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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geterdone

I would imagine that if you want to get it passed in the senate then you will try to get atleast one senator to represent it. I do not see any senator who we can say will try to bring it on the floor.

---

Exactly. I think that is the problem. Senate support for the bill is just about lacking. Someone has to step up and ask for consideration of the bill. I think they were expecting Sen. Schumer, but he was only interested in this bill so can get some 'Irish' into it. So was Sen. Brown. Sen. Reid has no compulsions for a 'piece-meal' bill. Sen. Leahy and Sen. Conrad on the very last day got up talked and asked for EB-5/Conrad 30 and they got it. No one did that for H.R. 3012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chengisk

Exactly. I think that is the problem. Senate support for the bill is just about lacking. Someone has to step up and ask for consideration of the bill. I think they were expecting Sen. Schumer, but he was only interested in this bill so can get some 'Irish' into it. So was Sen. Brown. Sen. Reid has no compulsions for a 'piece-meal' bill. Sen. Leahy and Sen. Conrad on the very last day got up talked and asked for EB-5/Conrad 30 and they got it. No one did that for H.R. 3012.

---

I do not think it is no one asking for it kind of a problem. ** would have surely tried to push it together with other immigration bills on the last day but somewhere it is stuck. When they have gone as far as negotiating with Grassley for lifting the hold, just getting someone to push it on the floor does not look like a bigger problem than lifting the hold. We are not getting any news on where it is stuck so we have to keep guessing and we might never know.

The rally's date is decided to be Aug 25 probably to push this in September. I think instead of doing nothing, we should spread the word and push people to join this who are in bay area. ** Administrator has called this be make or break moment. Without doing nothing, this is dead. We might as well do something about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

justvisiting,

I don't think there is a definitive answer and it is an interesting subject. Certainly several attempts to exclude EB dependents have been made previously, all via a Bill. The last one I remember was in the H.R.2161 IDEA Act, introduced in this Congress.

PS I have paused composing this message to look at the language used to exclude EB dependents from the caps in the Bill above. It actually added an extra sub-category under 201(b)(1). That does seem to be a better way to do it.

---

I can't find it now, but the ILW blog had an extensive anlaysis of how the INA did not expresselycpount dependents either as immediate relatives no as quota-subject immigrants. It had to do with the 1990 reorganization of the INA and the creation of the current system. Basically, you are correct. The INA does not count dependents as immediate relatives. But it doesn't expressely say the are subjet to the quota. This is simply a reasonable (but not the only possible) interpretation of the INA, and the DOS could adopt another interpretation.

The fact Congress has tried to pass a bill would not impede administrative action - because Congress could be trying to clarify or fill a gap in the INA. But the other 2 branches of government can also fill in a gap like this one.

To justvisiting
This is probably the article you are looking for

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm

Pay special attention to the footnotes esp #8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chengisk

Exactly. I think that is the problem. Senate support for the bill is just about lacking. Someone has to step up and ask for consideration of the bill. I think they were expecting Sen. Schumer, but he was only interested in this bill so can get some 'Irish' into it. So was Sen. Brown. Sen. Reid has no compulsions for a 'piece-meal' bill. Sen. Leahy and Sen. Conrad on the very last day got up talked and asked for EB-5/Conrad 30 and they got it. No one did that for H.R. 3012.

---

There are two similar / companion bills in the Senate (S1857 and S1983) that have Senator sponsorship (not in Committee review). Technically those can still be moved post committee review even if the House version of the Bill gets killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

There are two similar / companion bills in the Senate (S1857 and S1983) that have Senator sponsorship (not in Committee review). Technically those can still be moved post committee review even if the House version of the Bill gets killed.

---

What do you estimate are the chances for these companion bills to pass in September or lame-duck? As far as I can see, the senate majority leader has the authority to discharge the committee by unanimous consent - which is what he did for Leahy's EB5 bill. I think 1857 was introduced in the senate by a senator from Utah, so there must have been some understanding between him and Chaffetz.

Please make the best use of the town halls happening during this break. Show up. tell your plight and ask if they will pass HR 3012. Simple as that.

I did my part. Have you?

** is organising a rally on Aug 25 in San Jose. Let all make it a success and show our support to HR 3012 by attending

Why not August 15th?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bvsamrat

Why not August 15th?

---

They might end up with the wrong flag ! :)

Anybody who claims they are doing something and asking donations - people really need to ask and understand what exactly kind of advocacy efforts are being done by them. ** to me is a fake arrogant organization that really knows how to claim credit for things that they didn't really do. Enough said .... but anybody supporting such pricks should really ask for transparency in everything. An organization that is not transparent with its "supposed" constituents can't be trusted to be truly working effectively for those constituents. My 2 cents and my last on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neduguy

** is organising a rally on Aug 25 in San Jose. Let all make it a success and show our support to HR 3012 by attending

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Anybody who claims they are doing something and asking donations - people really need to ask and understand what exactly kind of advocacy efforts are being done by them. ** to me is a fake arrogant organization that really knows how to claim credit for things that they didn't really do. Enough said .... but anybody supporting such pricks should really ask for transparency in everything. An organization that is not transparent with its "supposed" constituents can't be trusted to be truly working effectively for those constituents. My 2 cents and my last on this.

---

I totally second this. ** takes more credit than they deserve.

I would have agreed to parts of what you say an year ago (mostly out of ignorance), but the way ** has truly given EB-IC community a voice and stayed committed to the cause, i have tremendous respect for them.
I think one needs to understand that it is not just a forum for exchange of information, it is also an action-oriented group. The latter requires top-down leadership to an extent just like any other company. Regarding their forum, yes it is not comparable to this one in terms of openness and quality but that is also a reflection on us (EB-I community) besides the moderators. People (we) are always ready to fight on EB1 vs EB2 or EB2 vs EB3 or IT vs. non-IT divisions (and even this forum vs that forum :)) even without any provocation.
It is sad that we forgot the most valuable lesson from our history that it was our divisions that resulted in us being ruled by British.
** has in spite of many challenges at least provided a common objective and taken it to a level where there is hope for passage of a bill. It strongly stood against the lawyer community (if nothing else, that was worthwhile in itself :)). Could it be more transparent, yes, but lack of transparency in this case does not necessarily imply misuse of funds (in my opinion).
Just wanted to present an alternative view point (in spirit of this forum).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Anybody who claims they are doing something and asking donations - people really need to ask and understand what exactly kind of advocacy efforts are being done by them. ** to me is a fake arrogant organization that really knows how to claim credit for things that they didn't really do. Enough said .... but anybody supporting such pricks should really ask for transparency in everything. An organization that is not transparent with its "supposed" constituents can't be trusted to be truly working effectively for those constituents. My 2 cents and my last on this.

---

Ghost,

I agree with you.
Sometimes in the interest of the bill they might not be revealing all the details which is understandable, also when Congressman introduced the bill in the House ** name was mentioned I think that should be good enough on the credibility question.
Most of the time here we are discussing and predicting based on the existing law, atleast ** is trying to change something which is arguably something we all have to accept.

Just to make clear, what I wrote above is quite a matter of fact rational statement. There is no provocation nor fight. Our key goal here is clarity and self education. Orgs that "claim" leadership but provide little transparency are in fact a disservice to eb community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GhostWriter

People (we) are always ready to fight on EB1 vs EB2 or EB2 vs EB3 or IT vs. non-IT divisions (and even this forum vs that forum :)) even without any provocation.

---

Hi All,

While watching Olympics one idea provoked me.Compare the Olympic participation for all the countries. Let China remain as China and USA replaces India.
So if we apply the existing 7% per country limit to the Olympic criteria then USA wont be able to send 530 athletes to Olympics this year and neither would China be able to send such large contigent in every Olympics. I am sure it would raise many eyebrows if that happens.But in Sports it doesn't matter which country you belong from as long as you make the cut. HR 3012 can make that happen in the immigration process too.

So if someone could explain this point to the American senators it might make more sense to them.

Thanks!
Deb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamdeb

Hi All,

While watching Olympics one idea provoked me.Compare the Olympic participation for all the countries. Let China remain as China and USA replaces India.
So if we apply the existing 7% per country limit to the Olympic criteria then USA wont be able to send 530 athletes to Olympics this year and neither would China be able to send such large contigent in every Olympics. I am sure it would raise many eyebrows if that happens.But in Sports it doesn't matter which country you belong from as long as you make the cut. HR 3012 can make that happen in the immigration process too.

So if someone could explain this point to the American senators it might make more sense to them.

Thanks!
Deb

---

Actually. the Olympics is a better analogy for the current system.

Most, if not all events have a maximum number of competitors who can represent their Country. The rule is equally applied to every Country.

In the women's gymnastics, only two could enter the all-around individual competition, meaning the world champion did not take part. In the track cycling, only one competitor could take part in the sprint competition, so the Olympic champion did not take part.

Some of the best competitors are not even at the Olympics because they failed to qualify through their Countries qualification events.

The reason some Countries have larger teams is that they participate in more events.

If it were not so, the likes of USA, China and Russia would send far larger teams because they have many more competitors who can reach the Olympic qualifying mark and some Countries would be unable to send any competitors as a result.

I think that would be a very sad day indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

I totally second this. ** takes more credit than they deserve.

---

Do we have any other better alternative? Whatever it is doing, it is doing something that is going to benefit us. There is no other organization which would advocate us and make effort to advance the bill that will benefit us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamdeb

Hi All,

While watching Olympics one idea provoked me.Compare the Olympic participation for all the countries. Let China remain as China and USA replaces India.
So if we apply the existing 7% per country limit to the Olympic criteria then USA wont be able to send 530 athletes to Olympics this year and neither would China be able to send such large contigent in every Olympics. I am sure it would raise many eyebrows if that happens.But in Sports it doesn't matter which country you belong from as long as you make the cut. HR 3012 can make that happen in the immigration process too.

So if someone could explain this point to the American senators it might make more sense to them.

Thanks!
Deb

---

If such quota limit law would have to be passed today, it won't and it would be counted as discrimination. Common sense would tell that quota system is not fair. But life is not about fairness. They know that. They do not care whether it is fair or not. All they are interested in is vote. Can this give them vote ? NO.

Except for very few events like gymnastics, the per country limitation is imposed before the athelets and players depart from their country for the olympiad. The olympic committee slelects the finalists from each country carefully after conducting trials comparing their ability to compete in the respective events . They are not simply rejected for the reason being born in a certain country except for these one or two mishaps. Olympic committee is even admitting wild card entrants for the first timers participating from a particular country in a particular event, like recent Qatar female track competitor to skip preliminary trials.

It is horrible to practice per country limitation discrimination after bringing them into the olympic statium , just like we are here in US.

US olympians have already raised their voice to bring to an end to this kind of per country limitation .

Kanmani,

I like you too much to respond.

I will not be pulled into an argument on this subject.

I've yet to see a good analogy.

Spec,

I am not ready for an argument on this either. In general I differ from you in comparing Olympic rules with that of the current system. In my opinion they have more fairness for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

Spec,

I am not ready for an argument on this either. In general I differ from you in comparing Olympic rules with that of the current system. In my opinion they have more fairness for sure.

---

Kanmani,

I was only responding to the initial post, which made a poor analogy in my mind and failed to understand why some Countries have larger teams than others.

The End

PS I, like a lot of people here have taken to watching the BBC coverage, since the NBC alternative is so excruciatingly bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vrs7734

...I heard a saying in a movie "Uske Dushman bahot hai; aadmi achcha hoga"

---

That is originally from Mirza Galib. He is many many times quoted in Hindi movies and songs ..... including ... e.g. Dil Dhondhata hai phir wohi phurasat ke raat din.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

That is originally from Mirza Galib. He is many many times quoted in Hindi movies and songs ..... including ... e.g. Dil Dhondhata hai phir wohi purasat ke raat din.

---

I can see words like enemy, man, good, and that is it. A translation would be nice. If you use devanagiri, then I can use google translate too. :)

Will post it in poetry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chengisk

I can see words like enemy, man, good, and that is it. A translation would be nice. If you use devanagiri, then I can use google translate too. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Just to make clear, what I wrote above is quite a matter of fact rational statement. There is no provocation nor fight. Our key goal here is clarity and self education. Orgs that "claim" leadership but provide little transparency are in fact a disservice to eb community.

---

Yes, ** is not transparent at all, as far as EB community is concerned. If anybody asks questions which touches the truth immediate effect is he/she is banned from ** and his IP is permanently banned (not alone his IP, the domain even).

Nothing against people working (if at all they are working) in the name of **. but the policy of ** the ideology they stand for, they split the EB community into divisions, The EB2 egos are poked and nurtured, EB-3 has been totally damaged.( all along they have the answer for EB-3 India was--Port Port and Port) their selfishness never considered there are people in circumstances which they can never port, even if they are qualified, EB-ROW not to talk about them, lappu was tortured on Trackit.. he won't even mention trackit name on his posts The spillover law interpretation change added salt to the wound of EB-3. Majority of the EB-3 applicants have EAD, that is the only one reason ** still survives by collecting money. I have doubts that they are bribing top officials of USCIS for the visa date movement. Otherwise why a non-profit organisation have meetings with a government agency for visa data movements and favours only one particular category?

The EB community is totally split by this so called Non-profit organisation. Suppose... GOD forbid.. it won't happen ... by any chance H.R.3012 is never taken up in the Senate. the messiha lappu or Adamant2 of ** will appear with his usual bamboo stick blaming EB community.. like a school teacher he will post. The reason for failure is You!!! and no unity blah blah etc...

First of all why ** created this division, only for the selfishness of a group of useless Id****, and where the money goes?? no one knows exactly. visit **sucks.blogspot.com there should be some truths on it...even though 2 years old blog

Spec i agree Olympic is a country based sports competition and a poor choice of analogy.
Nobel prizes (even with all their controversies) probably represent a better choice. They do not have country based limitations, so if an American physicist wins the award it does not mean that an American Chemist or Biologist can not. Even for selection of best physicist there is no limitation that all the top contenders can't be from a single country. The idea is to pick the best physicist.

There is an alternate (and interesting) way to look at Olympics as well. Even Olympics does not limit the number of Golds (or medals) a country can win. Let us apply current USCIS policy to Olympics and see how it will look.
Assume only three games - Tennis, Swimming and Volleyball. USCIS will allow any number of entries from a country in each game (unlike the current Olympic policy), but it will cap the golds a country can win. So if US wins Swimming and Tennis its Volleyball team will be denied a medal even if it were the best.

Compare a GC (and the underlying job offer) to a medal (only for driving the point, i know the difference in stature !!!). There are three organizations - Intel, Boston Medical center and Citigroup. Any number of people from any of the countries can apply for these jobs. But if Intel and Citigroup have hired an Indian, then Boston Medical Center is forbidden from having an Indian doctor even if he is the best for the job.

Logic can often be twisted to arrive at results that we beleive in anyway :).

Keeping diversity as an immigration objective is not necessarily wrong but its impact on skills based categories certainly does not seem right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

I've yet to see a good analogy.

---

This actually is a good anology. I know spec thinks differently. And that's how we all will be. Which is why I really believe that no quota is the right thing. If a company is willing to hire skilled labor let them do.it. and tax that labor 50k and have the company pay for it. This will avoid abuse.

Any quota is unfair to the basic principle of economic benefit - both for the individual and for the host.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GhostWriter

Spec i agree Olympic is a country based sports competition and a poor choice of analogy.
Nobel prizes (even with all their controversies) probably represent a better choice. They do not have country based limitations, so if an American physicist wins the award it does not mean that an American Chemist or Biologist can not. Even for selection of best physicist there is no limitation that all the top contenders can't be from a single country. The idea is to pick the best physicist.

There is an alternate (and interesting) way to look at Olympics as well. Even Olympics does not limit the number of Golds (or medals) a country can win. Let us apply current USCIS policy to Olympics and see how it will look.
Assume only three games - Tennis, Swimming and Volleyball. USCIS will allow any number of entries from a country in each game (unlike the current Olympic policy), but it will cap the golds a country can win. So if US wins Swimming and Tennis its Volleyball team will be denied a medal even if it were the best.

Compare a GC (and the underlying job offer) to a medal (only for driving the point, i know the difference in stature !!!). There are three organizations - Intel, Boston Medical center and Citigroup. Any number of people from any of the countries can apply for these jobs. But if Intel and Citigroup have hired an Indian, then Boston Medical Center is forbidden from having an Indian doctor even if he is the best for the job.

Logic can often be twisted to arrive at results that we beleive in anyway :).

Keeping diversity as an immigration objective is not necessarily wrong but its impact on skills based categories certainly does not seem right.

---

I think Track and Field would be a better analogy than Gymnastics.

what if, an athlete who clears heats (PERM) and semifinal (I-140) is not allowed to participate in the finals(I-485) based on his country of origin? or not allowed the medal(greencard) even after finishing finals (preadjudication).

I wonder how many Usain Bolt's dint win a medal in this idiotic country quota green card limbo,,,,,,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GhostWriter

Spec i agree Olympic is a country based sports competition and a poor choice of analogy.
Nobel prizes (even with all their controversies) probably represent a better choice. They do not have country based limitations, so if an American physicist wins the award it does not mean that an American Chemist or Biologist can not. Even for selection of best physicist there is no limitation that all the top contenders can't be from a single country. The idea is to pick the best physicist.

There is an alternate (and interesting) way to look at Olympics as well. Even Olympics does not limit the number of Golds (or medals) a country can win. Let us apply current USCIS policy to Olympics and see how it will look.
Assume only three games - Tennis, Swimming and Volleyball. USCIS will allow any number of entries from a country in each game (unlike the current Olympic policy), but it will cap the golds a country can win. So if US wins Swimming and Tennis its Volleyball team will be denied a medal even if it were the best.

Compare a GC (and the underlying job offer) to a medal (only for driving the point, i know the difference in stature !!!). There are three organizations - Intel, Boston Medical center and Citigroup. Any number of people from any of the countries can apply for these jobs. But if Intel and Citigroup have hired an Indian, then Boston Medical Center is forbidden from having an Indian doctor even if he is the best for the job.

Logic can often be twisted to arrive at results that we beleive in anyway :).

Keeping diversity as an immigration objective is not necessarily wrong but its impact on skills based categories certainly does not seem right.

---

I-V rally moved to Sept 8.

The news release also says that "key lawmakers" are scheduled to attend and the date was moved for this reason. The Republican and Democratic Conventions run back to back from Aug 25 to Sep 6 and availabilty of lawmakers/attention of media might have been a concern.Also arranging the rally closer to the resumption of Congress proceedings might help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

The news release also says that "key lawmakers" are scheduled to attend and the date was moved for this reason. The Republican and Democratic Conventions run back to back from Aug 25 to Sep 6 and availabilty of lawmakers/attention of media might have been a concern.Also arranging the rally closer to the resumption of Congress proceedings might help.

---

That seems like some positive news. I did not expect that lawmakers will be attending that. If that is indeed the case, this might be a setup to get some credit to pass this one. Others, any thoughts ?

On a lighter note :)

ELAINE (amused): So. Mom and Pop's plan was to move into the neighborhood...establish trust...for 48 years. And then, run off with Jerry's sneakers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwnanPuuCwk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

That seems like some positive news. I did not expect that lawmakers will be attending that. If that is indeed the case, this might be a setup to get some credit to pass this one. Others, any thoughts ?

---

I came across this article and as the summer recess in congress is drawing to a close,I felt we should revive this thread which has been inactive for a few weeks

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/8/prweb9823392.htm

It does mention Ms.Lofgren which we expected given her support for the Bill and the fact that she represents the constituency in San Jose. But no other lawmakers names attending this summit are available especially Senators.

Also no discussion in this forum yet about the proposed LCA changes for which the public comment period is about to end.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3762...lexibility.htm

http://www.business-standard.com/ind...-firms/483993/

These are independent of the proposed amendments from Sen.Grassley.Kd had brought this up briefly on one of the threads but went no further. It is tough to decide which of these sets of proposals are bad but in combination,the effect on Indian immigration would be devastating

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

I came across this article and as the summer recess in congress is drawing to a close,I felt we should revive this thread which has been inactive for a few weeks

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/8/prweb9823392.htm

It does mention Ms.Lofgren which we expected given her support for the Bill and the fact that she represents the constituency in San Jose. But no other lawmakers names attending this summit are available especially Senators.

Also no discussion in this forum yet about the proposed LCA changes for which the public comment period is about to end.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3762...lexibility.htm

http://www.business-standard.com/ind...-firms/483993/

These are independent of the proposed amendments from Sen.Grassley.Kd had brought this up briefly on one of the threads but went no further. It is tough to decide which of these sets of proposals are bad but in combination,the effect on Indian immigration would be devastating

---

Devastating might be too strong. It will be painful from an administrative standpoint but if there's demand, ppl will figure out a solution. There might be a lot more off-shoring which is not good for the US economy and if Obama has his way, there will be penalties, which might be an incentive to deal with the issues. It will also expose some questionable practices that these firms use which is always a good thing.

Good to see some post after a long time. Do these changes not require any house or senate approval ? If not, I wonder why Grassley had to fight so hard. He could have easily done this through backdoor. This is indeed going to have bad impact on firms who work on EC or EVC model. In a way, H1B LCA is becoming like PERM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

Devastating might be too strong. It will be painful from an administrative standpoint but if there's demand, ppl will figure out a solution. There might be a lot more off-shoring which is not good for the US economy and if Obama has his way, there will be penalties, which might be an incentive to deal with the issues. It will also expose some questionable practices that these firms use which is always a good thing.

---

I am not sure how credible this story is but this was posted by a forum member on trackitt

""Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I believe current U.S. immigration law is unsatisfactory in many ways, ranging from illegal immigration to arbitrary limitations on admissions of highly skilled professionals needed by U.S. businesses.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allocates 140,000 visas annually for employment-based legal permanent residents (LPRs). They made up 14.2% of the total 1 million LPRs in fiscal year 2010. The INA also includes an annual, country-specific limit of 7% of total U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits, or country caps.

On September 22, 2011, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced H.R. 3012, which would eliminate country-specific numerical restrictions on permanent employment-based admissions. It would also raise the per-country cap on family-based immigration from 7% to 15% over several years.

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,"

The name of the Senator was not mentioned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

I am not sure how credible this story is but this was posted by a forum member on trackitt

""Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I believe current U.S. immigration law is unsatisfactory in many ways, ranging from illegal immigration to arbitrary limitations on admissions of highly skilled professionals needed by U.S. businesses.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allocates 140,000 visas annually for employment-based legal permanent residents (LPRs). They made up 14.2% of the total 1 million LPRs in fiscal year 2010. The INA also includes an annual, country-specific limit of 7% of total U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits, or country caps.

On September 22, 2011, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced H.R. 3012, which would eliminate country-specific numerical restrictions on permanent employment-based admissions. It would also raise the per-country cap on family-based immigration from 7% to 15% over several years.

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,"

The name of the Senator was not mentioned

---

If this story is real, than it would probably be the end of the road for this bill for this year. There is complete uncertainty about what will happen next year with the new Congress. Whoever wins, I just wish that they control both House and Senate instead of a House controlled by Republicans and Senate controlled by Democrats or vice versa. Almost everything has been stalled in last 4 years in Washington because of this situation.

I wish the sanity prevails in the end so we can get out of this backlog.

Lets see what happens in the September session, especially after the ** rally in San Jose. Frankly, I don't have much hopes unless a miracle happens.