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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

Your original point was: "THE PRESIDENT IS LYING". I proved to you he can certainly take credit for faster processing if it happened under his rule. You can claim "but, but but...he didn't do anything", which could be true, or it could be not. There is no way to know.

You just do not seem to understand that the backlog has NOTHING to do with the president. And, EB1, and EB2-WW are clear winners of the increased efficiency as they do walk away with EADs in 1 month and GC in 6 months after their PERM is approved. So NOT EVERYONE will reach your conclusion. The backlog is only a problem of IC. Everyone else has a different tale to tell.

OF COURSE the backlog is more BECAUSE the system is efficient. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

My last post here. I am drawn into irrelevant side discussion again and again.

---

I said he is either ignorant or lying that his administration has reduced the backlog. You are trying to prove that he did so by faster processing of 485. Now, you can believe that faster processing of 485 reduces backlog, I do not. Now, your another point is that enhanced efficiency of PERM and I140 is increasing backlog for I/C. Has this efficiency increased under Obama? If yes, he can take credit that he reduced backlog for ROW. Not everyone will agree that backlog problem is there because only people who are affected will tell that. I believe on this forum most of the people are I/C. That's why I believe they will agree that backlog problem is not reduced. Just because you believe that others opinion is not relevant to the point you are talking does not make that irrelevant. The other side can also think same for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

It may be doable, but in my opinion, it's too risky and it doesn't help their election prospects in any way. I think a better solution is to invent the temporary W visa (that Lofgren had in one of the competing proposals during the early days of HR 3012) and push all dependents under FB altogether. It will still require an action from the Congress.

On the other hand, giving EADs to H4 dependents *should be* more doable. I am no law expert, but if DREAM kids can have EADs, certainly H4 depends too, and that could be a focus of immigration groups should HR 3012 fail. Contact the president directly and try to influence him - of course if it's doable via an executive order.

---

Moving dependents to FB is more difficult than 3012. Democrats care more about FB than EB. When moving dependent from EB to FB, that would mean eating FB quota which democrats are never going to agree to.

I agree with election politics reason about EAD for H4.

I see some people have visceral hatred of Obama. While anything and everything can be discussed on this forum - may i suggest that we take "I hate [Obama, Bush, Cheney, Romney, *]" kind of discussion to a thread by such name PLEASE.

Don't mean to offend anybody. Just saying that please open a thread for that kind of discussion if there interest in politics since most people on this thread are interested in understanding what's happening latest on various bills.

Rupen,

The basic issue is that your definition of backlog (which matches the definition of all of us on this forum) is different from the President's, the DoS or the USCIS definition. Their definition of backlog is, applications waiting to be processed BY THEM. Yours is applications awaiting green cards. The latter doesn't concern them. They're not in the business of providing green cards, they're in the business of processing applications for green cards. Your application and mine, was processed, we were provided our combo card and our names removed from the backlog. In this respect, the President was neither lying, nor ignorant. His concern is just different from ours. If you want to attack his focus on healthcare reform instead of comprehensive immigration reform in 2009, that's a different point that probably deserves to be in another thread, as I stated a week ago and Q has repeated today.

Earlier I read that few important immigration bills were passsed during lame duck session. will there be any such luck for HR-3012?. Is it still under consideration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

Rupen,

The basic issue is that your definition of backlog (which matches the definition of all of us on this forum) is different from the President's, the DoS or the USCIS definition. Their definition of backlog is, applications waiting to be processed BY THEM. Yours is applications awaiting green cards. The latter doesn't concern them. They're not in the business of providing green cards, they're in the business of processing applications for green cards. Your application and mine, was processed, we were provided our combo card and our names removed from the backlog. In this respect, the President was neither lying, nor ignorant. His concern is just different from ours. If you want to attack his focus on healthcare reform instead of comprehensive immigration reform in 2009, that's a different point that probably deserves to be in another thread, as I stated a week ago and Q has repeated today.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bvsamrat

Earlier I read that few important immigration bills were passsed during lame duck session. will there be any such luck for HR-3012?. Is it still under consideration?

