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

Here are some of my thoughts on the impact of HR3012 (if at all the bill passes), primarily on EB2 and EB3 community. Of course, no one knows in advance whether the bill will pass or not and I feel there are strong arguments both in favor and against the bill.

As mentioned earlier, even if the bill passes the EB3 folks will have a wait time of 10 - 12 years after things stabilize, which is not the ideal solution. In the shorter term, based on the last pending inventory there are around 25K EB3-ROW applications that are pending with PDs up to July'07. Now, if the bill says that 15% of the visas will be reserved for ROW in the first year and lesser than 15% in the 2nd year and so on, then it will take 3+ years to clear the pending EB3-ROW applications. Also, since most of the visas will be allocated to EB3I/C, EB3-I/C will also reach a similar PD as EB3-ROW in around 3 years time. So, effectively the pending EB3-ROW applicants will need around 9+ years to get their GC as compared to their current waiting time of ~6 years; for the EB3I/C, the wait is already almost 10 years for earlier PDs (2002 - 2003) but the wait might be less (~8 - 9 years) for the later PDs (2006 - 2007). For EB2 folks, the scenario will be less extreme. There are 11K pending EB2-ROW applications with PD up to March'12 and it will take ~1 and 1/2 - 2 years to clear that backlog. So, the EB2-ROW folks will need around 2 to 2 and 1/2 years to get their green cards, which is still more than the time it takes now (~1 year). After things stabilize in 3 years time frame, the waiting time for EB2 folks will be in the range of ~3 years and for EB3, it will take around 10 - 12 years.

Maybe a summary of the impact of the bill (not going into argument of whether the bill should pass or not) from Spec, Q and others might be helpful to the readers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/bu...html?src=busln

Latest article in NYT in favor of high skilled immigrants.

A big thank you to gs1968 for sharing your views on this latest update on HR3012.

Trust me, I have been keep looking for your views on this latest update on other forum ( you know where i am coming from :-)), but couldn't find any and thought you're busy or out..

I am glad that I can see you here.

I am very sad to see people using such a foul language about this topic on other forum.

I've been following this forum since last two years and I just registered here to thank gs1968, Q, KD, Spectator, Immitime, sportsfan and other for maintaining this blog a very professional, decent and informative.

I always enjoy reading you guy’s posts. keep up guys. I really hope it will soon become a law.

HR 3012 is still only in 50-50 mode of making it to senate (in my view). Looks like immigration lawyers and their advocates are the main opponents at this stage.... :(

Vishnu,

Where did you get this info?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vishnu

HR 3012 is still only in 50-50 mode of making it to senate (in my view). Looks like immigration lawyers and their advocates are the main opponents at this stage.... :(

---

the 50-50 assesment is just my view... ** newsletter - remains confident but at end highlights risk for HR 3012

This is a wonderful forum. I just registered today.
Hi Vishnu,

I take it as covering all bases and trying to weed out all opposition.

Amul

Hi Amul - this is a great forum! Hope you are right! My heart tells me you are right, but my mind tells me to be cautious till we get the email from ** with the senate vote date.

Trust me. I am having sleepless nights. I am hoping and praying that this passes pretty soon.

Ron Gotcher on his forum says the bill is good for his clients but is still a 'shameful sellout'
Clear opposition from the lawyer community...i dont understand why because it only affects firm that employ > 100 people - most of these firms are the ones pushing for this bill anyway. The small consulting firms will not have any impact anyway

To Vishnu
I think they fear that their income will be decreased from EB3-EB2 porting which will only increase as the wait times keep getting more prolonged under existing laws

Ah very fair point - completely forgot about it.

But what is calling a "shameful sellout"? I thought lower EB3-EB2 porting was a given if HR 3012 passed?

Perhaps I'm missing something here but I don't understand why lawyers would not support this. Aren't the H1 caps being hit every year? Unless they think there is so much fraud that if this bill goes through, the H1 caps will not be hit, I don't understand why they are not onboard with this bill. Further, given that there is a disproportionately large pipeline of IC clients for these law firms, the ROWs can't possibly have a bigger sway over them. Guess things are never as straightforward as they seem. I also don't understand how someone can publicly be opposed to eliminating fraud. Ofcourse, such actions are invariably accompanied by unintended consequences but I think its a move in the right direction.

I am trying to find an answer but not finding it anywhere. 'IF' HR 3012 passes the senate with this amendment should it go back to house again for vote?

What would be the process? With elections looming I am concerned.

Thank you

Amul

To amulchandra
It has to go back to the House as both chambers need to pass an identical version of the Bill to become public Law
The House can either concur with the amendment and pass the Bill in which case the Bill is sent to the President who in this case is likely to sign it and not veto it.The House can ask for a conference with the Senate to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions.If agreement can be reached what emerges is a Conference report which is voted on by both houses and passed.If agreement cannot be reached then the Bill is deemed to have died in conference and legislatively there is no further hope.

