A positive sign? John Boehner mocks his colleagues. Anyway.. its funny. I think he is trying his best and running out of ideas.. Saam Daam Dand Bhed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-boe...ration-reform/
A positive sign? John Boehner mocks his colleagues. Anyway.. its funny. I think he is trying his best and running out of ideas.. Saam Daam Dand Bhed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-boe...ration-reform/
Can't believe this gten. A sign that Boehner is not getting reelected. So the least he can do is be on the right side of history! Perhaps saying so is unkind to him. But kudos to him for taking a stand on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by gten20
I have read some news articles which suggest something could happen in June/July.. either through congress or by some executive action from Obama. Maybe Boehner is warming up his conservative group. I hope congress and Obama find some middle ground and pass some law which will help legal immigrants too.. right now the whole immigration reform talks focus on illegal/undocumented immigrants. I sometimes fear legal immigrants will not get any relief. All we (actually corporations) might get is unlimited H1B's.
Interesting...
http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsr...is-summer.aspx
Tea party hell bent on keeping the current immigration system and milking the illegals..
http://thehill.com/homenews/205013-r...on-immigration
NDAA markup tomm.. Will ENLIST act get added here or as floor amendment?
http://immigrationreform.com/2014/05...esty-tomorrow/
Looks like anti-immigration stance proved to be unpopular for many Republicans running for primaries.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/immig...WhatsNewsForth
Cantor is losing.. wow.. CIR or any immigration reform is finished now..Quote:
Originally Posted by CleanSock
Cantor was not pro-immigrationQuote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
Cantor was for the house Republicans immigration principles which is the best one could expect from republican party. Also Google KIDS act and cosponsor of enlist act..Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
Primary was centered around amnesty.. Cantor spent 5Million.. opponent spent less than 200k.. big defeat for establishment and defining one for the future.. "about to be speaker" losing his seat to people power against money power..
I do't think it is that black and white. I mean cantor losing cannot signal any doom for immigration. We will have to wait and see....
Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
Not sure about the "about to be speaker" comment. Boehner is not going anywhere. But definitely a major development given the recent wins for the establishment over the Tea Party nuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
To me, it is the final nail in the coffin for CIR for rest of 2014. Its up to Obama now. He might as well not wait until August for his executive actions..
I wonder who the Democrat nominee is and whether the Dems can steal this one away.Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
Total number of voters seems to be in order of 268K with 40%-55% dem-rep split. Cantor's primary loss was 35k to 28k margin.. Surely this is good news for democrats..
http://ballotpedia.org/Virginia's_7t...lections,_2012
Describing the district as one that merely "leans Republican" and isn't overwhelmingly conservative, the official also suggested Brat might simply lose to Trammell outright.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/democ...#ixzz34LFOpxPt
There is nothing for democrats to cheer for in Cantor's loss. Cantor lost at least partly because his opponent attacked Cantor for his "partial" support to CIR.
So now even moderate republicans are going to think twice before they support CIR.
democrats have little to zero chance of winning this district...they district might be merely leans republican but still have voted for republicans majority of times..and plus a conservative won the primary with tea-party support and someone who beat 2nd ranking republican in the house,,so he now carries a big momentum. The only way Democrat can win this is if they can convince cantor supporters to vote democrat..i think cantor supporters would rather vote for tea-party thn dems.Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
still nothing to rejoice for dems yet..still doesn't look like they will have majority in the house after this election..actually they are fighting to keep the senate majority after this election....Republicans do have better chance of getting senate majority...
Please take into consideration that this was open parimary and look at the number of voters in general election vs number of voters who turned up in primary. Also consider that dems would have also voted in the primary which Brat just won. If you still feel dems have little to zero chance in this district then we have to agree to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackbrown_890
Agreed..Quote:
Originally Posted by jackbrown_890
As many of us predicted, after Eric Cantor's loss to his Tea Party Rival, prospects of CIR were pretty much dead. This news just confirms that. Obama is going to speak today about it and hopefully, we would see some Executive Actions from Obama that would help legal immigrants this year and not only undocumented immigrants. If Obama can just pass an Executive Action to use the wasted green cards in last 10 years or remove dependents from being counted, that would be enough to make dates advance pretty rapidly. I doubt though Obama would do anything for legal immigrants. Republicans are a lost cause anyways.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0F526420140630
I am going to bet my house that his 'Executive Action" will be only for illegal immigrants. He is least interested in high skilled immigration other than going to Facebook and LinkedIn and paying lip service to their employees majority of whom are foreign-born. Obama is a seasoned politician and knows how to get his votes. End of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes
I was under the impression that recapturing unused visas (H1B and EB) cannot be done by executive branch alone. Please correct me if I am wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes
There is not much executive branch can do to bring relief to EB (except allowing them to file 485) is my impression.. Am I missing anything?