---

I'd say there's a 20% chance, but i'm basing it on absolutely no information.

To bvsamrat
This article might interest you.As Pedro has mentioned there is a lot of speculation but no concrete information in this article

http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/arti...ck-session-yes

Another article on STEM visas-is there still hope?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/Last-Di...1.html?pos=hln

Also this link from the Boston globe

http://bostonglobe.com/business/2012...B1O/story.html

Sorry for multiple edits but it appears that the issue is still alive even amidst the cacophony of the elections

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...ust-agree.html

I think STEM has more chance of passing than HR3012. I also belive STEM brings more relief than to HR 3012.

STEM adds 55000 more GC's
HR 3012 doesn't add new GC's but will remove Country quota after x number of years.

Quote:

---

HR 3012 is still ahead in the legislation process than the STEM. During the heyday of HR 3012, there were more positive reports and yet, the bill has sputtered to the finish line. STEM has a long way to go.

---

In 2004, 20000 additional H1B bill was introduced in both house and senate at the same time during lame duck sessions. This year STEM was introduced by the Judicary comitte members in both House and senate, this is a good sign since they can influence the schedule of the bills to committe and outcome from the comitte.

Quote:

---

For EB2-IC, STEM provides minimal relief and the majority of the benefits are expected to go to EB3-ROW, who could be current with the next few years while EB2-IC continue to languish behind by several years. Unless country caps are removed, the EB2-IC backlog simply will not go away. If you are in EB2-IC, you should first support HR 3012 and then STEM.

---

Perhaps you should read the bill before making the statement, Bill says the job requirement should have requirement for higher education and person should do the masters in the US. I don't know what makes you think it is helping EB-3. If unused visas avaliable after giving visas to people who did their master's/Ph.d in then US, then they will give visas to people who did masters in foregin countries, if visas are avaliable then visas will be spilled over to Eb-1 to down.

Recently the USCI has changed the I140 application format, not sure if the cahnge in I140 is to streamline new STEM Process or just to streamline their own process.


I advise you to read the bill before making statements and passing wrong impressions.

My personal belief, I don't care who benifts or who don't, as long as the additional visas are granted and lines are moving fast than anticiapted/expected, the bill is good for the immigration community. Stop complaining and start working with your senators/house members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

Rupen,

The basic issue is that your definition of backlog (which matches the definition of all of us on this forum) is different from the President's, the DoS or the USCIS definition. Their definition of backlog is, applications waiting to be processed BY THEM. Yours is applications awaiting green cards. The latter doesn't concern them. They're not in the business of providing green cards, they're in the business of processing applications for green cards. Your application and mine, was processed, we were provided our combo card and our names removed from the backlog. In this respect, the President was neither lying, nor ignorant. His concern is just different from ours. If you want to attack his focus on healthcare reform instead of comprehensive immigration reform in 2009, that's a different point that probably deserves to be in another thread, as I stated a week ago and Q has repeated today.

---

People can twist the meaning of a word, the way it would suit them. If he had reduced green card backlog by bringing in CIR, he would have talked about that. But because he has not, he chose to change the meaning of the word. The immigration backlog would affect people who are in that pool. So, if some kind of poll was to be conducted, those would be the people who would be polled. Among those people, you will hardly find people who would say backlog is reduced. Even by USCIS definition of backlog, the backlog is not reduced. H1b application is taking record time now than ever before. Unless, we are talking about I140 processing backlog, I do not know any other things where backlog is reduced. I never wanted to address healthcare issue in this forum and did not raise the point until some started talking about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

To bvsamrat
This article might interest you.As Pedro has mentioned there is a lot of speculation but no concrete information in this article

http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/arti...ck-session-yes

---

This article seems to suggest that some employers are opposing 3012 because it would create backlog for other countries and to counter balance that STEM bill is introduced. However, I do not know why they did not oppose initially and chose to oppose later.

