Quote:
Originally Posted by cbordu_111
“It looks like the House will bring [for a vote] some portion of five bills that have been ready since July,” she said.
Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...#ixzz2drTtrY1f
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbordu_111
“It looks like the House will bring [for a vote] some portion of five bills that have been ready since July,” she said.
Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...#ixzz2drTtrY1f
My take on this so far is this. They are heavily lobbying for immigration bills including HR 2131. As we all know HR 2131 does not do anything significant on green cards. Being tech organization, we would have expected it to lobby for problems faced by people like us. Instead it has happily embraced H1 increase without green card increase and for that reason, I do not support it. Just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
Bob Goodlatte during house hearing said it is most generous countries but not for employment based green cards. EB green cards run in single digits compared to overall immigration which is among the lowest compared to other countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
The idea is getting the house to pass **something** and go into conference.. What comes out of conference will be the actual bill and compromise.. If we do not support fwd.us we are shooting ourselves in the foot..Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
This is quoted numerous times by various members even during hearing of country cap removal bill sponsored by Jason Chaffetz in last congress..Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
For Anti immigrants, it does not matter whether it is employement based/family based/diversity,etc.. the only goal is to reduce immigration..
rupen,Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
Totally agree with you.
If their "tech agenda" means supporting HR 2131, is not helpful and does not align with the hopes and wishes of those in (or who might wish to be in) the Immigrant queue.
It would be a mistake for HR 2131 SKILLS Bill to be one side of a potential compromise. It is so unbalanced it is dangerous.
fwd.us has also used some rather dubious tactics to garner support.
If it comes down to "take it or leave it", I'd rather leave it thank you very much.
Spec / Rupen - agree w you on HR 2131.
It is disappointing yet not entirely surprising that the tech industry is primarily interested in having H1 slave labor but not necessarily throwing their weight behind solving EB immigration imbalance in demand and supply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Tech Industry or any other industry for that matter doesn't care about green cards. They are businesses and are looking for a much larger labor pool. That is all they really care about. They are sponsoring green cards just to retain their work force. They only care about the smooth operation of their businesses. When they go to lawmakers, they will ask for H1B because that satisfies their need.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
CIR/Immigration bills unlike before October:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2dIFeo4Sb
I had a discussion with a friend about immigration reform. She's is in HR at a division of a fortune 10 conglomerate (but not a tech company). She's a midwesterner living in NY, white, very liberal and has a lot of immigrant friends. She had a very interesting point of view - essentially that most companies don't give a crap.
There are 2 types of skilled labor (and this applies to both natives and immigrants) - the guys who make the major breakthroughs - R&D, Engineering, etc (and these are not necessarily PhDs) and those that are do-ers (programmers, testers, processors, etc). In the eyes of most companies (incl tech), the hiring is done to fill a need regardless of the above category. Sponsoring green card is a carrot offered (similar to additional vacation days, etc.). There is no deep intent to keep a specific individual in the US. However, just naturally companies that hire for more of the former category tend to prefer EB GC reform while the others care about H1B reform.
Her particular company has many divisions and some hire foreigners and some don't at all. She said their company job postings say "Candidates must be eligible to work in the US. In some cases, <company name> may be willing to sponsor permanent residency" (I'm paraphrasing)
fwd.us is the one organization which spent most money for the cause of passing immigration reform. On the Senate floor, Jeff Sessions called out called out Zuckerberg's name numerous times accusing him of being behind the senate bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Please see the source of who spent what on immigration reform.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs...ts-2-5-to-1-27
americans for conservative direction == fwd.us
If you decide to not be behind the one who spent most on the cause of immigrants, I am not sure who else do you want to get behind.. numbersusa/FAIR?
I have lot of respect for your meticulous calculations. I am disappointed by your post because your words and opinion will carry lot of respect among others in the forum and will cause loss of valuable support to immigration bill's cause from other forum members.
Please do not put too much weightage into HR2131.. Most important thing is to get the house to pass **something** so that they can go into conference and negotiate. At the moment anti immigrants in house is hell bent on doing nothing and just killing the bill.
idiotic,Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
What big business wants != What people wanting to immigrate to the USA via EB want (at least not necessarily).
I think that is a lesson many people have learnt already by painful experience.
The advertising spend to buy backing also featured non-immigration agenda items which many pro immigration people certainly could not support. That was a huge mistake by fwd.us.
fwd.us need to distance themselves from the SKILLS BILL or actively campaign against its passage. The SKILLS Bill would provide short term relief in the EB system while not fixing the root problem. Then it allows the backlogs to become worse.
