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

Perhaps, best to move most of this last page into the 'left vs. right' thread.

To those on the left attacking Obama for being too far to the right, i agree with your concerns. I don't understand how people in the center can simultaneously attack him for being too far to the left. I am not a 'dyed-in-the-wool-liberal'. I have always been a moderate, and I like where Obama has stood all through these last 4 years. I think Obama has ranged between slightly left of center to slightly right of center on pretty much everything. Slightly right of center on things like drone strikes, medical marijuana, record deportations, and infact, Health care reform. Slightly left of center with the stimulus, Lilly-Ledbetter, energy policy and financial sector regulations. With the exception of the financial sector regulations, which I think Congress fluffed (not just him, by going too far on some regulations and not far enough on others) I think he's got it right every time.

However, I support Obama because Obamacare benefits me personally, and it will benefit most of you too. When you become citizens, if you want your parents to get their GCs and spend considerable periods of time in the US, the travelers insurance they use now will be insufficient. Your parents will not qualify for free Medicare or Medicaid and there is a 5 year period (until they become citizens) when they will not be able to buy into Medicare. Currently, insurance options for them are a) expensive and b) don't cover pre-existing conditions (if your parents have either diabetese or high blood pressure, basically all it covers are broken bones and little else) and c) have limited coverage ($50K for folks like my dad who are over 73). Right now, my parents do not want to spend much time in the US because of this. They don't want a significant health event to end up bankrupting my brother and me. If Obama wins, that worry ends. With Obamacare, starting in 2014, they will have have insurance that will take care of b) and c). Republicans argue that the coverage will still be expensive, but Democrats and many independent studies argue that prices will trend down. Eitherway, even if i have to spend$2000 a month on insurance, I will save most of that through nanny-cost / day-care savings.

For me the choice is both simple and personal. If Obama wins, my parents move to the US in 2014 and live with us (they already have their GCs, btw since my brother is a citizen). If Romney wins, I will get to spend less time with them. I suspect, this will be true for most of you, at some point in the future. You're just not aware of it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

Perhaps, best to move most of this last page into the 'left vs. right' thread.

To those on the left attacking Obama for being too far to the right, i agree with your concerns. I don't understand how people in the center can simultaneously attack him for being too far to the left. I am not a 'dyed-in-the-wool-liberal'. I have always been a moderate, and I like where Obama has stood all through these last 4 years. I think Obama has ranged between slightly left of center to slightly right of center on pretty much everything. Slightly right of center on things like drone strikes, medical marijuana, record deportations, and infact, Health care reform. Slightly left of center with the stimulus, Lilly-Ledbetter, energy policy and financial sector regulations. With the exception of the financial sector regulations, which I think Congress fluffed (not just him, by going too far on some regulations and not far enough on others) I think he's got it right every time.

However, I support Obama because Obamacare benefits me personally, and it will benefit most of you too. When you become citizens, if you want your parents to get their GCs and spend considerable periods of time in the US, the travelers insurance they use now will be insufficient. Your parents will not qualify for free Medicare or Medicaid and there is a 5 year period (until they become citizens) when they will not be able to buy into Medicare. Currently, insurance options for them are a) expensive and b) don't cover pre-existing conditions (if your parents have either diabetese or high blood pressure, basically all it covers are broken bones and little else) and c) have limited coverage ($50K for folks like my dad who are over 73). Right now, my parents do not want to spend much time in the US because of this. They don't want a significant health event to end up bankrupting my brother and me. If Obama wins, that worry ends. With Obamacare, starting in 2014, they will have have insurance that will take care of b) and c). Republicans argue that the coverage will still be expensive, but Democrats and many independent studies argue that prices will trend down. Eitherway, even if i have to spend$2000 a month on insurance, I will save most of that through nanny-cost / day-care savings.

For me the choice is both simple and personal. If Obama wins, my parents move to the US in 2014 and live with us (they already have their GCs, btw since my brother is a citizen). If Romney wins, I will get to spend less time with them. I suspect, this will be true for most of you, at some point in the future. You're just not aware of it yet.

---

Time will tell how beneficial it is going to be but that was not the discussion topic of this thread in last page. The point was his immigration policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

I am absolutely fine with Obama granting EADs to DREAM kids while the legal immigration is in limbo. I can understand it.

---

I am not. It is rank cowardice. For that matter, he could lean on the DOS (a branch of the Executive, mind you) to make all dates temporarily current for a month or two to get all legal immigrants EADs. It would be fair then...

Thanks Pedro for the thoughtful post.

