Bills, Rules & Politics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

I think clause e) sets the SO to zero for FY21 and FY22.

This is the text from the INA:



So when e) sets that to zero for FY21 and FY22, it is referring to the FB SO from the previous years, i.e. FY20 and FY21.

---

If we interpret it that way then it's a great tell-tale sign of meng amendment as only a bargaining chip. The reason being how do you undo the spillover from 2020 - something that already happened and at least partially allocated. Second - the whole amendment is so onorous and clearly eggregious to GOP that they won't like one bit of it.

Finally - it's terrible that Indian congressmen/women are nowhere to be seen pushing competing amendments to secure interests of backlogged indians. Absolutely amazing to me. TBH the fault may not be theirs. Look the squeaky wheel gets the grease. May be backlogged EB-I is not making enough noise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

If we interpret it that way then it's a great tell-tale sign of meng amendment as only a bargaining chip. The reason being how do you undo the spillover from 2020 - something that already happened and at least partially allocated. Second - the whole amendment is so onorous and clearly eggregious to GOP that they won't like one bit of it.

Finally - it's terrible that Indian congressmen/women are nowhere to be seen pushing competing amendments to secure interests of backlogged indians. Absolutely amazing to me. TBH the fault may not be theirs. Look the squeaky wheel gets the grease. May be backlogged EB-I is not making enough noise.

---

Practically speaking, the SO will probably be wasted anyway, so they can claw it back for FB. Alternatively, if some of it is indeed used, then I guess they would just claw back the unused part or they could double use it and add it to FB anyway...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

Practically speaking, the SO will probably be wasted anyway, so they can claw it back for FB. Alternatively, if some of it is indeed used, then I guess they would just claw back the unused part or they could double use it and add it to FB anyway...

---

Says who? How do you clawback just the unused portion of the SO that never existed until you passed the retroactive law? Please explain that to me! Also, how come you are so sure that only 140K visas will be allocated this fiscal. I think I disagree with you on both counts. Also, Double using it would also increase the overall visa available in a given fiscal under INA. That conflicts with the existing sections of INA that are untouched by this amendment. First of all none of this will pass muster with the Senate Parliamentarian to begin with. Odds are stacked against it.

Something for your additional reading pleasure & reference - https://www.heritage.org/immigration...ocess-consider

We also should probably wait for the Senate version of this bill as there are enough buzz about multiple immigration proposals being added to it. Who knows what that one has got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightAtEndOfTunnel

I doubt USCIS will even get to processing 140K visas in FY-2021.

---

This is true, without looking at any data or before the USCIS performance numbers from Q1 and Q2, I thought it was logical that USCIS couldn't even meet 140K never mind the additional 110K spillover for FY 2021. In a normal year USCIS is able to process (most times) 90-95% of 140K. In a covid year with only approximately 70-75% working capacity (if not lower) for most of the year how would they process 140k? This coupled with the previous administrations continual effort to impede the process (like increasing the I-485 form length by three times, adding I-944 requirements, mandatory interview etc) increased the processing times drastically. So the math doesn't add up ---reduced working capacity + increased processing times does not = to more gc's issued.

IMO, the only way 140K visas (or more) in FY2021 can be issued if there is there is directive from the current admin and the hopefully-soon-to-be-elected USCIS director to forgo all previous Miller/Trump roadblocks and allow USCIS to freely and quickly adjudicate cases (which kindda-sortta-maybe is the case currently though not through formal official memo's). But with only 2 months left in the FY we'll see how much of that can happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Finally - it's terrible that Indian congressmen/women are nowhere to be seen pushing competing amendments to secure interests of backlogged indians. Absolutely amazing to me. TBH the fault may not be theirs. Look the squeaky wheel gets the grease. May be backlogged EB-I is not making enough noise.