That Bill is so bad, it must not be allowed to become the House side starting point for any conference compromise. If it is, I think there is little chance of getting EB dependents excluded from numerical limitations, which is the one measure that would make a lasting difference.
We will only get one chance at reform of the EB system in the medium term. Let's make sure it is a meaningful one.
I cannot in good conscience blindly follow a lobbying group that doesn't necessarily have our best interests at heart. I admire their opposition to the antis - but that is as far as it goes if they can support the House Republican stance on EB reform.
I also have respect for you, but certain parts of your post are not worthy of you.
While fwd.us supported senate bill, it does not matter if it is not pushing for green cards in the house bill. If senate bill has it and final bill does not, it does not mean anything. It is very disappointing to see that they are happily embracing house bill without making any noise for green card in house bill. To go to conference, house does not need to pass this bill. They can go to conference with any other bill like border security, e-verify or agricultural bill. You are asking people to shoot themselves first and then ask them to hope that they will be cured eventually. It does not make sense. If we were "sadhus", we would do that where we agree for something that is bad for ourselves but good for someone else. But I do not think we are, at least not me. Anything can happen in conference and anything would be up for negotiation which is not common between the bills. Issues related to us will be easily traded in exchange for "undocumented".Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
Hi Spec,Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
First of all I am sorry if any part of my post was offensive to you.
I understand your concern of HR2131 being a bad bill and we are all on the same page there. Anti immigrants and house republicans need to blamed for the bad bill like HR2131. Opposing the enforcement only net green card neutral piecemeal immigration bills (which is the best house can do) will ensure immidiete death of immigration bill chances in this congress. More clever stratergy will be to get the house to pass the best bill they can and then get into conference and get an final immigration bill passed. The final immigration bill may not have all the portions we need but it will have some portions which will be immidiete relief to us like country cap removal. Over long term, no one knows what future congress will do and how the house and Senate will look like. Its not wise to worry about it now as it will solve itself in the future. There are numerous indications that anti immigrant groups are already afraid of any conference taking place between house and senate like Rand Paul theretening Boehner on his speakership if he passes the conferenced bill with majority democratic support. If you think the conferenced bill will not be good for employement based candiates(worser than now in the immidiete term not the longer term), then it makes sense to oppose. But we do not know that now and we have to wait till the conference finishes. For now, it is more important to get the ball rolling.
fwd.us advertising on non immigration matters was a deliberate startergy because what matters in the end is to get the representative reelected because of his support to immigration. In some states it makes sense not to talk about pro immigrant stance and instead how conservative the representative has been in other areas. I do not see a problem with it.
I think we have to agree to disagree. I am sorry again if any parts are offensive as it is not meant to be. I have huge respect for you in the amount of time and effort you spend in educating us.
Thanks..
idiotic,
All's good.
I think it's fair to say we fundamentally disagree on a number of items of strategy, but the eventual goal is common.
Life would be boring if everyone agreed. At least we can disagree politely on this forum.
It always helps to make your point across if you put forth objective information. At this time I am not educated enough to say this is what skills bill does and this is what it doesn't. It would help if one of you know it then list key provisions 1 2 3 4 ....
We should be focused on what affects us. Others will do what is in their interest - including fwd.org or numbersusa.
As per conferencing - theoretically even if everything is up for grabs - I would tend to "believe" that people wouldn't take up something for discussion unless there is some prework or some basis. So in that sense I agree with idiotic that this needs to move forward to give republicans some sense of ownership and a basis for conferencing.
Rupen - I know you think otherwise. So would be happy to learn if what I am saying doesn't make sense.
Here is what you are asking. We take whatever we get like per country removal and go to conference and other provisions may or may not be added, but that's ok since per country quota will remove some pain in short term. We leave it up to the future immigrants to take care of themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotic
Here is my opinion on that. While you are right that in the short term it will provide some relief because per country quota will be gone, in medium to long term, it will create huge backlog bigger than what it is today. It will be too naive to think that one more bill just for that purpose will be passed by congress. Last time major immigration bill was passed was in 1986. Everything else that passed in between were just small fixes. After passing huge immigration bill like this, there won't be any appetite in congress to try another bill to solve green card backlog problem considering the fact that there won't be any powerful lobby to do that. And it is not just future immigrants who will have problems, people like you and me who will have green card by that time, will find H1 people stuck in green card backlog working at cheaper rate because their options will be limited. Green card then won't have that much value left.
Again, there is no need to pass this bill in order to go to conference. Any other bill like border security bill will do. This does not have to be the bill to start negotiation.