Despite all the criticism of Obama, if he wins and then when the dust settles on his 8 years as the President, I think he would be considered one of the great ones - surely on par with LBJ and FDR. Remember that Lincoln was not quite liked much either when he was running for his second term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

Perhaps, best to move most of this last page into the 'left vs. right' thread.

To those on the left attacking Obama for being too far to the right, i agree with your concerns. I don't understand how people in the center can simultaneously attack him for being too far to the left. I am not a 'dyed-in-the-wool-liberal'. I have always been a moderate, and I like where Obama has stood all through these last 4 years. I think Obama has ranged between slightly left of center to slightly right of center on pretty much everything. Slightly right of center on things like drone strikes, medical marijuana, record deportations, and infact, Health care reform. Slightly left of center with the stimulus, Lilly-Ledbetter, energy policy and financial sector regulations. With the exception of the financial sector regulations, which I think Congress fluffed (not just him, by going too far on some regulations and not far enough on others) I think he's got it right every time.

However, I support Obama because Obamacare benefits me personally, and it will benefit most of you too. When you become citizens, if you want your parents to get their GCs and spend considerable periods of time in the US, the travelers insurance they use now will be insufficient. Your parents will not qualify for free Medicare or Medicaid and there is a 5 year period (until they become citizens) when they will not be able to buy into Medicare. Currently, insurance options for them are a) expensive and b) don't cover pre-existing conditions (if your parents have either diabetese or high blood pressure, basically all it covers are broken bones and little else) and c) have limited coverage ($50K for folks like my dad who are over 73). Right now, my parents do not want to spend much time in the US because of this. They don't want a significant health event to end up bankrupting my brother and me. If Obama wins, that worry ends. With Obamacare, starting in 2014, they will have have insurance that will take care of b) and c). Republicans argue that the coverage will still be expensive, but Democrats and many independent studies argue that prices will trend down. Eitherway, even if i have to spend$2000 a month on insurance, I will save most of that through nanny-cost / day-care savings.

For me the choice is both simple and personal. If Obama wins, my parents move to the US in 2014 and live with us (they already have their GCs, btw since my brother is a citizen). If Romney wins, I will get to spend less time with them. I suspect, this will be true for most of you, at some point in the future. You're just not aware of it yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

I think we could keep talking about this from our point of view, but we need to consider the administration point of view and the national interest.

I have already explained that by granting the EADs to the DREAMers, the government can collect taxes. Also, in a free and open society, we should not have a large segment of disenfranchised population in the long term as well. EADs to the DREAMers is a first step in that direction.

By contrast, H1Bs are already taxed and they already have all the rights and get all the benefits (sans the voting rights) that American citizens get. Making the dates current for us simply creates more overhead for the USCIS and they get nothing in the long run (not even the EAD renewal revenue). If I were working in the USCIS and if I had the visibility into the DOS policies, I would be extremely pissed if the dates were made current because it means more work and headaches for me.

I agree that dependent EADs can make a huge difference, and I do sympathize with those who don't have it. However, having gone through great troubles (by temporarily breaking our family apart while my wife moved and worked in India with our daughter while I stayed back) to make other options available to ourselves, I feel those options are available to everyone. In the end, those who *want and can* *will and do*.

---

To say that H1bs have all the rights of American citizens except voting can not be further from the truth. H1b is dependent on his employer to stay in this country. The day he goes out of job, he can no longer stay here or for some reason USCIS or Dos decides that they are not going to approve h1b extension or transfer, that person can not stay. So his existence is dependent on various factors. That is not true for American citizen. When you are talking about revenue in the form of tax, you are only looking at the revenue from the salary tax. When temporary worker becomes permanent citizen, he is surely going to make more investments and revenue is going to increase in different for of taxes. I absolutely do not believe that giving EAD to illegal was because of national interest. If that was the case, there was no need to wait till election. It could have been done much in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

With due respect, I am talking of civil rights and liberties.

---

You and I normally agree on things, but with all due respect you have no idea what you are talking about. Non-US citizens no longer have customary due process rights or habeaus corpus which is a pretty big deal and goes right to the heart of civil rights and liberties, if not fundamental rights. In theory you are also required to carry your papers at all times - I don't think it can get more draconian than that.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol...dead037877.php

That completely eviscerates your argument, which was weak as it is since, as already mentioned, H1Bs have employer mobility as most USCs do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

Let me understand this clearly. Has any one of us have carried all our papers in the US ever? Let us say in a hypothetical situation, you are arrested for failure to carry your papers. Do you really think they can lock you away?

I have read the famous *1984* and have been greatly influenced by it at one time. I am however wised up and I believe such a draconian government will not arise. Human beings are not machines, and the *lines of reason* are not breached in a functioning society. Hence, I leave the Habues Corpus issue at the door. You are technically right (as the president was technically right on the *Libya terror* issue), but it's not the whole truth.

My point was only this: An illegal lives in fear of deportation every day. An illegal is breaking law every day by accruing illegal presence and getting paid illegally. The government can practically seize all his/her assets and send him/her out. That cannot happen with us. Hence, I find it far fetched to compare our predicaments to the illegals. Yes, we have problems, but a little context please?

---

Civil rights exist precisely for such 'hypotheticals'. If civil rights didn't exist, such hypotheticals would be routine occurrences. In fact some already are despite laws to the contrary.

If you had actually wised up after reading 1984 you would realize that civil liberties are rapidly eroding around right before your eyes - the right to privacy, the right to a free and fair trial, the right to just and reasonable punishment, existence of probable cause for searches, etc. Go read about the NDAA and Hedges vs. Obama and other violations of civil liberties and then come back and tell me that the government won't persecute (or prosecute) you for what is essentially thoughtcrime.

How would you feel about attending an Occupy Wall St. protest as a H1B? What if they arrest you and charge you with something just for being in a park and supporting those kids? Does it reduce your motivation to participate? That's direct suppression of your 1st Amendment (which thankfully is still guaranteed to everyone on US soil regardless of their citizenship) right there. Good luck trying to fight the system on that. Civil rights are eroded in small pernicious ways that in aggregate result in a large scale impact to what the populace can and cannot do.

Anyway, it's hard to argue with someone who simply wants to ignore the facts.

And re illegals, it is a choice they make. I am not asking them to make that choice. They made it and they can live with the consequences of their actions. It's really not my problem. That is the brutal reality. (I'm not talking about DREAMers here, I mean the original illegal that migrated.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

With due respect, I am talking of civil rights and liberties. OF COURSE an H1B is stuck to the employer because the EMPLOYER PETITIONS FOR HIM/HER. If I was your employer and you ran after the first green field after I petitioned for you, I would be pissed (and somehow I have a feeling I am not alone in this rational judgment). Think about your H1B job as an apprenticeship if it helps.

Have you ever heard that there are self petitions that are independent of the employers? They are called EB2-NIW and EB1A.

If you don't buy a house today, you will pay rent or buy a house tomorrow. You will buy your groceries. You will send your kids to day cares/pre schools. You will take vacations. You pay taxes. So my friend, you are *already investing* and just because a few thousand legal immigrants in the US are not going to buy houses today is not going to budge the administration into granting us additional green cards.

I have already explained many times giving EADs to illegals is beneficial to the nation. Can you refute the specific points? Will the administration not gain additional tax revenue? As for its timing, sure, it is politically motivated. So what?

---

I guess summary here is: fixing legal immigration is not in national interest and fixing illegal immigration is in national interest.

Ironically - that is actually true for a variety of reasons: some rational some irrational:

1. The power of numbers. Legal backlogs runs into a few hundred thousands max. Illegal one is in millions.
2. The political expediency - Legal ones don't influence politics. Illegal ones do.
3. The job situation - illegal ones already have illegal jobs and are not pereceived to be taking jobs away. While legal immigration is attacked for jobs going to India or China or whatever.
4. Value / or Loss due to legal immigration backlog hasn't been demonstrated anywhere by anybody. Its anecdotal at best e.g. Bill gates talking about it. But how do you value 60K EB2 and EB3 bright people rotting in immigration pipeline? So unless somebody demonstrates that and makes a case for it is not going to make anybody believe that it is more important than the big numbered illegal alien backlog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

I guess summary here is: fixing legal immigration is not in national interest and fixing illegal immigration is in national interest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

You have got it absolutely right. That is the gist of my argument, and however all of us do not like it, it is the truth.

---

I guess you will at least have Grassley as one taker of this argument :)

I guess you will at least have Grassley as one taker of this argument :). Correction here, he won't agree about illegal part. But at least you got 50% vote for legal immigration from him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

What does Grassley have to do with anything? You seem to be a big fan of captain Irrelevant Random.

---

Grassley opposes legal immigration just like you who says it is not in national interest. Btw, do you support or oppose HR 3012? HR 3012 makes it easier for people to get green card. So, according to your logic, you should oppose it since it is not in national interest. And going further by that logic, there should not be any green card number available. That way, people will stay on H1, EAD which will be good for national interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

Let me clarify for your benefit:

I have taken a Devil's advocate position and I have put out a thought by *PRETENDING* to be an AMERICAN LAWMAKER. Now, I have 2 problems: Legal immigration and illegal immigration. By being a Devil's advocate, I contend that the lawmaker will first attempt to fix the illegal immigration problem. Read Q's post above to understand the points he has made.

