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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

When policies are designed, they are designed for long term not short term. This is not me saying but all politicians who are taking part in this process are saying. That they want to solve problem for long term in a way that they would not have to look again in next 20 years. So, they do not want to look at this problem even after 20 years. Forget about 20 years, this bill will create problems much before that.

---

True. Please see things from a broader angle.

Senate bill comptely brings in a new immigration system scrapping the old one altogether. No one knows what problems will happen in the new system. Fixes will be required even in that. It is not bulletproof for next 20 years.

House approach is instead of going down that path of completely unknown new system they are trying to just fix the problems in existing system by a series of bills. It makes more sense to me actually but I do not agree with their fundamental principles like "net green card neutral" and "enforcement only" etc.

H1B is designed to fill temporary labour shortage. When I came to USA on my first H1B I never came with intent of settling down here. I worked here for few years earned some money and left back. After many years, I came here back on my 4th H1B with the intent of settling down. I am sure there are lot more folks out there come here on different visas for different needs. Not every H1B will translate to green card and H1B is not the only visa to enter the path to get a green card. The system is far more complex. H1B visa increase is lobbied for filling labour shortage and nothing else. They have also put strict things for preventing the abuse of the visa. They are also increasing the fees to fund STEM education so that they wont have the labour shortage in STEM in future removing the need for H1B altogether in future.

If huge backlogs occur in future in premium EB categories, congress will fix it then. Proof for this is to just look at the past. Even though there have not been any immigration bills passed in the last 20 years there are still bills passed to programs like EB5 in the recent past. Also, EB1 is not backlogged. EB2 has reasonable timelines for most people except India and China. No need to fret about unforeseen future issues now and kill the overall progressive bill on such a narrow cause which has way more goodies for lots and lots of people.

My last on this.

Sure Q, I will try to create a poll later in the day. I will PM you if i get into technical issues.

Spec, i could not find the post where you had summarized the contents of the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Ghost - great idea. No good deed goes unpunished - so please go ahead and create this poll !!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GhostWriter

Sure Q, I will try to create a poll later in the day. I will PM you if i get into technical issues.

Spec, i could not find the post where you had summarized the contents of the bill.

---

Spec's post is missing.. I am not sure why..

You can find the bullet points in the sumamry section in the following link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by idiotic

Spec's post is missing.. I am not sure why..

You can find the bullet points in the sumamry section in the following link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&

---

Thanks idiotic. Spec deleted and then undeleted and then modified his own post and posted a link to original bill. That link is also not working. I am puzzled but he is probably more comfortable with original source than us using his description. So it's understandable.

Thanks again for posting original source.

Since we are discussing the short term vs. long term of the bill, i thought i will attempt to put down how it might play out over the next few years. The comparison is with current situation (i.e. no bill) and not with Senate bill.
It is guesswork so can be totally off.

Overall the bill can be summarized as below for EB

HR2131 = HR3012 (EB country limit removal) + H4 work authorization + 85K new EB GCs + 4K new nurse GCs + 110K new H1-Bs

Of the 85K EB visas 70K will be used in EB1/EB2 and 15K will be exclusively used in EB3.

Let us say it goes into effect from Sep-2014 (could be any other time, should not matter a lot)

FY-2015 - EB2 (combined) should get a cut-off in 2012 or 2013 (better for EB2-I than where it would have been otherwise).
EB3 (combined) should get a cut-off in 2008 (better for EB3-I than where it would have been otherwise).

FY-2016 - EB2 (combined) should most likely be current, possible spillover to EB3
EB3 (comined) should get a cut-off in 2009 or 2010

FY-2017 - This is when we can expect the new H1-Bs filed in 2015 and 2016 to start filing for Greencards. The extra filings besides the normal should be moderate, we are still 2 years from the increased H1-Bs. EB2 most likely should stay current. EB3 should be in 2011.