Detailed comparison between house and senate billQuote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
http://immigration.uschamber.com/upl...e_8_5_2013.pdf
In regard to conference, I do not understand why we think that senate provisions will be automatically included. Conference negotiation will be give and take. Senate side negotiators will be happy to trade anything in exchange for "path to citizenship". At that time, house can ask for green card neutral system. I do not see any powerful lobby opposing that.
Once again, as I said number of times, there is no need for this bill to pass in order to start negotiations. There are other bills like border security, e-verify, agricultural bill if starting conference was the goal.
This is no different argument that the anti immigrant groups make today. Reality is it is not just cheap labour which decides your value. One has to competitive to ensure his/her surivival.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
It is not a choice we have. Given a choice, I too would prefer that this is not a starting point. It is political reality house wants to pass the piecemeal bills as their immigration solution. Rather than opposing and ensuring immidiete death it is wise to atleast get into conference with whatever we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
See Rupen's link. It is the best Summary.
Detailed comparison between house and senate bill
http://immigration.uschamber.com/upl...e_8_5_2013.pdf
Spec as always ---- many thanks for wonderful factual information!!
So here is my simplified view of the bill from EB perspective.
The bill is more focused towards increasing immigration focus on technology and skills while remaining visa neutral - which means it increased EB immigration at the expense of FB. So while I am not happy about impact on FB - I think this bill is great for EB folks.
Secondly - the bill does away with per country cap - which to me is accute necessity for EB ICMP folks across various categories. I believe that would address backlog immediately and reduce backlog fast. While ROW may see this unfair - my view is that the situation was unfair to begin with and so this is a great bill from that perspective.
Thirdly - the bill is great for American industry - especially technology where they will be able to retain sorely needed EB folks. Yes this increases H1 .... and it would create future problems ... but it would be injustice to say that this bill only accomplishes that. Rather I hold H1 increase as a plus since that furthers immigration. It creates a good problem.
The bill may not be perfect ... but remember PERFECT IS ENEMY OF GOOD.
So overall I take my words back and would wholeheartedly support this bill. Being visa neutral and business friendly this is extremely realistic bill. Let republicans take this into conference and try to extract some concessions from dems on pathway to citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
All I can say is there is no need for green card holder or citizens to fear cheap labour.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
House immigration solution has to address every areas of problem in today's immigration including high tech. This is house version of the solution. It is not a choice for us to dictate house not to have this as solution.
I have to stop this here. Good luck to you.
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
I'm really surprised that you would trade strictly short term gains for immense losses beyond that.
EB Immigrant increase - (235,000 - 140,000) = 95,000 including dependents (of which 10,000 can't be made available to EB2 or EB3 as far as I can see)
H1B increase - (155,000 + 40,000) - (65,000 + 20,000) = 110,000 which excludes dependents
That increase in H1B numbers will equate to about 200,000 new Immigrant applicants per year eventually, virtually all in EB2 and EB3.
There will be a Net (200,000 - 85,000) = 115,000 extra applicants in EB2 & EB3 per year even after the extra EB visas are accounted for.
Do you understand what that would do to waiting times?
Spec, you are absolutely right. The bill will increase backlogs. From what I have heard in discussions with political types is that a sensible bill from house is not expected. Any bill would work as long as it has some sort of path to citizenship for the undocumented. Rest of it is posturing - minor details including EB stuff - if multiple and separate bills are needed then so be it. Key would be to hammer out things in conference and get the assurance that it will be brought to a vote in both chambers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Plus not passing a bill helps Dems more than it helps Repubs. If Dem can get political traction out of the fact that no bill has come out of Repub. controlled house then that is a bonus. Repubs are saddled with reactionary types in the house who think saying NO to anything desired or wanted by the President is a badge of honor no matter how illogical or self-destructive. Sometimes the ship has to sink before a new resurgence starts. There was an interesting article in todays NYTimes about how Repubs have gotten anti-business even though unlimited spending by corporations has been allowed after Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. In fact some 44% of the "unlimited spending" comes from 1% very wealthy tea-party types - read Koch brothers and not businesses in general. Business are good at lobbying but they are failing miserably this time to get House Repubs to budge.
Anyways, I digress.
Spec - there are no losses here. I am surprised you call it a loss when the net EB immigration is going up. If there is any loss here - it is in terms of FB numbers.
Everything is a gain here. What is increasing here is possible future backlog. I am actually surprised that you are willing to sacrifice gain today for "perceived" future increase in backlog.
Secondly the increase you mention below is the max that can happen (plus any dependents.). But in reality the PHDs are already applying under either EB1 or 2 . So the US is not losing a whle lot of them. And whatever are being lost won't all be retained through EB6 or 7 visas. So net net the increase will be beneficial to EB categories as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator