Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise)

Tweet from Zoe Lofgren

Yesterday the Senate passed an amended version of the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act.
While I recognize the sincerity of all Members struggling to find solutions, unfortunately the provisions sent to the House by the Senate most likely make matters worse, not better.

I plan to swiftly & thoughtfully work with my colleagues to resolve outstanding issues & get a measure across the finish line that can pass both Houses of Congress.

No timeline is given for the end result but I assume she means by the time this Congress adjourns before Christmas

https://www.visalaw.com/siskind-summ...t-2020-852020/

Summary from Siskind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AceMan

You put up a very important point Q. Yesterday I was talking to a colleague of mine from Tamil Nadu and the entire state was praying for the success of their newest bowler in the Indian team. He is the first player from Tamil Nadu from under privileged class to come up the ranks from that state.

I used Tamil Nadu because that is the place the caste violence is still rampant.

I have learned from US, charity is not cheap. I was auditing our funds for the relief and construction we provided from people who suffered losses in natural disaster couple of years back, I realized there is cutting the corners every where.

I was a part of the volunteer team for supplying food to underprivileged people in NYC. I was manning the frozen proteins and giving 1 or 2 chicken as said in the directive sheet. By around noon a person who was the director came and took 2-3 chicken and left. I couldn’t bear the fact that person was taking the chicken meant for people and reported to the site leader. He just relieved me from the position.

So yes, Q I volunteer and I ask tough questions when I see unacceptable practices being done in the name of charity. I always have a moral dilemma. Should I let something slide for greater good or a stickler or ideologue for what I stand

---

I just want to point out one thing in this post, not sure where you got the data about caste violence in states, we all know that caste-based discrimination and violence is a common issue in India and there are states much worse than TN, yes I agree there are incidents but that doesn't mean it is so bad.


don't want to start an argument, but just want to add TN stands in front when it comes to social justice compared to any other state

Zoe Lofgren's comments are definitely concerning since there are only a couple of weeks left. By this time, if this was moving forward to be passed in the House, there should have been no more surprises bringing it to the House.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shriny

I just want to point out one thing in this post, not sure where you got the data about caste violence in states, we all know that caste-based discrimination and violence is a common issue in India and there are states much worse than TN, yes I agree there are incidents but that doesn't mean it is so bad.


don't want to start an argument, but just want to add TN stands in front when it comes to social justice compared to any other state

---

As a proud Tamil Indian I second your views here :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vsivarama

The statement above is in present tense. So I guess it's up for interpretation if they are currently affiliated with the military forces (which is a smaller set of people) or if they ever have been a part of it as required by mandatory service. The future of the bill hinges on which side the argument lands on.

---

Right... that's what Siskind thinks as well (https://www.visalaw.com/siskind-summ...t-2020-852020/)
“Affiliated with” is not defined, though the language looks to be present tense so would not affect people who are no longer a part of or “affiliated with” either organization.

The big question now is, will House members agree to pass a bill identical in language to the amended bill, that too within a short timeframe? Because when a new divided congress takes office, they are sure to kick the can down the road.

Should the bill become law, that would be a huge win for the Indian population waiting for ages for their GC, waiting helplessly as each day of their life passes right in front of their eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mitul75

Right... that's what Siskind thinks as well (https://www.visalaw.com/siskind-summ...t-2020-852020/)
“Affiliated with” is not defined, though the language looks to be present tense so would not affect people who are no longer a part of or “affiliated with” either organization.

The big question now is, will House members agree to pass a bill identical in language to the amended bill, that too within a short timeframe? Because when a new divided congress takes office, they are sure to kick the can down the road.

Should the bill become law, that would be a huge win for the Indian population waiting for ages for their GC, waiting helplessly as each day of their life passes right in front of their eyes.

---

Quick question. I thought the House had to just pass the amendments in the senate version and it becomes good to go to POTUS. Am I wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

As a proud Tamil Indian I second your views here :)

---

As a proud marathi I second you seconding Shriny :)

I think India has its shameful stuff but also a very rich culture very unique to each state, a generally tolerant population, and off late there are many more positive changes that I am observing. Cities are much more cosmopolitan. At least in Pune (where I come from) nobody needs parent permission to marry anymore. Parents don't care much about caste of the bride or groom etc. That's all great!