Now, I am no longer a Devil's advocate. I am a legal immigrant and I support legal immigration 100%. I have posted so many times IN FAVOR of HR 3012 on all possible forums, did my rounds of phone calls, went to the senators offices last year and early this year, and my stance here is nothing short of well known.

If you haven't followed my posts, I ask you try to do this and get a little bit of context. Once you have the context, you will realize your first statement is utterly false and you had no idea what you were talking about.

---

Legal immigration is not in national interest is devil's advocate opinion or your opinion ?

Pl keep the discussion objective rather than personal.

You can count me as supporter of Grassley on strict control of H1B.

We are forgetting that by H1B, we are getting very many special privilages than any other country in the world.

Only the issue is that with H1B, you have to have a job all the times. But that is the aspect of H1B-temperory worker in a special skills category and and nothing more.

Or else, you can come with extraordinary special catogory skills without any job ! No objection!

Frankly, once the H1B skills are avaiable locally, they are no longer needed and hence the 6 years limit rightly put.

Due to the dual intent nature, H1Bs can also apply for GC and that should be considered as an advantage as against other counries for eg. Middle East where people would stay only temperorily even for 10-15 years with the intent of going back to the home country.

As per the waiting times/Visa number increase etc. for EB2 and EB3, it is to be decided and guided by US economy,growth factors and local people.

If one thinks 10 years tax paying H1B with without GC is very hard.
But if so- why so many applicants for H1B in 2007/2008 even resulting in lottery.

it shows that despite all this, people still prefer this route of H1B to GC.
With recent 2007 and 2010 alloting EAD's you can not complain as it gave us a very good opportunity to stay on AOS even without job.

What more one would expect? dole and food stamps? like they do it in NZ and AUS but no jobs even for doctors who have to resort to driving cabs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

I guess you will at least have Grassley as one taker of this argument :). Correction here, he won't agree about illegal part. But at least you got 50% vote for legal immigration from him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bvsamrat

You can count me as supporter of Grassley on strict control of H1B.

We are forgetting that by H1B, we are getting very many special privilages than any other country in the world.

Only the issue is that with H1B, you have to have a job all the times. But that is the aspect of H1B-temperory worker in a special skills category and and nothing more.

Or else, you can come with extraordinary special catogory skills without any job ! No objection!

Frankly, once the H1B skills are avaiable locally, they are no longer needed and hence the 6 years limit rightly put.

Due to the dual intent nature, H1Bs can also apply for GC and that should be considered as an advantage as against other counries for eg. Middle East where people would stay only temperorily even for 10-15 years with the intent of going back to the home country.

As per the waiting times/Visa number increase etc. for EB2 and EB3, it is to be decided and guided by US economy,growth factors and local people.

If one thinks 10 years tax paying H1B with without GC is very hard.
But if so- why so many applicants for H1B in 2007/2008 even resulting in lottery.

it shows that despite all this, people still prefer this route of H1B to GC.
With recent 2007 and 2010 alloting EAD's you can not complain as it gave us a very good opportunity to stay on AOS even without job.

What more one would expect? dole and food stamps? like they do it in NZ and AUS but no jobs even for doctors who have to resort to driving cabs?

---

Summary from your post is: H1b is very good visa and if one is asking for faster GC, he is asking too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

My wish: Legal immigration should be the prime focus over all immigration related issues in the US.

The reality: Legal immigration is the last thing (and hence it is the least priority issue) on the lawmakers agenda.

My opinion: Fixing the legal immigration is NOT in the national interest. Fixing the illegal immigration IS in the national interest.

My devil's advocate position: I am a US lawmaker. If I belong to the tea party, I want to send all illegals home. If I am a moderate, I want to get the illegals in the mainstream. If I am a bleeding heart liberal, I want to pass the DREAM. Legal immigration? What the hell is that? Don't these people have enough privileges already? OK, let's think about this illegal problem more.

My position on immigration issues:
a. Support HR 3012 unquestioningly. Hates the fact of the large spread between waiting times of the ROWers and Indians.
b. Support EADs for H4 spouses (whose primaries have i140 clear) and think this should be one of the top priority items should HR 3012 fail.
c. Do not have enough information on Grassley's H1B proposal to form judgment. On surface, I support tightening the screws to stop the H1B abuse.
d. Support the STEM bill very strongly.
e. Eager to learn and educate others seeking information.