To sportsfan33

I agree on your assessment about the odds of HR 3012 vs STEM Act. The only point of concern is that the same players in the 3012 game (Smith/Lofgren/Schumer etc) who agreed to eliminate country caps about 1 year ago( it has been that long since 3012 cleared the House) seem to have no qualms in including country caps in their STEM legislation. Has there been a re-consideration of the wisdom of country cap elimination or is this just a start and when some version of 3012 passes they feel it would apply to STEM also?

On the topic of STEM the article linked below is an interesting read and shows how hard it is to change anything immigration-related in America

http://betabeat.com/2012/09/schumer-...eral-assembly/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

And it still does not change the fact that HR 3012 is ahead in the legislative process.


Boy oh boy. I really love it when people make such statements that make them look stupid later on.



EXACTLY. And it is well known that plenty of people in EB3-ROW have masters degrees or higher, because it is an open secret that EB3-ROW still hasn't mastered the art of inflating the job requirements and pass it as EB2.



The point is that EB3-ROW will have sufficient demand to nearly consume the additional STEM visas because we know that plenty of people in EB3-ROW have Masters and higher. There will be hardly any spillover because EB3-ROW by all accounts has tremendous demand that will be visible once the dates cross August 2007.



Huh?



And my advice is to think and do your research before passing judgments.



By all means, work with your senators, rally, get the STEM bill passed and watch EB3-ROW becoming current and EB2-I lagging behind 7 years. Please come back and tell us how you feel about an EB3-ROW co-worker getting cool jobs and opportunities while you remain stuck in a rut. There is no way I am wasting my time with the STEM bill until the country caps are lifted because it does nothing to improve EB2-I backlog.

---

Can you tell me what is difference between EB2 vs EB3? if the job requirement has Masters or higher it is default EB2. So if you think EB3 Row will use STEM Bill, help me understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

You keep asking for the moon consistently, and you will never get the moon. The US is not in the business of giving a green card to everyone who wants to apply. Nearly the entire world (and especially even Europe now) is in a worse place, so everyone would like to immigrate. But everyone can't - it has to be done under a quota.

The link that was pointed to by a lawyer was not correct, because the lawyer also wanted to ask for the moon, and there is no moon to be had here.

The only way to eliminate backlog (the way you define the backlog) is HR 3012. It makes the field even and eliminates GREAT VARIANCES from the system. If the system had no variance and was predictable, everyone will accept it and will move on.

The US president cannot pass HR 3012. He can only sign a law that could be passed by the Congress.

Finally, a good number of H1B applications are flatly denied or delayed because of the blatant misuse of the EVC model. I say, good riddance. H1B is a "good intent and faith" based visa, and those words do not rhyme with "desi body shop". If these bad apples are thrown out of the barrel, it will make things for legit people. I for instance, have never had H1B stamping issues (4 times and counting) at consulates in Canada and India.

---

Why do you want moon then by passing HR 3012 ?

You seem to be suggesting that president is helpless unless congress acts. This can not be more further from the truth. He certainly has the ability to influence congress. In case of Hr 3012, all that was needed was the commitment at upper leadership to push it. If it was put up for the vote, it would have been passed by now. If he had put CIR in first 2 years when democrats where in absolute majority, we would not be talking about this now assuming CIR included legal immigration.

On H1b, you are suggesting that denials and delays are for EVC model. While I agree for denials, I do not agree for delays. Even for direct employer-employee relationship, it is taking longer time then any time ever before. And why does EVC model still exist if USCIS wants to eliminate it ?

sportsfan - this is a great post because it clearly lays out how HR3012 is different from STEM (at least from EBIC perspective). How confident you are about this? Anybody else who can corroborate this?

We should probably create a separate thread to lay this difference out very clearly in front of all EB folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

A person does not need EB2 categorization to apply in EB6 (the new proposed STEM category). By definition, a person who has a Masters or higher will be eligible for EB6. Also, this category is subject to 7%, so EB6-I will be 7% of 55K, which is around 3850.

Once this category comes into effect, everyone who is eligible in EB2 and EB3 will apply. Let's assume no one in EB2-ROW will apply because EB2-ROW is current. In that case, the bulk of the applicants will come from EB3-ROW. Since EB3-ROW demand is estimated to be far in excess of 55K, and since a good portion of those applicants are estimated to be STEM beneficiaries, we can very well project that when the category goes into effect, EB2-I will receive almost no spillover.

What's worse, even out of the extra 3850 numbers, some numbers might be taken by EB3-I. Some folks in EB3-I very well have Masters and above. So the net benefit to EB2-I is close to 3000 additional visas and *maybe* some more spillover (i.e. STEM eligible EB3-ROW folks who might have otherwise ported to EB2-ROW). I don't deny there is some benefit to EB2-I, but it is small in the grand scheme of things and I am not losing my sleep over it.

I hope the picture is clear to you now.

---

I think Pedro was the one who originally pointed out that the benefits of the STEM bill will mostly go to EB3-ROW. His and sportsfan's argument is that the new STEM visa does not require the job to ask for a MS degree, unlike the existing EB2 system where you don't automatically qualify for second preference just by virtue of having a MS, the job has to require it too. I've never seen the part of the bill that this is waived for the proposed STEM visa.

I don't think the intent of the bill is to have STEM MS holders working at a car wash or a Dunkin' Donuts, which is precisely what will happen if sportsfan's interpretation is correct (hello Tri Valley).

Apart from the points the Pedro and Sportsfan bring up, if you also look at the composition of students in STEM graduate classes in most accredited universities in the US, I think no one would dispute that Indian and Chinese students comprise a large chunk, definitely more than 7%, perhaps as much as 50% or more in some masters and doctoral programs. So, even ethically, I have a problem with supporting any law that has a backlog built in. It just makes a mockery of the effort the students have to put in, and makes the benefits dependent on a cosmic accident called place of birth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

abcx, the bill will not still grant GCs to STEM grads working at a car wash. it clearly says that the person must be working in a STEM field to be eligible.

---

Ok, I forgot about that stipulation. But anyway, my other point still stands that I haven't seen anything which says that the job doesn't need to require a STEM MS (like EB2).

I had read one of the STEM bills (the GOP one, I think) but not the other (the Dem one), since, at the time, it's language hadn't yet been released. The one I did not read may have had a different interpretation.

I was pretty certain about my interpretation of the language at the time. there was some debate in this forum and I believe I convinced the other person (wasn't you abcx13?). I was unable to find those posts now, not sure why. I remember that the 25% figure was from someone reputed on trackitt (sangiano, perhaps?). In any case, I don't really think its worth any of our time looking into it now, until there is some more chatter about the STEM bill. If there is, I promise to read both bills again and summarize once more keeping all the above points in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

In any case, I don't really think its worth any of our time looking into it now, until there is some more chatter about the STEM bill. If there is, I promise to read both bills again and summarize once more keeping all the above points in mind.

---

Agreed!

(pass 10 char limit)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

Q, pedro had brought the point up first as others have said. I didn't read the bill yet, just its summary, and based upon that, I am basing my argument. The summary of the bill said that a) Masters and above education, and b) a job in the STEM occupation were the criteria. It did not say that the job itself had to be for Masters and above.

---

Thanks Sport. Kudos to Pedro then. Regardless whether there is degree requirement for job or not - the key question is - are these visas be held to country quota? Because if so - then we are back to square one. The only thing that will somewhat alleviate pain would be if the stem visas will be incremental to current EB limit OR even better are unlimited in nature i.e. every STEM graduate is guaranteed one as long as there is a job. Any thoughts on these questions?

Seems status quo will remain. House for Republicans, Senate for democrat and Obama as president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Thanks Sport. Kudos to Pedro then. Regardless whether there is degree requirement for job or not - the key question is - are these visas be held to country quota? Because if so - then we are back to square one. The only thing that will somewhat alleviate pain would be if the stem visas will be incremental to current EB limit OR even better are unlimited in nature i.e. every STEM graduate is guaranteed one as long as there is a job. Any thoughts on these questions?

---

There certainly was a limit under both bills. The Dem bill added new visa numbers, and the GOP bill took it out of the DV quota. And the country caps remained under both bills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

Seems status quo will remain. House for Republicans, Senate for democrat and Obama as president.

---

Except that there is decidedly more urgency to embrace (hispanic) immigrants on both sides of the divide. CIR (whatever it means) may have good chance in 2013. If it happens, EB immigration reform should also be riding the same wave.

In immediate term, what happens to pending legislations like HR3012 and STEM visa remains to be seen. We should expect some 'family' twist to EB visas as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kkruna

Except that there is decidedly more urgency to embrace (hispanic) immigrants on both sides of the divide. CIR (whatever it means) may have good chance in 2013. If it happens, EB immigration reform should also be riding the same wave.

In immediate term, what happens to pending legislations like HR3012 and STEM visa remains to be seen. We should expect some 'family' twist to EB visas as well.

---

From Oh law firm:

Next Congress and the White House will practically see no changes: The second term President Obama in the White House, the Democratic majority Senate in the upper chamber of the federal legislature, and the Republican majority House in the lower chamber of the legislature. Unlike the first term, however, the President is likely to push very aggressively comprehensive immigration reform for two reasons: Firstly, this is a sort of mandate imposed on him in this election. Secondly, he will have nothing to lose from being aggressive because this is the last term he can run for the White House. What does this mean to the direction of immigration reform? Piecemeal immigration reforms, particularly employment-based immigration reform, are likely to face a steep uphill battle. Why? For the comprehensive immigration reform forces, piecemeal immigration reform legislation will weaken the chances for comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The results of this election have reinforced such dynamics. Advocates of employment-based piecemeal immigration reform should come to grips with the political reality and learn to work within the dynamics by realizing importance of negotiation and compromise rather than antagonizing other forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

From Oh law firm:

Next Congress and the White House will practically see no changes: The second term President Obama in the White House, the Democratic majority Senate in the upper chamber of the federal legislature, and the Republican majority House in the lower chamber of the legislature. Unlike the first term, however, the President is likely to push very aggressively comprehensive immigration reform for two reasons: Firstly, this is a sort of mandate imposed on him in this election. Secondly, he will have nothing to lose from being aggressive because this is the last term he can run for the White House. What does this mean to the direction of immigration reform? Piecemeal immigration reforms, particularly employment-based immigration reform, are likely to face a steep uphill battle. Why? For the comprehensive immigration reform forces, piecemeal immigration reform legislation will weaken the chances for comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The results of this election have reinforced such dynamics. Advocates of employment-based piecemeal immigration reform should come to grips with the political reality and learn to work within the dynamics by realizing importance of negotiation and compromise rather than antagonizing other forces.

---

Matthew Oh is an idiot. Lots of talk and unsubstantiated speculation, doesn't actually know shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

Matthew Oh is an idiot. Lots of talk and unsubstantiated speculation, doesn't actually know shit.

---

I agree with his analysis here. Democrats may smell a chance to pass CIR as they might think that republicans will have to move to the center. That being the case, they may not be interested in passing piece-meal legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

There is absolutely zero mandate on Obama to do anything. The most notable accomplishment of his second term may be starting a war with Iran unfortunately.

Did you guys see the record number of votes? Almost 120 million cast!!! It's obvious that Obama supporters again came out in droves, but the election was still very very close and Obama was up against the Mittens!!! If the GOP had a real candidate, it was all over for the poster boy.

The point is - why did Obama let things get so bad for him when practically all the blacks and latinos voted for him in record numbers? BECAUSE he is absolutely not different from anyone who preceded him or anyone who succeeds him. The CIR is a dream, and in my opinion, it will continue to be a distant dream.

From the perspective of legal immigrants, nothing should change. We should continue similar strategies like HR 3012 to get what we want - FAIRNESS.

---

I believe this election was more about demographics than economy. It is not Romney's problem that he lost. It is republican party's problem. Their base is old, white and dying. They need to expand their base otherwise they would become irrelevant in the coming time.