I feel concerned about Zoe Lofgren's comments. However I have no doubt on her sincerity to try her best to move this forward (particularly because HR1044 is her baby).

Folks we all owe her big time. As far as I know she is the first lawmaker ever to take up this cause of removing country caps.

Never forget this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shriny

I just want to point out one thing in this post, not sure where you got the data about caste violence in states, we all know that caste-based discrimination and violence is a common issue in India and there are states much worse than TN, yes I agree there are incidents but that doesn't mean it is so bad.


don't want to start an argument, but just want to add TN stands in front when it comes to social justice compared to any other state

---

My sincere apologies, if I had disrespected Tamil Nadu, that was not my intention. Re reading my post , I can see what I presented can be interpreted as pointing fingers. During my PG days I had been invited to a marriage of my classmates sister to Thirunelveli, and we were told not cross some areas as there was some disputes there. My idea was formulated by the eerie sense prevailing at the time of the marriage with is unfair to attribute to the whole state or even to the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

Quick question. I thought the House had to just pass the amendments in the senate version and it becomes good to go to POTUS. Am I wrong?

---

Basically if the House agrees with the Senate Bill it can pass the Bill as is and send it to the President. It appears like Lofgren has issues with the Senate Bill which is significantly different from the House Bill that passed last summer. She wants to get approval from her House colleagues and also the Senate Members to come up with a reconciled version that can pass both chambers. At this point it is unclear when and how that will happen given the time constraints.

Thappu panniten, mannichidungo please?

Q, Malā māpha karā bhā'ū

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AceMan

Thappu panniten, mannichidungo please?

Q, Malā māpha karā bhā'ū

---

haha! Good one mate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AceMan

Q, Malā māpha karā bhā'ū

---

LOL - q तुला नक्की माफ करेल (or so do I hope being fellow Puneri)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AceMan

Thappu panniten, mannichidungo please?

Q, Malā māpha karā bhā'ū

---

LoL .... for what?

BTW - I found your story about charity chicken quite funny because I thought that was a bit over the top principled!! You ought to be made an honorary citizen of Pune. The place has many such crazy ass principled people. Mean no disrespect -- telling you beforehand ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

Basically if the House agrees with the Senate Bill it can pass the Bill as is and send it to the President. It appears like Lofgren has issues with the Senate Bill which is significantly different from the House Bill that passed last summer. She wants to get approval from her House colleagues and also the Senate Members to come up with a reconciled version that can pass both chambers. At this point it is unclear when and how that will happen given the time constraints.

---

i think we have see quite a few times that senate pass a bill, and it gets no where in house. Or house passes it, and its goes nowhere in senate. Hopes have been dashed so many times, that its good to have low expectations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabp77

i think we have see quite a few times that senate pass a bill, and it gets no where in house. Or house passes it, and its goes nowhere in senate. Hopes have been dashed so many times, that its good to have low expectations.

---

The difference this time is - it is the house bill that is sent back to house. So this is an amendment. The problem is Zoe lofgren says the amendment makes the problem worse. So she is going to change something have house approve it and then hope senate also approves it.

I think that's a tall order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

The difference this time is - it is the house bill that is sent back to house. So this is an amendment. The problem is Zoe lofgren says the amendment makes the problem worse. So she is going to change something have house approve it and then hope senate also approves it.

I think that's a tall order.

---

I have doubts about democrats' intentions at this time. Biden is going to be in WH soon and dems control house. It is very likely that republicans will control senate. If Biden wants to do something for DACA and undocumented, dems need some bargaining chips with republicans and this seems like a good chip as tech lobby support this bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpha0

I have doubts about democrats' intentions at this time. Biden is going to be in WH soon and dems control house. It is very likely that republicans will control senate. If Biden wants to do something for DACA and undocumented, dems need some bargaining chips with republicans and this seems like a good chip as tech lobby support this bill.

---

This is no chip for republicans. Wake up. Republicans sat on this Dem bill for 15 months and are sending back to house with 2 weeks remaining. Senator after senator from GOP held this up for no reason only to pass it with significant alterations with 2 weeks to go for the house session to end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

LoL .... for what?

BTW - I found your story about charity chicken quite funny because I thought that was a bit over the top principled!! You ought to be made an honorary citizen of Pune. The place has many such crazy ass principled people. Mean no disrespect -- telling you beforehand ;)

---

None taken!!! It was like see something, say something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

This is no chip for republicans. Wake up. Republicans sat on this Dem bill for 15 months and are sending back to house with 2 weeks remaining. Senator after senator from GOP held this up for no reason only to pass it with significant alterations with 2 weeks to go for the house session to end.

---

The deal with Sen.Durbin was more detailed and nuanced and I can agree that a 6 month delay was probably reasonable. Sen.Scott probably told Lee what he wanted in the Bill even before the block and I am sure they did not need 4 months to come up with 2 small subsections at the end of the Bill. The impact obviously is huge if only 70% of green cards are available for H-1B conversion which is the largest source of backlog. Sen.Lee was probably debating the right course and decided to ask for UC again and pass some veriosn of the Bill in the Senate to start off negotiations/conference. I do agree that the time appears to be limited for reconciliation and may explain the lack of objection in the senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

The deal with Sen.Durbin was more detailed and nuanced and I can agree that a 6 month delay was probably reasonable. Sen.Scott probably told Lee what he wanted in the Bill even before the block and I am sure they did not need 4 months to come up with 2 small subsections at the end of the Bill. The impact obviously is huge if only 70% of green cards are available for H-1B conversion which is the largest source of backlog. Sen.Lee was probably debating the right course and decided to ask for UC again and pass some veriosn of the Bill in the Senate to start off negotiations/conference. I do agree that the time appears to be limited for reconciliation and may explain the lack of objection in the senate.

---

I love your nuanced way of thinking and writing. Thank you for that.

This makes for a rich conversation as compared with when we fight along fault lines such as dems this and reps that! Appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

I love your nuanced way of thinking and writing. Thank you for that.

This makes for a rich conversation as compared with when we fight along fault lines such as dems this and reps that! Appreciate it.

---

I see a long term situation with the bill. I am not discounting the fact the features of applying for AOS after 2 years of approved EAD and kids age lock out is a million times better than the current situation.

Hypothetically if the bill passes the house as is and the President signs it, law will be from FY 2023 according to the new terms. Please note the people will be greened only when final date is valid for applicants PD. We had just seen the April 2020 numbers where Eb2 India has 300,000 primaries waiting. Adding a single dependent will show the number to be 600,000. Every year on an average India is adding 50,000 primary applicants in Eb2 and 3 combined.

It will be unlikely Fd to go beyond Jan 2015 in 2032 even after the rule is in place. I would count about 5-10 million people in Trishanku status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AceMan

I see a long term situation with the bill. I am not discounting the fact the features of applying for AOS after 2 years of approved EAD and kids age lock out is a million times better than the current situation.

Hypothetically if the bill passes the house as is and the President signs it, law will be from FY 2023 according to the new terms. Please note the people will be greened only when final date is valid for applicants PD. We had just seen the April 2020 numbers where Eb2 India has 300,000 primaries waiting. Adding a single dependent will show the number to be 600,000. Every year on an average India is adding 50,000 primary applicants in Eb2 and 3 combined.

It will be unlikely Fd to go beyond Jan 2015 in 2032 even after the rule is in place. I would count about 5-10 million people in Trishanku status.

---

This is exactly my view and I couldn't articulate it better. All this bill does, and has been trying to do since 2011 is try to rearrange the visa allocation, i.e. take pain from one or two parties and distribute it to everyone else in the name of fairness so that everyone feels some pain. It's just completely bogus and I totally don't buy the 'at least it's a start'. All it will do is pit different immigrant groups against each other and against US tech workers. The China exclusion stuff is also completely baloney. Let's say when you were a child in India and went to some RSS camps because you were made to and there is a record of it. Now if you are denied a GC based on that even though you have spent the last 20 years in the US and don't espouse any radical views, will that be fair?

When a compromise is being looked for, a less than perfect solution is acceptable for no solution at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbulent_Dragonfly

All this bill does, and has been trying to do since 2011 is try to rearrange the visa allocation, .....

The China exclusion stuff is also completely baloney.

---

On these two counts i have a bit different view. Even if the current bill rearranges, that by itself alleviates pain for EB-IC backlog and more importantly it paves the way for lifting up of overall EB limit from 140K to perhaps 250K. Today because the backlog is monolithic, nobody cares about it.

As per China - i think it is reasonable to scrutinize or ban people that belong to armed forces of other countries especially hostile countries (china I don't believe is a hostile country but unfortunately quite a few americans think that way). That's America's sovereign right. Generally speaking if you haven't done anything against USA or humanity there is nothing to be afraid of. I myself was part of NCC and wrote in my citizenship application. Many Indian armed forces folks have become American citizens. I personally know at least one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbulent_Dragonfly

This is exactly my view and I couldn't articulate it better. All this bill does, and has been trying to do since 2011 is try to rearrange the visa allocation, i.e. take pain from one or two parties and distribute it to everyone else in the name of fairness so that everyone feels some pain. It's just completely bogus and I totally don't buy the 'at least it's a start'. All it will do is pit different immigrant groups against each other and against US tech workers. The China exclusion stuff is also completely baloney. Let's say when you were a child in India and went to some RSS camps because you were made to and there is a record of it. Now if you are denied a GC based on that even though you have spent the last 20 years in the US and don't espouse any radical views, will that be fair?

---

Criticizing something is easier than coming up with your own solution. Say you are given a chance to prepare a fresh bill from the scratch with no current baggage (existing backlogs, etc. none). Then how will you do it? Where will you set the cap for max number of annual visas? 140,000 or 250,000 or no max cap (infinity). No max cap will help everybody and millions and millions of people from all different countries will come to the US every year. Next question is whatever annual cap you decide, how will you allocate it? Will you allocate it based on the specific quota for each country or on a first come, first serve basis? OR will you allot separate quota for each industry type? There are so many other questions you will have to answer in your bill. How will you deal with people with affiliation with foreign armed forces, etc.? Will there be some kind of stops for bad agents OR will your bill welcome everybody to this country irrespective of their background. Then, once you decide on that, how will you do the background check, particularly if foreign armed forces will like to keep that data confidential for their own sovereignty and security related concerns? And then, when you come up with your final bill, your next task is to get 100 people to agree on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AceMan

When a compromise is being looked for, a less than perfect solution is acceptable for no solution at all.

---

I did some basic calculations on my understanding of the current Bill for EB-3 and I am hoping that I am seriously wrong with this as I am not great at reading Bill language.This calculation is for EB3 category for FY23
If we assume 70% of 40K it gives us 28000 visas for EB3 for H-1B conversion.5.75 % reserved for abroad applications (non-India/China) is 2300 (40000 x 0.0575) decreasing number availability to 25700. 30% for non India/China as part of transition is 12000 bringing availability down to 13700. 4400 for primary nurse applicants and conservatively 4400 for dependents = 8800 bringing it down to 4900 per year for India/China for FY23. Is my reasoning correct ? This clearly cannot be right so i must be reading the language wrong or double counting or overlapping categories. I am also not clear on how the 70% cap is calculated but based on Sen.Scott's press release he wants that amount for workers not on H-1B. The law states that no more than 10000 visas should be issued in EB-3 category for unskilled workers and hat is the number he is trying to preserve.Please feel free to correct and I will be happy to be wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbulent_Dragonfly

This is exactly my view and I couldn't articulate it better. All this bill does, and has been trying to do since 2011 is try to rearrange the visa allocation, i.e. take pain from one or two parties and distribute it to everyone else in the name of fairness so that everyone feels some pain. It's just completely bogus and I totally don't buy the 'at least it's a start'. All it will do is pit different immigrant groups against each other and against US tech workers. The China exclusion stuff is also completely baloney. Let's say when you were a child in India and went to some RSS camps because you were made to and there is a record of it. Now if you are denied a GC based on that even though you have spent the last 20 years in the US and don't espouse any radical views, will that be fair?