---

Ok, so your opinion is solving legal immigration problem is not in national interest but your wish is it should be solved. Did I get it right ?

So what will Ron Gotcher do now :). Did you use EAD or H1-B. I didn't realize there was a shortage in this category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

I have taken a Devil's advocate position

---

Stopping illegal immigration is like trying to hold a paper cup under a faucet. The focus needs to be on slowing down influx through border protection and legalizing the DREAMers. Without illegal immigration, a lot of the menial jobs will not be done in a cheap manner. So the cosy of your lawn care goes up, your nanny or housekeeper gets too expensive, etc etc.

I'm not in favor of solving illegal before legal but the reality is that it is a bigger problem in terms of sheet numbers. Plus it's a political play.

Not directly related to the topic at hand, but the Wadhwa report released by the Kaufmann foundation (summarized in this Murthy memo here: http://www.murthy.com/2012/10/23/kau...among-indians/) has some interesting points.

Quote:

---

Indian entrepreneurs rank first among immigrants that have founded companies since 2006, in high-tech industries like bioscience, computers and communications, innovation and manufacturing, semiconductors, software, defense / aerospace, and environmental products and services.

Several other findings underscore the pivotal role played by Indian entrepreneurs in the engineering and technology sectors, during the 2006-2012 period studied by the Kauffman team:

Indians continue to be at the forefront of immigrant-led entrepreneurship.
Of the total of immigrant-founded [engineering and technology] companies, 33.2% had Indian founders, up about 7% from 2005. Indians have founded more such companies than immigrants born in the next top seven immigrant-founder-sending countries combined.
The top ten sending countries of immigrant entrepreneurs in descending order were India (33.2%), China (8.1%), the United Kingdom (6.3%), Canada (4.2%), Germany (3.9%), Israel (3.5%), Russia (2.4%), Korea (2.2%), Australia (2.0%) and the Netherlands (2.0%).

---

I don't endorse anyone engaging in the time consuming India vs. ROW debates, but to those of you who do, this may help combat the "Indians are all frauds" argument. To be clear, the numbers above probably mirror the % of EB visas given to each of these countries, so it would not support an "Indians are the best" argument either. It would however support an argument that, as a group, Indians pull their weight in terms of job creation, so a switch to a FIFO distribution of visa numbers and the resulting increase in Indians getting GCs at the expense of ROWers will not result in a change in numbers of jobs created in the US economy.

Yes this was brought up in one of the Ron's forum too. But you can't appeal to logical faculties of people who are happy for the benefit they have now and want to preserve it. The typical response in such cases is that they would denounce the whole class of people who are pressing for equity. A good example of Consistency Theory in Psychology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kkruna

Yes this was brought up in one of the Ron's forum too. But you can't appeal to logical faculties of people who are happy for the benefit they have now and want to preserve it. The typical response in such cases is that they would denounce the whole class of people who are pressing for equity. A good example of Consistency Theory in Psychology.

---

Exactly for the same reason, I have stopped writing anything on Ron's forum. That forum is now filled with narcissists, whiners and Indian haters. People, who tried to fight back HR3012 and could not even gather 50 people on their forum (sorry organization) are acting like messiah of ROW. Funny thing is they still are using Ron's forum as nobody cares about their own. Typical armchair quarterbacks :cool:

In Ron's Forum only 5 people are more active and another 5 may be active little bit. Yes Row does not have numbers now. Ron himself is supporting country quota removal but he prefers to do with recapture so that impact will be minimal for Row. So Row opposition does not make or break Hr 3012 as they have a few in number. Even in future years they cannot organise 50 people. But I suspect Senators themselves are hesitant on Hr 3012 or country quota removal. If that is the case then country quota removal will always distance dream. We will get indication by the end of the year. Or some invisible forces are behind the stalling of the bill. There are many other organizations may be lobbying against the bill(of course nothing was shown in the paper). Infact healthcare lobby(manily nurses) is strong always. Hr 3012 is against their interests. Of course AILA and some companies were not that much active after Grassley amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vrs7734

Exactly for the same reason, I have stopped writing anything on Ron's forum. That forum is now filled with narcissists, whiners and Indian haters. People, who tried to fight back HR3012 and could not even gather 50 people on their forum (sorry organization) are acting like messiah of ROW. Funny thing is they still are using Ron's forum as nobody cares about their own. Typical armchair quarterbacks :cool:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramsen

In Ron's Forum only 5 people are more active and another 5 may be active little bit. Yes Row does not have numbers now. Ron himself is supporting country quota removal but he prefers to do with recapture so that impact will be minimal for Row. So Row opposition does not make or break Hr 3012 as they have a few in number. Even in future years they cannot organise 50 people. But I suspect Senators themselves are hesitant on Hr 3012 or country quota removal. If that is the case then country quota removal will always distance dream. We will get indication by the end of the year. Or some invisible forces are behind the stalling of the bill. There are many other organizations may be lobbying against the bill(of course nothing was shown in the paper). Infact healthcare lobby(manily nurses) is strong always. Hr 3012 is against their interests. Of course AILA and some companies were not that much active after Grassley amendment.

---

I used to be active on Ron's forum but later gave up because that got crowded with ROWers whose only goal in life was opposing HR 3012. And I do not blame them because it is like snatching benefit from them which they already have however unfair it might be. We would do same if we were in that situation. Now, coming to HR 3012, I do not think senators in principle would be opposed to country quota removal. If that was the case, we would not have seen any progress on the bill after it reached senate. Till Grassley removed hold from the bill, we were periodically seeing some news on this. I think something happened after he removed the hold. There might be senators or other lobbyists who are against Grassley's amendments and because the positions is take that it would be passed with unanimous consent, it may not be moving forward. This is my guess from the events that have happened.

Recently, I got same feeling at Ron site.. I will never return to that site..
You guys are very balanced here and do very good mathematical prediction on movements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

Not directly related to the topic at hand, but the Wadhwa report released by the Kaufmann foundation (summarized in this Murthy memo here: http://www.murthy.com/2012/10/23/kau...among-indians/) has some interesting points.



I don't endorse anyone engaging in the time consuming India vs. ROW debates, but to those of you who do, this may help combat the "Indians are all frauds" argument. To be clear, the numbers above probably mirror the % of EB visas given to each of these countries, so it would not support an "Indians are the best" argument either. It would however support an argument that, as a group, Indians pull their weight in terms of job creation, so a switch to a FIFO distribution of visa numbers and the resulting increase in Indians getting GCs at the expense of ROWers will not result in a change in numbers of jobs created in the US economy.

---

You'd somehow have to segment founders a % of total immigrants by year. My contention is that that percentage has declined over time for Indians. Most Indians smart enough to set up companies these days GO BACK because they can't be bothered to wait here for 5 years before getting a GC. Basically if you are an Indian immigrant today, you can't set up a company! You have to wait 5+ years for a GC. So I'm pretty sure that Wadhwa's immigrant founders migrated when times were better and waits were shorter...

good article on how Obama and Romney both are either ignorant or lying about the EB immigration.

http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?7...y-Mike-Hammond

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

good article on how Obama and Romney both are either ignorant or lying about the EB immigration.

http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?7...y-Mike-Hammond

---

Raises some good and obvious points. I'm sure that the fine folk here could design a better policy than any of the two idiots running for President. (There I said it, I do think both of them are idiots.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

My contention is that that percentage has declined over time for Indians. Most Indians smart enough to set up companies these days GO BACK because they can't be bothered to wait here for 5 years before getting a GC.

---

Not necessarily .. Even if someone is smart enough to set up a company, he/she may need the experience to pull it off, not to mention the funding. If 5 years is the timeline for a GC, it is a good enough time to get the know-how and find the avenues for funding your own enterprise.

Moreover, most people realize that they can set up their own shop AFTER working for some organization. Few are those that go on their own right out of the college.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdfeb09

Not necessarily .. Even if someone is smart enough to set up a company, he/she may need the experience to pull it off, not to mention the funding. If 5 years is the timeline for a GC, it is a good enough time to get the know-how and find the avenues for funding your own enterprise.

Moreover, most people realize that they can set up their own shop AFTER working for some organization. Few are those that go on their own right out of the college.

---

My point is that if you have a great idea today, you are not going to wait five years to execute on it. A lot of people talk about getting experience, skills, blah, blah, blah by working at some established company for X number of years. I think real entrepreneurs just go out and start their company instead. In other words, talkers talk and doers do. The really successful entreprenuers just go and start companies and take their lumps as they come, while the talkers keep talking about how they'll have the experience, skills, network, funding, etc. someday to maybe start a company. That day usually never comes...I know too many people like that (I'm probably like that too though I like to think things might have been different if I had a GC when I was in college - though that's a lame excuse).

Oh, and the really smart guys don't let funding get in the way. They beg, borrow and steal to make it happen. There's a great story about how the airbnb founders sold cereal to raise money...but you can't really do that on a H1 or a F1. So good luck. You can't even quit your job...