---

You mean ethnically Indian congress people. They are all American. And I say that because most of the ethnic Indians generally don't identify with other "regular" Indians or work towards their betterment as such, I feel. Unlike ethinic latinos or africans or some of the other ethnicities, which do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gammaray

You mean ethnically Indian congress people. They are all American. And I say that because most of the ethnic Indians generally don't identify with other "regular" Indians or work towards their betterment as such, I feel. Unlike ethinic latinos or africans or some of the other ethnicities, which do.

---

Very true, except Pramila Jaydev most of them are 2nd generation Americans. I doubt they identify themselves as Indians or empathize with Indian immigrants, if not loathe them at worst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Finally - it's terrible that Indian congressmen/women are nowhere to be seen pushing competing amendments to secure interests of backlogged indians. Absolutely amazing to me. TBH the fault may not be theirs. Look the squeaky wheel gets the grease. May be backlogged EB-I is not making enough noise.

---

They are more American than a regular American and removing the backlog has no real utility for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightAtEndOfTunnel

Very true, except Pramila Jaydev most of them are 2nd generation Americans. I doubt they identify themselves as Indians or empathize with Indian immigrants, if not loathe them at worst.

---

Pramila Jaypal and Raja Krishnamoorthi were born Indian.

Any inputs on the Senate version of the DHS funding bill?

https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/wit...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by may2011

Any inputs on the Senate version of the DHS funding bill?

https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/wit...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

---

I don't understand how they can take away the already spilled GC numbers from FB to EB.
If this is true, indians living in democratic states should start calling their congressperson/senator and make them aware of this. Republicans will anyways vote no against it.

Thanks my question too..Can laws be applied retroactively?What are the chances of this draft becoming a law?

Here is the draft DHS appropriations bill in the senate.

https://www.appropriations.senate.go...2022_Final.PDF

In our view the language is exactly same as Meng amendment.

If passed -
a) It is clear EB will NOT receive ANY FB spillover in 2022
b) It is clear EB will NOT receive the unused 80K from 2021
c) It is not clear if EB will have a negative adjustment to its 140K cap due to overuse of approximately 42K visas. We hope not.

As a result we have updated the worst case scenario to show 140K visa availability for 2022.

For more details visit - www.whereismygc.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whereismygc

Here is the draft DHS appropriations bill in the senate.

https://www.appropriations.senate.go...2022_Final.PDF

In our view the language is exactly same as Meng amendment.

If passed -
a) It is clear EB will NOT receive ANY FB spillover in 2022
b) It is clear EB will NOT receive the unused 80K from 2021
c) It is not clear if EB will have a negative adjustment to its 140K cap due to overuse of approximately 42K visas. We hope not.

As a result we have updated the worst case scenario to show 140K visa availability for 2022.

For more details visit - www.whereismygc.com

---

So the Senate Parlimentarian agreed to this version? I remember reading that she was against any immigration provisions as such. Is this confirmed? And also, how can they do a negative adjustment of over-allocation of 40K GCs given last year. I don't think that will be touched and will be handled as a procedural interpretation by the agencies during rule-making when (& if) this passes and becomes law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

So the Senate Parlimentarian agreed to this version? I remember reading that she was against any immigration provisions as such. Is this confirmed? And also, how can they do a negative adjustment of over-allocation of 40K GCs given last year. I don't think that will be touched and will be handled as a procedural interpretation by the agencies during rule-making when (& if) this passes and becomes law.

---

The thing that Senate Parliamentarian denied was a broad immigration proposal that would have avoided filibuster. This one is going through the normal route and will be subject to filibuster. The negative adjustment is unlikely although the language of the bill talks about "Difference". Check it out. Given the anti India bias in all things immigration, it is not entirely unlikely that agencies end up interpreting the "difference" that way.

When is it scheduled for vote in the Senate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whereismygc

The thing that Senate Parliamentarian denied was a broad immigration proposal that would have avoided filibuster. This one is going through the normal route and will be subject to filibuster. The negative adjustment is unlikely although the language of the bill talks about "Difference". Check it out. Given the anti India bias in all things immigration, it is not entirely unlikely that agencies end up interpreting the "difference" that way.