---

As Q eloquently puts above, breaking the country cap will shed a light of urgency on GC backlogs and how pathetic the age old arbitrary 140K cap actually is. Then it unifies every immigrant as opposed to pitting us against each other based on the country we belong to presently. That paves the way for an organized push which will be second stage for an increase in the # of EB GCs. Ultimately, I don't see anything else solving the problem. Alternatively, measures like not counting the derivatives into the visa cap and re-capturing unused visas from the past may alleviate the problem but not solve it in the longer run. Removing the country cap makes this problem to be seen and felt by every single immigrant and consequently unifies our activism efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vedu

Criticizing something is easier than coming up with your own solution. Say you are given a chance to prepare a fresh bill from the scratch with no current baggage (existing backlogs, etc. none). Then how will you do it? Where will you set the cap for max number of annual visas? 140,000 or 250,000 or no max cap (infinity). No max cap will help everybody and millions and millions of people from all different countries will come to the US every year. Next question is whatever annual cap you decide, how will you allocate it? Will you allocate it based on the specific quota for each country or on a first come, first serve basis? OR will you allot separate quota for each industry type? There are so many other questions you will have to answer in your bill. How will you deal with people with affiliation with foreign armed forces, etc.? Will there be some kind of stops for bad agents OR will your bill welcome everybody to this country irrespective of their background. Then, once you decide on that, how will you do the background check, particularly if foreign armed forces will like to keep that data confidential for their own sovereignty and security related concerns? And then, when you come up with your final bill, your next task is to get 100 people to agree on that.

---

There are other countries which have modernized or in the process of modernizing the immigration system. It is not some massively groundbreaking idea, just that there is no will to do it here. So though my lament may be viewed as criticism of other's efforts to at least do something about it. it's really pointed toward the fact there can be no consensus to pass meaningful immigration reform now or in the future which will factually benefit the US and the people immigrating here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

As Q eloquently puts above, breaking the country cap will shed a light of urgency on GC backlogs and how pathetic the age old arbitrary 140K cap actually is. Then it unifies every immigrant as opposed to pitting us against each other based on the country we belong to presently. That paves the way for an organized push which will be second stage for an increase in the # of EB GCs. Ultimately, I don't see anything else solving the problem. Alternatively, measures like not counting the derivatives into the visa cap and re-capturing unused visas from the past may alleviate the problem but not solve it in the longer run. Removing the country cap makes this problem to be seen and felt by every single immigrant and consequently unifies our activism efforts.

---

As I mentioned earlier 5-10 million Thrishanku legal people will look for fairness at that time and it would be a joint effort nearly 30 years after the problem first surfaced.

Trump and his cronies are going to loom large over the next four years. They will continue to drumbeat all the nativist and nationalistic views and keep dishing out disinformation and misinformation to undermine every single agenda in the Biden administration by interjecting themselves at every point. Sorry, I don't know why I am feeling so pessimistic in my outlook. The way the post election madness has gone on with the support of 70+ million Americans cheering on for a demagogue has really soured my optimism for America in general in the short term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

This is no chip for republicans. Wake up. Republicans sat on this Dem bill for 15 months and are sending back to house with 2 weeks remaining. Senator after senator from GOP held this up for no reason only to pass it with significant alterations with 2 weeks to go for the house session to end.

---

It was Sen Durbin who killed the most time and changed the basic structure of the bill by adding EAD providions and other stuff. For Sen Scott, i dont even know why he put a hold and what he really wanted as it was very clear that he was asked to do that by someone else.

I strongly feel that if the bill removed country caps from say 40-50% of EB GCs and kept the caps on rest, most of these carveouts would not have been necessary and implementation of the bill could be much simpler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpha0

It was Sen Durbin who killed the most time and changed the basic structure of the bill by adding EAD providions and other stuff. For Sen Scott, i dont even know why he put a hold and what he really wanted as it was very clear that he was asked to do that by someone else.