Yes. If one can wait for 5-10 years for a GC, we know what they in for! Career or other things?. 10 years is a long time to loose a career of one's dreams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdfeb09

Not necessarily .. Even if someone is smart enough to set up a company, he/she may need the experience to pull it off, not to mention the funding. If 5 years is the timeline for a GC, it is a good enough time to get the know-how and find the avenues for funding your own enterprise.

Moreover, most people realize that they can set up their own shop AFTER working for some organization. Few are those that go on their own right out of the college.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

My point is that if you have a great idea today, you are not going to wait five years to execute on it.

---

And my point was, many people get the idea that they can turn into a successful business after working for a while and not out of college directly. There are not many Zuckerbergs or Bill Gates .. there are some and they probably don't even come here ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdfeb09

And my point was, many people get the idea that they can turn into a successful business after working for a while and not out of college directly. There are not many Zuckerbergs or Bill Gates .. there are some and they probably don't even come here ...

---

I just think what you are proposing is preposterous. If you wait 5-7 years for a GC to start a business (usually technology), your idea is probably outdated and irrelevant by then if someone else hasn't already done it. Why is it so hard to recognize that the lack of a GC is a huge impediment to starting a business?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

You'd somehow have to segment founders a % of total immigrants by year. My contention is that that percentage has declined over time for Indians. Most Indians smart enough to set up companies these days GO BACK because they can't be bothered to wait here for 5 years before getting a GC. Basically if you are an Indian immigrant today, you can't set up a company! You have to wait 5+ years for a GC. So I'm pretty sure that Wadhwa's immigrant founders migrated when times were better and waits were shorter...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdfeb09

Not necessarily .. Even if someone is smart enough to set up a company, he/she may need the experience to pull it off, not to mention the funding. If 5 years is the timeline for a GC, it is a good enough time to get the know-how and find the avenues for funding your own enterprise.

Moreover, most people realize that they can set up their own shop AFTER working for some organization. Few are those that go on their own right out of the college.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

I just think what you are proposing is preposterous. If you wait 5-7 years for a GC to start a business (usually technology), your idea is probably outdated and irrelevant by then if someone else hasn't already done it. Why is it so hard to recognize that the lack of a GC is a huge impediment to starting a business?

---

Let's back up a little bit. You said that you think the proportion of people that can be successful business people has gone down because of the time it takes to get the GC.

All I was saying was, there are many people who can start and sustain a successful business, but many times it takes a few years for them to form and run with the idea. I was saying the proportion of people who can successfully establish and run a business has NOT gone down.

If you have an idea today and do not want to wait .. fine .. NOT having an idea for business right out of the school does NOT mean you are dumb .. !! as you tried to imply ...

BTW .. NO one denies that not having a GC is a huge impediment in starting a business if you have the idea !

my last on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

But Zuck and Gates (not a fan of them, and using them just for the debate) are the *outliers* and the human civilization has been shouldered 100% by the outliers.

I do agree to abcx - if you *have it*, you won't wait to get irrelevant experience and become a corporate slave. I am not sure if giving fast GCs is the answer, but the fact is that the current wait times are not making it easy. Many people find the infrastructure and endless possibilities when they come to the US. If they don't have immigration on their side, how are they going to turn those possibilities into reality?

P.S. About the abcx's original claim, I can't speak for the entrepreneurs, but I can speak for the really smart kids from India who used to come in hordes to the US schools in the 90s and early 00s. They are gone. They are not coming here any longer. The US is just not getting the cream at the top like it used to.

---

I'm not a fan of Zuck either but I think more highly of Gates (for better or worse, with his Gates Foundation work, he has cleansed his name, at least with me)! Nevertheless there are other more respectable/less controversial examples like Sergey Brin.

I think really smart kids from India still come here and the US still gets the cream compared to other countries but sadly a lot of these kids end up going back because of all the immigration hassles. I personally know of many who have already done so or refuse to get on the GC treadmill because they will go back after a couple of years anyway given the long wait. But I agree with you that most of the students who come these days seem to go the Tri-valley type diploma mills (just go hang out on trackitt for a while). In the long run this will probably reduce the high respect that Indians currently enjoy due to the hard work of all the IIT/IIM/AIIMS immigrants in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

There are other aspects of EB immigration other than the EB2-IC and EB3-I green card categories. H1B, L1, PERM filing, labor certification to name a few.

An argument could be made that massive backlogs exist BECAUSE the system is efficient. If PERM/labor was taking 3 to 5 years for everyone, EB1 and EB2-WW would never have a high usage, and EB2-I and even EB3-I would receive substantially more portion of the visas.