More information at the link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ence_committee

Hope this answers your question

I really don't think attorneys are worried about Eb3 to Eb2 porting money. I believe their main concern is if DOL finds fraud, attorneys are also somewhat responsible for that as big company's (S & P 500) usually go with attorney firm's and company's rely on these firms for immigration practices. So Obviously they do not want take headwinds coming on their way.

http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/...2012,0626.shtm

Not sure if this is earth shattering news but seems they have an agreement?

To randomax
Great link! There is a pointless debate on the FDA Bill going on in the Senate at this time.Everybody knows they are going to agree to the House amendment and pass it. I am hoping that it is passed by voice vote/unanimous consent tonight so that immitime, amulchandra and others can sleep better.There is unlikely to be a roll-call vote as no senator wants his vote recorded on this. I am also hoping that the transportation and student loan interest bills are also passed so that the president can sign them all before the recess

post on ** from attorney sskind

http://****************.org/forum/fo...ml#post3507532

I am a long time supporter of Immigration Voice and also have strongly supported HR 3012. But I think **'s email this morning is incredibly unfair. Chuck Grassley is proposing to give sweeping new powers to the US Department of Labor which is not good news for anyone who is pro-immigration. The Labor Department sees as its mission not protecting all workers but protecting AMERICAN workers. Chuck Grassley is no friend of immigrants. He has been the most anti-immigrant member of the Senate for years and to pretend that anything he is adding to this bill is good for immigrants is disingenuous.

3012 may still be worth supporting even with Grassley's bad language, but to attack the immigration bar for fighting to keep out this language is simply unjust. Most of my colleagues who handle business and employment immigration matters have passed up for more lucrative practices (I started out in mergers and acquisitions and can tell you that I'd have a lot more saved for my retirement if I stayed in that field) not because we love companies, but because we believe immigration is good for America and being in immigration law is also a way to help people. I think if would have been far better if ** would simply have said that this was a tough deal to make and many won't be happy rather than defaming members of other pro-immigration groups that happen to disagree.

In my humble opinion, Greg is not shooting a straight arrow.

Sweeping powers of DOL are legitimate concerns, Grassley being no friend of high skilled immigrants - self evident and I V bad mouthing lawyers group is unsound tactic.

But all of this does not add up to the opposition of the amendment. This proposed amendment is far less vicious than the one proposed in December. I think he should at least acknowledge this.

More over, there is nothing wrong in weeding out fraud. Not standing to support it makes you look really bad and raises the suspicion if you have something to hide.

To get HR 3012 voted in the Senate, Grassley will want his way one way or the other. If this is all he wants, I would say, hell yes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

In my humble opinion, Greg is not shooting a straight arrow.

Sweeping powers of DOL are legitimate concerns, Grassley being no friend of high skilled immigrants - self evident and I V bad mouthing lawyers group is unsound tactic.

But all of this does not add up to the opposition of the amendment. This proposed amendment is far less vicious than the one proposed in December. I think he should at least acknowledge this.

More over, there is nothing wrong in weeding out fraud. Not standing to support it makes you look really bad and raises the suspicion if you have something to hide.

To get HR 3012 voted in the Senate, Grassley will want his way one way or the other. If this is all he wants, I would say, hell yes!

---

Exactly, even Ron Gotcher started speaking foul about 3012. Lawyers do not want to visibly go against H.R.3012 but they want to do inside pulling or bullying, until the last minute. But with all hopes and prayers 3012 is becoming law of the land soon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

In my humble opinion, Greg is not shooting a straight arrow.

Sweeping powers of DOL are legitimate concerns, Grassley being no friend of high skilled immigrants - self evident and I V bad mouthing lawyers group is unsound tactic.

But all of this does not add up to the opposition of the amendment. This proposed amendment is far less vicious than the one proposed in December. I think he should at least acknowledge this.

More over, there is nothing wrong in weeding out fraud. Not standing to support it makes you look really bad and raises the suspicion if you have something to hide.

To get HR 3012 voted in the Senate, Grassley will want his way one way or the other. If this is all he wants, I would say, hell yes!

---

Doesn't DOL have those kind of powers already. If there is no fraud not sure why they are against this amendment. Audits have been in place for years.

I am not helping anybody by being unduly optimistic every day about this Bill's passage so it might pass if I stop predicting!
Senate done for the day and nothing in the Senate leader's remarks about the scedule seems to suggest that this is going to be discussed soon.Might still pass as part of the fire-sale en masse clearance of pending legislation on Thursday before the Senate recess

Ron Gotcher's very first post about this agreement voiced concern about the elimination of judicial review.I interpret this as the DOL being the final decider and not an immigration appeals court in case of fraud.This would prevent Immigration attorneys from being able to file judicial appeals and argue cases in court.Other forum members who have had a chance to review the amendment in greater detail should comment on this

Complete Document of Sen. Grassley's Amendment to HR3012

http://www.immigrationlegalnews.file...-june-2012.pdf

On Page 3 of the document, it says this,

‘‘(B) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.— Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), and section 2(e) of the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011, of the total number of visas made available under section 203(b) in a fiscal year—
‘‘(i) not more than 15 percent may be issued to natives of any single foreign state; and ‘‘(ii) not more than 2 percent may be issued to natives of any single dependent area.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2012.