I strongly feel that if the bill removed country caps from say 40-50% of EB GCs and kept the caps on rest, most of these carveouts would not have been necessary and implementation of the bill could be much simpler.

---

I agree with second part above.

But as per Durbin - I have debuked this many times. There is a thread on this topic, please read if it is of value to you.

https://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showt...ghlight=Durbin

My thought on per-country quota.
1.For Employment based GC, country quota doesn't belong. It doesn't make any sence. Skill/Job is irrelevant to country of birth. Country quota is against EB purpose.
2. Diversity visa has country counts. It is needed there as the purpose of the visa is diversity. Diversity visa doesn't allow countries like India/China. And I agree they should not be allowed as their large numbers do not help purpose of the DV.

It is irrelevant whether pain moves from one set of people to another. But it is relevant that birth country is wrong in EB.

Increasing GC - That is lawmakers job to define based on countries need. It may be reduced or increased based on employment need, not based on backlog size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebiswaiting

My thought on per-country quota.
1.For Employment based GC, country quota doesn't belong. It doesn't make any sence. Skill/Job is irrelevant to country of birth. Country quota is against EB purpose.
2. Diversity visa has country counts. It is needed there as the purpose of the visa is diversity. Diversity visa doesn't allow countries like India/China. And I agree they should not be allowed as their large numbers do not help purpose of the DV.

It is irrelevant whether pain moves from one set of people to another. But it is relevant that birth country is wrong in EB.

Increasing GC - That is lawmakers job to define based on countries need. It may be reduced or increased based on employment need, not based on backlog size.

---

Employment based immigration when designed in late 80's was seen as an extension of family based. Not only the country quota, family members take nearly 60% of visa.
If you see https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-stat...ok/2019/table7 the actual number of Primary candidates US accepted from the entire world is.
E11/16- 4053, E12/17 - 1982, E13/18 - 9639 totals to 15,674 for EB1 primaries from entire world
E21/26 - 19834
E31/36 - 8684, E32/37 - 9733, EW3/W8 - 2322 totals to 20739

In 2019 only about 56,000 primaries from the entire world in EB quota was greened

When the rules were defined US was the unparalleled super power in the world and was the giver. Now with more than 20 trillion debt, it cannot rest on its legacy and history and with restrictive EB based immigration it cannot afford for every high paying job to leave US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

This is no chip for republicans. Wake up. Republicans sat on this Dem bill for 15 months and are sending back to house with 2 weeks remaining. Senator after senator from GOP held this up for no reason only to pass it with significant alterations with 2 weeks to go for the house session to end.

---

I agree, I don't think this Bill is going to pass at all.

https://twitter.com/IraKurzban/statu...10125407653889

It looks like an attempt is being made to slide 1044 as part of the Omnibus spending bill. Immigration lawyers are mad, which is sometimes a good thing. I am trying to find more sources to confirm this.

For those who can't read the tweet:
Ira J. Kurzban
@IraKurzban
·
4h
Congress is about to slip in the OMNIBUS spending bill a horrible IMMIGRATION bill (HR 1044)that will end immig. through employment for decades except for Indian nationals. If they can pass bad laws like HR 1044 DEMAND inclusion of DACA/TPS NOW in Omnibus.

https://twitter.com/ckuck/status/1336757834885836805

Charles Kuck saying that Zoe Lofgren has taken out the 'no harm' provisions. There is nothing out in public, so don't know where he is getting this info from.

Tweet text:
What will the now denuded HR1044 do? Here are the new wait times (at a minimum), effective immediately:

EB1 – 3 years
EB2- 16 years
EB3 -4 years

Within a decade wait times will extend to:

EB1 – 7 years
EB2- 37 years
EB3 - 11 years

Lofgren took OUT the "No-Harm" provisions.

Another tweet from Kuck, he is certainly going off the deep end to wish for the status quo to continue:

https://twitter.com/ckuck/status/1336772413032423425

#HR1044 / #S386 will retrogress worldwide #EB5 visas to 8 years immediately, and to 16 years by the end of the 2030.