Obama could use his executive power to alleviate the backlog though. I am not sure what's the opinion of the people here - can he do it to stop counting dependents?

---

from the above list of H1B, L1, PERM filing, labor certification, which process is faster now under Obama compared to earlier ?

Very true

In olden times, toppers from most of the colleges and IITs end up in top US universities and hence the name and fame.

I also know quite a few IITians who recently got into the best universities, but went back immediately after seing the ground reality. Do not blame them. That's why I say STEM is the neeed and that to0 to the top US colleges only with good GPAs, if US needs to attract good brain power and would be enterprenuers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

I'm not a fan of Zuck either but I think more highly of Gates (for better or worse, with his Gates Foundation work, he has cleansed his name, at least with me)! Nevertheless there are other more respectable/less controversial examples like Sergey Brin.

I think really smart kids from India still come here and the US still gets the cream compared to other countries but sadly a lot of these kids end up going back because of all the immigration hassles. I personally know of many who have already done so or refuse to get on the GC treadmill because they will go back after a couple of years anyway given the long wait. But I agree with you that most of the students who come these days seem to go the Tri-valley type diploma mills (just go hang out on trackitt for a while). In the long run this will probably reduce the high respect that Indians currently enjoy due to the hard work of all the IIT/IIM/AIIMS immigrants in the past.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

H1B is more streamlined with a clear employee-employer relationship memo, and the USCIS/DOS seem to be weeding out the bad apples from the barrel. Also, the labor certifications are more scrutinized in the past. Finally, we all know the record speed at which the USCIS processed applications earlier this year that caused a retrogression so early.

I don't know if Obama is responsible for everything and not necessarily everything may be faster, but the USCIS did demonstrate early in the year that if it wanted, it could process thousands of applications in a relatively short time. Heck, most of the 485 filers this year received EAD/AP in LESS than 2 months. Less than 2m months I say, and in many cases, less than 45 days (it took me slightly over a month personally). So obviously, things have improved greatly than in the past, and this year's supposed *debacle* was far better managed than the 2007 chaos.

---

If processing 485 faster amounts to reducing backlog, I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

Is the backlog the problem of the White House? The president cannot just take an administrative order out of his hat and grant us more numbers. The Congress has to pass a law that he can only sign. The president can only *execute*...he cannot *enact*. Civics 101.

Also, supply-chain logistics clearly tell us that if the inventory is being processed very efficiently (fast processing of labor applications), and if the number of takers is limited (fixed number of visas), then the backlog will increase. In fact, to achieve backlog reduction, the USCIS had to be very inefficient. If they were taking 5 years to process an average labor certification versus 3 months, then you might see the EB2-I dates even current today.

Obama's claim is absolutely true and everyone on this board has witnessed the record speed at which their applications were processed. The backlog has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EFFICIENCY. It is purely a function of the supply of visas. It is a problem of the legislation, not of execution.

---

Don't disagree with anything you say except that I think Obama might be taking credit for something he personally had no hand in!

I believe not counting dependents can be done with an admin order according to Cyrus Mehta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

Is the backlog the problem of the White House? The president cannot just take an administrative order out of his hat and grant us more numbers. The Congress has to pass a law that he can only sign. The president can only *execute*...he cannot *enact*. Civics 101.

Also, supply-chain logistics clearly tell us that if the inventory is being processed very efficiently (fast processing of labor applications), and if the number of takers is limited (fixed number of visas), then the backlog will increase. In fact, to achieve backlog reduction, the USCIS had to be very inefficient. If they were taking 5 years to process an average labor certification versus 3 months, then you might see the EB2-I dates even current today.

Obama's claim is absolutely true and everyone on this board has witnessed the record speed at which their applications were processed. The backlog has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EFFICIENCY. It is purely a function of the supply of visas. It is a problem of the legislation, not of execution.

---

To the point 1: if that was the case, Obama would not have claimed that he did something to reduce backlog. Can he make executive order? I am not sure on what he can and what he can. But he very well demonstrated that by doing executive order on illegals. And he can certainly do for H4s. He promised comprehensive immigration bill in the first year when both senate and house had democrat majority. He could have very well pushed other legal immigration bills which would have got bipartisan support.[/I]

Point 2: This is unique and weird solution to the problem. But is has not been implemented that way. So, no point in talking about something which is not done and will not be done. We are talking about backlog here, not efficiency.[/I]

Point 3: May be everyone on this board have witnessed their 485 getting processed faster. But I am sure there will be hardly be people here who will agree that backlog is reduced. Because people are interested in how fast green card backlog is reduced. Not how fast their 485 is processed.