---

Like other senior members have pointed out before, there is always noise when the DHS appropriations bill or other major non-immigration specific bill comes around. When rubber hits the road, the DHS appropriations bill has always been cleaned of all this kind of language. I have begun to understand that way the US congress/senate is setup, there has to be overwhelming support to add "riders" (forgive me my legalese is still entry level - it may not be called "riders") or additional language to a bill. And even then the success of the bill becoming a law is miniscule. My recommendations is don't waste time with these "riders". During one such bill being introduced I called my congressman's office so many times in a week that I was on a first name basis with one of the staff members.

I spent a better part of decade worrying about this and all I have to show for it is grey hair. Upside because of this is that I have decent understanding of how the US legislature works.

Thanks for the explanation.I am a novice with regards to immigration laws, policies.I saw some lawyers tweeting about this and thought they might pass it this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prepleo

Like other senior members have pointed out before, there is always noise when the DHS appropriations bill or other major non-immigration specific bill comes around. When rubber hits the road, the DHS appropriations bill has always been cleaned of all this kind of language. I have begun to understand that way the US congress/senate is setup, there has to be overwhelming support to add "riders" (forgive me my legalese is still entry level - it may not be called "riders") or additional language to a bill. And even then the success of the bill becoming a law is miniscule. My recommendations is don't waste time with these "riders". During one such bill being introduced I called my congressman's office so many times in a week that I was on a first name basis with one of the staff members.

I spent a better part of decade worrying about this and all I have to show for it is grey hair. Upside because of this is that I have decent understanding of how the US legislature works.

---

Hope so. This "change" is almost criminal. The reason it might actually pass is because republicans may not oppose it at because this doesn't add new GC visas (but it does add H1 which makes it somewhat likely that GOP might oppose).

whats the last date (if any) for the bill to pass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whereismygc

The thing that Senate Parliamentarian denied was a broad immigration proposal that would have avoided filibuster. This one is going through the normal route and will be subject to filibuster. The negative adjustment is unlikely although the language of the bill talks about "Difference". Check it out. Given the anti India bias in all things immigration, it is not entirely unlikely that agencies end up interpreting the "difference" that way.

---

What does below point in the bill mean?

(e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number computed under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such section, are deemed to equal zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImmiGiveMe

What does below point in the bill mean?

(e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number computed under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such section, are deemed to equal zero.

---

This thread might be useful: https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/sta...84970762473478

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImmiGiveMe

What does below point in the bill mean?

(e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number computed under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such section, are deemed to equal zero.

---

That is the part that says for year 2021 and 2022 there shall be no spillover from EB to FB or FB to EB. Now that is problematic since 2021 is already passe and EB received and used FB spillover. So not sure how they might handle that part. But don't worry this is just a draft. It will first pass the judiciary committee and then senate and then congress. So long way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by may2011

whats the last date (if any) for the bill to pass?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by may2011

When is it scheduled for vote in the Senate?

---

Probably there isn't a set date. But this can't drag on. I assume a month or two and this must be taken care of. Dems wanted to vote on infra bill by Oct 31st.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by may2011

Thanks my question too..Can laws be applied retroactively?What are the chances of this draft becoming a law?

---

My understanding is that by convention the laws are always forward looking but they can use historical dates for references. e.g. everybody who was in US before 1st Jun 1990 is eligible for a GC now on (just an example). Additionally I think laws also should do no harm. e.g. if EB has already used numbers how can that be undone now! So not sure what exactly senate is thinking (or not!)

thanks for ur response

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

That is the part that says for year 2021 and 2022 there shall be no spillover from EB to FB or FB to EB. Now that is problematic since 2021 is already passe and EB received and used FB spillover. So not sure how they might handle that part. But don't worry this is just a draft. It will first pass the judiciary committee and then senate and then congress. So long way to go.

---

I doubt parliamentarin allows this type of change to GC numbers calculation related changes to INA in reconciliation bill just because democrat put some price on that to show it is related to a budget.