FY-2018 onwards - We can expect the additional GC applications to increase from 2018 onwards. Very hard to predict what will happen. It will depend on the mix of EB1, EB2 and EB3 applications. If two-thirds of the additional 110K H1-Bs file for GC (assuming H1-B quota is fully used) with two dependents each we get 146K extra applications with 85K extra Greencards. That is an incremental backlog of 61K per year (will be distributed unevenly between EB2 and EB3 as EB3 gets 15K out of 85K new GCs).

To be honest it is hard to forecast the dynamics 5 years from now. Depends on the economy not only in US but in other countries as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jagan01

I concur with Q.

I think most of the questions are revolving around point 1 and some think that the demand supply imbalance is the reason that the bill is not good.

Let me give you an example. Lets say a bill is passed saying, annual H1 limit = 0, and annual green card limit = 0 . Now supply== demand. I think according to the people who are solely proposing the demand supply viewpoint this is a perfect bill ? Isnt it ?

Please try and understand the basic issue. You are making an assumption that everyone who is here on H1 needs a GC. That is not true. H1 is designed for a different purpose and GC for a different purpose.

I think the bill is doing its bit. Short term as well as long term.
1. Well they are increasing the number of people that can get in a year and that itself is positive.
2. They are increasing the number of people who can come to US every year and get a job and learn skills.
3. Now if everyone who comes here for a project wants to spend the entire life in US then we cannot hold the US govt responsible for it. Can we ?

Of course, it would be ideal to have many more GC. In fact have no limit. Make it unlimited. Where you stop is subjective. The objective answer is this:
"(n + x) is and will always be greater than (n)" provided x is positive.

---

H1 is dual intent visa and majority of H1 apply for green card. That is what is happening now and it is not hypothetical situation. What you are saying is that green card backlog is not a problem. It is just fine to to increase H1 without paying any attention to green card. If that's what you saying, then there is no point in discussing anything. I thought this forum was for people suffering from green card backlog problem and that's what we are keen in solving.

A new thread with the poll (Do you favor HR 2131 over status quo) along with relevant information about the bill has been created at the link below. Please review the information and vote. This can give us an idea about our opinion in aggregate. The poll is at the top of the page.

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...-quo-(no-bill)

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GhostWriter

FY-2018 onwards - We can expect the additional GC applications to increase from 2018 onwards. Very hard to predict what will happen. It will depend on the mix of EB1, EB2 and EB3 applications. If just half of the additional 110K H1-Bs file for GC with two dependents each we get 110K extra applications with 85K extra Greencards. That is an incremental backlog of 25K per year (will be distributed unevenly between EB2 and EB3 as EB3 gets 15K out of 85K new GCs).

---

I think that is hopelessly optimistic.

Most of the extra 110k H1B will be used by Countries with very low return rates.

More likely is that at least 80% will seek PR.

With one dependent per H1B by the time they seek PR, that is an extra 175k applicants.

Of the 85k extra EB visas, some are required to service the existing load from only 85k H1B a year, otherwise we would have static net retrogression, which we don't. EB2-I is not moving a PD year per FY and none of EB3 is currently.

Even if we said that only decreased the number available from the 85k extra visas by 10k (which I think is conservative), the net incremental backlog would be (175 - (85 - 10)) = 100k per year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

I thought this forum was for people suffering from green card backlog problem and that's what we are keen in solving.

---

Yes indeed. But the solution should not come at the expense of other people's right to immigrate.

e.g. A solution that says "abolish entire H1B" could easily reduce backlog very fast. But then that wouldn't be acceptable because it would hurt others right to immigrate. Similarly opposing H1 increase to contain future immigrants is anti-immigrant IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

Even if we said that only decreased the number available from the 85k extra visas by 10k (which I think is conservative), the net incremental backlog would be (175 - (85 - 10)) = 100k per year.

---

Same argument to you Spec. Solving backlog problem shouldn't come at the expense of future immigrants ability to immigrate. I would rather have more immigration with more wait times than reduced immigration levels with reduced wait times. Unfortunately your arguments are coming quite close to me thinking you are not quite interested in seeing higher levels of immigration.

I am not sure why they cannot include removing dependants from the limit in the house bill. It will really help in reducing the backlog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Here is my case in FAVOR of 2131.