The problem with EA is that while there may be the will (and I am sure there is) there may not be a way to help legal immigration. That's why you don't see measures in the proposals leaked to date.
EA cannot change or go against an existing law and legal immigration is pretty tightly locked down by the law.
IMO (and I know some people disagree), that includes the ability to exclude dependents from the numerical limits and to reclaim visas. Both were part of the Senate CIR Bill and previous proposed Bills, so Congress believes the power lies with them and that it requires the law to be rewritten to accomplish it.
As far a reclaiming "wasted" visa numbers, between the 180k already "recaptured" and those already received back from FB, the difference is only about 20k from FY1992 through FY2014. The law already has a mechanism to deal with "wasted" visas (be they EB or FB) and EB has profited handsomely over the years from that law. That's not to say they won't be "double recaptured", but I think that is outside the scope of EA. The "antis" are equally well aware of the situation regarding visa recapture.
iatiam will win the bet, but not for the reasons stated IMO.
Stumbled upon this thread and take a look at the below portion in the link... Are they talking about not counting dependents of E3 Visa holders in the numerical limit for GC?
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...b-1-immigrants
****************
Principal E-3 aliens are subject to an annual numerical limitation of 10,500 initial E-3 visas per fiscal year (FY). See INA section 214(g)(11), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11). To determine numerical limitation compliance, USCIS counts initial E-3 visa applications submitted abroad, initial petitions for a change of status to E-3, and E-3 applications for an extension of stay requesting a change of employers against the numerical limitation. See INA section 214(g)(11)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11)(A); AFM Chapter 34.6(a)(3) Note 3. USCIS does not count the dependent spouse and children of E-3 principal aliens against the numerical limitation. See INA section 214(g)(11)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11)(C); 22 CFR 41.51(c)(2).
idiotic,Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
You were answering at the same time as I was.
The law states that a visa must be immediately available in order to file an I-485, so that change is also outside the scope of EA. The regulations define that as when the VB Cut Off Date shows the PD is current for the PD. I can't imagine any change to the regulations that could redefine "a visa as being immediately available" based solely on an approved I-140.
Possibly something might be possible for Advance Parole based on "humanitarian grounds", but that could be quite problematic regarding maintaining status.
I'm not optimistic.
Yes.. I was essentially saying the same thing as you said.. That's all they might have power to do.. So, no point of Obama bashing for doing nothing to legal immigrants..Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
I think / hope they can repeat Aug 2007 scenario (last time when CIR failed in Bush's Sixth year).. This is completely under executive branch power.. Law was not different in Aug 2007.. Correct me if I am wrong.
Spec, I read your post. You have much better knowledge than many of us about what is locked down tightly with law. I understand from your post that Obama can't do much for legal immigrants in a way of EA as things have been very clearly laid down in law and only Congress can change that. So I understand that may be Obama's hands are tied when it comes to helping legal immigrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
But is there anything that Obama can do to bring some relief to legal immigrants with EA which does not need approval of Congress? There must be some thing which can be done. What do you think? Just asking for curiosity.
I agree idiotic. I am not trying to bash Obama. I don't have much knowledge of the law so I didn't know that there is nothing much Obama can do by EA to help legal immigrants. I am just little frustrated with the status quo. Also, little bit of frustration comes from the fact that I have seen many in last 1 year getting a GC through EB1C in few months after arriving from India. Nothing against those people personally but just a frustration against this system.Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
My undestanding is that when it comes to power the president pretty much can do anything he/she wants to. Pretty much anything. But of course there are consequences of every action. So in real life a president will only go so far as what it would mean for him, his constituency and his legacy. And to be honest that is a fair game in politics. That's how politics should be.
So can Obama abolish a law. No but he can circumvent it. The whole concept of differed action on "Dreamers" goes to show that a president can go quite far to circumvent a written law. Now in that case the president knew that even his fiercest critics are not going to impeach him because that's not going to work.
So when it comes to EB - recapturing prior wasted visas or providing EADs to spouses or providing conditional GCs (until visa numbers are available) ---- there could be a plethora of options available to him that he can consider and exercise.
But everything boils down to - where is the pressure? In case of EB - there is NO pressure group strong enough to make him do it. Forget Obama -- think about it - businesses have an incentive to have a very intelligent H1 guy as a slave to that business. Why would they do a "Kulhadi pe peir" !!!