Also, it talks about keeping the family based quota to 7% and eliminating DV lottery. Are the country caps going to be eliminated or are we just going to see the increase in quota to only 15% from regular 7% and will the DV lottery be eliminated?

Jonty Rhodes,

I've seen this link on weekend. Though the link says June-12 but the content was initial amendment proposed by Grassley. As far I know, the newer amendment is only accessible to AILA registered members so far. I think Ron Gotcher copied from AILA and posted on his forum. Here is the link for that.

http://www.immigration-information.c...ad.php?t=17482

New Amendment does not touch the initial 3012 but he added DOL audits for H1B-dependent employers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaibabaAug2010

Jonty Rhodes,

I've seen this link on weekend. Though the link says June-12 but the content was initial amendment proposed by Grassley. As far I know, the newer amendment is only accessible to AILA registered members so far. I think Ron Gotcher copied from AILA and posted on his forum. Here is the link for that.

http://www.immigration-information.c...ad.php?t=17482

New Amendment does not touch the initial 3012 but he added DOL audits for H1B-dependent employers.

---

Thanks for the input. That is helpful.

Good article-I am sure this influences the Senators' thinking also

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotk...he-right-ones/

senate goes into recess from friday...
today's senate calender shows the hold still there...
perhaps the AILA opposition is delaying things, and from comments ive seen from a couple of prominent lawyers, there is def significant opposition. amazing - of all the people to oppose - the AILA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes

Complete Document of Sen. Grassley's Amendment to HR3012

http://www.immigrationlegalnews.file...-june-2012.pdf

On Page 3 of the document, it says this,

‘‘(B) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.— Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), and section 2(e) of the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011, of the total number of visas made available under section 203(b) in a fiscal year—
‘‘(i) not more than 15 percent may be issued to natives of any single foreign state; and ‘‘(ii) not more than 2 percent may be issued to natives of any single dependent area.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2012.

Also, it talks about keeping the family based quota to 7% and eliminating DV lottery. Are the country caps going to be eliminated or are we just going to see the increase in quota to only 15% from regular 7% and will the DV lottery be eliminated?

---

Jonty, Some lawyers are not for HR 3012 just because a compromise was reached with Grassley. So for the time being I would refrain from visit any of their sites. They are clearly hell bent on creating confusion within the community. Once again, categorically let me state that the link is INCORRECT. it is not the latest compromised agreement.

It is the First Amendment which was proposed by Sen.Grassley during December. The document has the header as "IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—112th Cong., 1st Sess."

1st session refers to 2011.

To forum members
If somebody can keep an eye out for the start of the senate session at 930AM ET which is when the unanimous consent Bills are considered and inform us-that would be helpful.I doubt they will move it immediately as the Congressional Daily Digest of yesterday shows no new amendments published to the original Bill

i saw the calender for today, hold still in place....so now we have only tomorrow really

Finally immigration attorneys mafia is rearing it's ugly head and started displaying publicly what they stand for. I hope the driving force behind this bill stays focused and takes it to the destination. I am getting restless day by day. I believe that might be the case with everyone here too.

ya its quite ugly what they are doing. ron gotcher clearly said (after posting all the revised amendments) that they appear relatively beningn and that this should have been passed a long time ago. suddenly the next day, he changes tune, clearly after some AILA memo no doubt. how can the lawyers have a problem when the companies that are the prime beneficiaries of H1Bs (and their respective legal counsel) are the ones pushing for this bill... blatent example of self-interest. even Oh Law firm has removed HR 3012 discussion from their website...frankly quite disgusting.

Do the lawyers have such a powerful lobby that their view would override the sway of corporations? Time to up the contributions to **.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

Jonty, Some lawyers are not for HR 3012 just because a compromise was reached with Grassley. So for the time being I would refrain from visit any of their sites. They are clearly hell bent on creating confusion within the community. Once again, categorically let me state that the link is INCORRECT. it is not the latest compromised agreement.

---

Thanks kd2008. Appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

It is the First Amendment which was proposed by Sen.Grassley during December. The document has the header as "IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—112th Cong., 1st Sess."

1st session refers to 2011.

---

Thanks Kanmani.

The bill with amendment is only HR 3012 and no other bills added on...so IF it passes senate, there should be no issues in it being approved by House and being signed into law...but the IF is what we are waiting for

To Vishnu
I agree that it is very frustrating at this time.The senate public periodical seems to suggest no further Roll Call votes for today and so only unanimous consent is possible to pass. In reference to the amendment mentioned by you-the Congressional daily record does not reflect this yet and I assume it has to be published first before the Senate passes it.

I thought you would find the following links useful to maybe the understand the background here

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?i...921&slreturn=1

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=K01

I visited Rep. Zoe Lofgren's website as she is an immigration lawyer and most likley an AILA member but did not see any mention applauding this agreement ( wasn't expecting but still gave it a shot)
It is possible that the two senators' offices worked this out but Sen Schumer did not anticipate the push back from the attorneys and maybe working on amending the amendment to the amendment!!