternative energy etc etc.. To say that we are powerless sounds so ludicrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Yes I agree we don't have vote bank power but we can still make a difference. As of today, our voices are not even heard. Its like we don't exist because we never took the time and effort to show them we exist and we make a difference. We need to change that.
Just change the "time and effort" to "money".Quote:
Originally Posted by axecapone
axe - Don't disagree. Just that somehow that power today is latent at best. Washington doesn't feel it. Doesnt mean can't be seen tomorrow. Just that today it doesn't manifest itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by axecapone
So looks the Corker-Hoeven amendment passed cloture and will be voted on tomorrow. It got atleast 66 yes votes..voting still in progress. Some say this vote will be a reflection of the final vote.