Long story short - IMHO EA can be as limitless as the president wants it to be. But the for a president to exercise EA - there needs to be a constituency that wants the president to do that. For illegal - there is a constituency. For EB .... not much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
http://www.speaker.gov/press-release...nt?Source=GovD
Boehner's statement.. Looks fishy to me..
" In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. "
- Roosevelt..
As usual, politics played by both sides. Obama blaming Republicans and Boehner blaming Obama. Nothing is going to come out of this quagmire. It is a hopeless situation. I just wish if nothing happens, at least USCIS clamps down on rampant misuse of EB1C. I live in a town where there are lots of Indian engineers/software experts who came to US to work for a known MNC on H1B. Many of them are actually asking the company to send them to India for 1 year and then try to come back on L1A to get GC on EB1C. I personally know at least 5 people who have done that. Sadly, this model is actually becoming very popular among these people and there seems to be no stopping.Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
What you are seeing fishy? I am seeing this is usual statement from him. I am seeing that this time GOP will not take it easy if Obama is taking EO especially when they are gaining in house in SenateQuote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
To me moderate republicans are using the southern border crisis as a backdoor for bringing immigration debate to House..Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramsen
Another press release by top house republican..
http://homeland.house.gov/press-rele...-crisis-border
Good Article..
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/01/politi...n-immigration/
"2. And no, the President can't increase the number eligible for green cards because their spouses or parents are U.S. citizens. Such matters are set by law. Though some immigration advocates have argued spouses and children shouldn't count toward 140,000 limit on employment-based green cards, whether the President can make that kind of change unilaterally is murky territory."
Thought of sharing this
But with a sweeping overhaul out of reach, lobbyists are turning their attention to moves that Obama could make on his own that could benefit their Silicon Valley clients, including changes to green cards and rules about the way immigrant family members and relatives are counted.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/technology...#ixzz36oNf24jP
I think the least thing President can do to legal immigrants is to remove derivatives from from the quota, and many law experts said there is a potential for this.
this is the least thing but IMHO will have a great impact in providing some relief to both EB3 and EB2 category.
imagine how many visas can be saved giving the derivatives accounts for nearly 55%
Hi - Isn't the 140,000 employment based green card a minimum ? Can't an executive order be to actually issue (say) 200,000 employment based green cards for the next 5 years instead of 140,000 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by migo79
Not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Immigo
The law sets the number at 140,000 plus the number of unused FB visas the previous FY. (INA 201 (d)). There is also a provision under INA 203(b)(6) where certain approvals in the previous FY under made under INA 101(a)(27)(K) are charged to the total allocation.
An EO cannot modify a preexisting law or make new law.
The FB calculation is more complex and does set a minimum of 226,000 if the calculation results in a figure that is less than that number (which it always does because of the number of IR approvals).
Spec - somehow I too think that 140K and 226K are minimum for EB and FB. So if DoS ends up issuing more visas they are not in violation of any law. Last year they indeed ended up more than 140K + FB Spillover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
On another note I think at least charging dependents of EB to FB will also effectively double the EB quota. But that strategy has a serious problem of allocation since primary and dependents will be tied to EB and FB country limits in EB and FB respectively. Which would make CO's life a lot more worse.
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Both FB and EB have calculations that set the MAXIMUM numbers available for the FY (INA 201 (c) and 201 (d)).
The FB calculation also sets a MINIMUM number that the MAXIMUM may be.Quote:
(c) Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants. -
(1) (A) The worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is, subject to subparagraph (B), equal to -
(d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants
(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to-
The numbers can be more than 226,000 and 140,000 respectively, but only due to specific paragraphs in the calculation (basically unused visas by the other Category in the previous year).Quote:
(ii) In no case shall the number computed under subparagraph (A) be less than 226,000.
Indeed, DOS did break the law last year regarding the EB allocation, but it was well within any margin that would result in Congressional censure.
I think, ultimately, removing the dependents from the numerical limitations count is the simplest way to increase the effective numbers. I don't believe it would cause DOS any problems they couldn't overcome. I don't believe that is within the scope of EO, despite what a couple of lawyers (Endelman and Mehta) may think (even they acknowledge it was not Congress's intent). If it is part of the EO's, it will give a fulcrum point for GOP to sue and overturn every thing that may be announced. For that reason, I do not see it being included.
What is EO by the way?
Not sure I understand. But I take your word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Thanks!