I wouldn't express myself so strongly as you. However I think Oh's analysis is quite poor. I do think that since Obama has nothing to lose hereafter, he will push things aggressively. However that doesn't mean he will block piecemeal legislation. Especially one like HR3012 that is so ripe to sign.

Governance is about making choices and bargains. Especially now that Obama has nothing to lose - he doesn't have to take an approach of either/or. Now he can afford to shoot for both. In other words he can take piecemeal AND comprehensive - BOTH approaches.

The real question is - how will his immigration policy fit with his stance on outsourcing, jobs creation and economic revival. That will better shape his support for EB reforms in particular rather than whether EB reform is piecemeal or NOT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

Matthew Oh is an idiot. Lots of talk and unsubstantiated speculation, doesn't actually know shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

Disagree. You will be surprised how many of the high earning immigrants are Republicans. If I was a voter, I would vote Republican too. Anyway, it is not relevant to discuss the future of the parties. From our perspective, my point was that waiting for the CIR and hoping EB will ride on it is fool's gold. It's not going to happen. We should stay on course and try to get what's best for us.

---

You can disagree but facts do not change. Look up any website and that's what they are discussing. Obama's Coalition includes latinos, african americans, women, young people and immigrants. It is hard to fight against this Coalition. There are statistics also available to look at. I would be very happy to see EB immigration bill getting passed but I would say chances for that has reduced as Oh Law firm pointed out and I agree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

I wouldn't express myself so strongly as you. However I think Oh's analysis is quite poor. I do think that since Obama has nothing to lose hereafter, he will push things aggressively. However that doesn't mean he will block piecemeal legislation. Especially one like HR3012 that is so ripe to sign.

Governance is about making choices and bargains. Especially now that Obama has nothing to lose - he doesn't have to take an approach of either/or. Now he can afford to shoot for both. In other words he can take piecemeal AND comprehensive - BOTH approaches.

The real question is - how will his immigration policy fit with his stance on outsourcing, jobs creation and economic revival. That will better shape his support for EB reforms in particular rather than whether EB reform is piecemeal or NOT.

---

Surely he would not block it, but democrat leadership in the senate may not bring it up sensing a chance for CIR.

People might find this talk (there's a transcript too) from TED interesting:

http://www.ted.com/talks/pankaj_ghem...sn_t_flat.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

From the perspective of legal immigrants, nothing should change. We should continue similar strategies like HR 3012 to get what we want - FAIRNESS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Especially now that Obama has nothing to lose - he doesn't have to take an approach of either/or. Now he can afford to shoot for both. In other words he can take piecemeal AND comprehensive - BOTH approaches.

---

Totally agree with both the statements above. Also as others have expressed unless the country caps are removed the effect of any other bill will be very limited for EB-I. If we are restricted to 7% cap then we will always be at the mercy of spillover (leftover) from what others don't consume. At the same time applicants from other countries will be free to move from their special queue in one category to their special queue in another category bypassing older EB-I applicants in all the categories. Lobbying for a piecemeal approach does not hurt, its elements can be included in a comprehensive bill if one ever comes up.

One really favorable outcome of this election is that immigration reform has become a very important issue and both parties would do their best to cater to this constituency. This needs to be leveraged. Since HR 3012 is what will help EB2-I most, and since it is also a ripe bill, I think we should do our best to start approaching senators. Harry Reid has already sounded about need for cooperation on immigration reform and I think he has in mind pending bills. I also think Immigration Voice has got the opening it was looking for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

Disagree. You will be surprised how many of the high earning immigrants are Republicans. If I was a voter, I would vote Republican too. Anyway, it is not relevant to discuss the future of the parties. From our perspective, my point was that waiting for the CIR and hoping EB will ride on it is fool's gold. It's not going to happen. We should stay on course and try to get what's best for us.

---

Obviously there is a portion of high earning immigrants that are republicans but no way are they a majority. BBC had an article about how 85% of Indians (one of the higest earning minorities in the US) are democrats. Not everyone votes purely based on their self interest. Almost all immigrants have seen bigger governments than in the US and they are not necessarily opposed to that idea. The exception tends to be eastern Europeans who have seen so much government brutality that they think the other extreme is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kkruna

Except that there is decidedly more urgency to embrace (hispanic) immigrants on both sides of the divide. CIR (whatever it means) may have good chance in 2013. If it happens, EB immigration reform should also be riding the same wave.

In immediate term, what happens to pending legislations like HR3012 and STEM visa remains to be seen. We should expect some 'family' twist to EB visas as well.

---

Republicans are smart enough to realize that defeat has nothing to do with lack of immigration reform. Latinos have always been pro-democratic. Reagan's amnesty didn't change that. After a new CIR, new Latino citizens will mostly embrace democrats anyway. Why would Republicans want that?

I expect full-on CIR drama to go on for 4 more years without going anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PD2008AUG25

Republicans are smart enough to realize that defeat has nothing to do with lack of immigration reform. Latinos have always been pro-democratic. Reagan's amnesty didn't change that. After a new CIR, new Latino citizens will mostly embrace democrats anyway. Why would Republicans want that?

I expect full-on CIR drama to go on for 4 more years without going anywhere.

---

President Bush had got more than 40% of latino votes. Had Romney got that much, he would have won. Even though latinos are going to favor democrats, that margin is going to reduce if immigration does not remain top issue since socially they are more republican leaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

If Jeb Bush ran for the presidency in 2016 (heck even if he was nominated today in 2012), it would be a victory for the Republicans. And despite record Latinos voting against him, what really scuttled Romney were "47%", "let Detroit go bankrupt", and "I think 14% is a fair tax for a person with a net worth of $300 million and making all his money from capital gains".

EVEN then, the election was very close.

The immigrants are not going to continue to increase in the US. The American dream is becoming more and more difficult and if the government scales back even a little from the social programs such as food stamps and medicare (this is going to happen in the next few years regardless of who is in power - China is not going to finance the American welfare endlessly), life will be extremely brutal for the immigrants at the lower rung of the ladder. We already know many stories of Indians going back. Prepare to hear such stories about Latinos.

I reach the same conclusion: CIR is not going to happen. This election did not change that. The Republicans should be able to find a moderate candidate who finds appeal in the American middle class, and that candidate will win in 2016. The reports of Republican demise are very exaggerated. Let us really push for the bill during the lame duck session.

---

Your argument is that demographics is not going to change in future. But data, statistics and trend does not favor that conclusion. The general conclusion right now is that white electoral vote will continue to decline and other groups will continue to increase their percentage.

That being said, there is nothing wrong in pushing 3012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

EVEN then, the election was very close.

The immigrants are not going to continue to increase in the US. The American dream is becoming more and more difficult and if the government scales back even a little from the social programs such as food stamps and medicare (this is going to happen in the next few years regardless of who is in power - China is not going to finance the American welfare endlessly), life will be extremely brutal for the immigrants at the lower rung of the ladder. We already know many stories of Indians going back. Prepare to hear such stories about Latinos.

---

It's crazy that a delusional out-of-touch PE baron could get nearly half of the popular vote when the financial industry has squeezed the middle class in this country so thoroughly.

On your second point, inflows from Mexico have already reversed. The Pew center had some research on this that you can look up (sorry, too lazy). Net migration from Mexico to the US is now either zero or negative IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

Your argument is that demographics is not going to change in future. But data, statistics and trend does not favor that conclusion. The general conclusion right now is that white electoral vote will continue to decline and other groups will continue to increase their percentage.

That being said, there is nothing wrong in pushing 3012.

---

Demographics are changing despite reduced immigration because lower-educated immigrants (Hispanics, Blacks, whatever) have more kids than more-educated Americans (whites, Indians, Asians, etc.). I'm not trying to be racist or anything but I think it's pretty well established that education is inversely correlated with the no. of kids someone has, and it's also a fact that some of the immigrant groups are less educated than locals.