1. It removes per country caps which brings all EB immigrants in FIFO systems within their own categories. I think this is a just system.
2. It increases EB cap by 95K.
3. It allows H4 spouses to work.
4. It increases H1 by almost 100K.

So on all fronts it furthers immigration. For current backlogged candidates it will result in faster backlog reductions. For future candidates it can't promise that backlogs will be eased. However my personal opinion is that because it furthers the goal of increased immigration while doing away with the unjust country caps, it is a great bill and an improvement over status quo.

---

Spec, the percentage of H1-Bs that file for GCs was an assumption. The 50% was a random guess, I think we can use an average of PERMs + EB1 GCs filed over H1-Bs issued over a period of 5 years as a proxy. I have changed it to two-thirds since you think it is too low. 80% seems too high. A lot of companies use H1 for just short term projects (few months) with no intentions to file GC and people come and do the projects and return. Also we should not rule out the possibility of H1-B cap never being reached. The costs of filing H1-B and the scrutiny are also increasing. The usage may be much below 100%.

With 67% H1-B to GC conversion rate, the incremental backlog comes out to be 61K per year. I have changed the original post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

I think that is hopelessly optimistic.

Most of the extra 110k H1B will be used by Countries with very low return rates.

More likely is that at least 80% will seek PR.

With one dependent per H1B by the time they seek PR, that is an extra 175k applicants.

Of the 85k extra EB visas, some are required to service the existing load from only 85k H1B a year, otherwise we would have static net retrogression, which we don't. EB2-I is not moving a PD year per FY and none of EB3 is currently.

Even if we said that only decreased the number available from the 85k extra visas by 10k (which I think is conservative), the net incremental backlog would be (175 - (85 - 10)) = 100k per year.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geterdone

I am not sure why they cannot include removing dependants from the limit in the house bill. It will really help in reducing the backlog.

---

House republicans "net green card neutral" solution.. roots can be traced to antiimmigration and population control..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdfeb09

If the said bill gets passed the other bills will not have a greater chance of passing, even if they are better for current and future immigrants overall. This one is designed and being proposed to really dilute and scuttle out a better one.

---

pdfeb - this would be a good argument against the bill and I might even agree with it - but that was not what was being discussed. The earlier discussion was about whether the current bill improves status quo. My position is it does.

As per my other comments - I can only say that I did not make those comments either lightly or with prejudice. Perhaps reading 3-4 pages might help you understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

H1 is dual intent visa and majority of H1 apply for green card. That is what is happening now and it is not hypothetical situation. What you are saying is that green card backlog is not a problem. It is just fine to to increase H1 without paying any attention to green card. If that's what you saying, then there is no point in discussing anything. I thought this forum was for people suffering from green card backlog problem and that's what we are keen in solving.

---

Majority of the H1 are applied by Indian outsourcing companies which typically don't do GC. In many cases resources are rotated onsite-offshore (one way to reduce attrition). Based on my experience about 80% of those employees go back once project is complete. Some may get lucky to have GC processed but that's minority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

H1 is dual intent visa and majority of H1 apply for green card. That is what is happening now and it is not hypothetical situation. What you are saying is that green card backlog is not a problem. It is just fine to to increase H1 without paying any attention to green card. If that's what you saying, then there is no point in discussing anything. I thought this forum was for people suffering from green card backlog problem and that's what we are keen in solving.

---

Rupen,

You said it right there. H1 is dual intent. Not single intent. Also you used the word "majority" and that also means that there are some who want to go back to India and do not care about GC. I am not contending the fact that majority like to go for GC. It is more true for Indians compared to Europeans, British, Canadians, Australians, etc. The H1 and GC rules are the same. Have you ever wondered why "we indians" want to stay here more compared to other richer countries. Think from the US govt perspective as it is their law. Not from your perspective.

The question here is "Is this bill better than status quo". Please tell me what you think. I think your answer in YES/NO will sum up the debate. The moment we get to reality and come out of the subjective world , things become crystal clear.

I think you are too concerned about the Senate bill and comparing everything with Senate bill. Dont you think "One bird in hand is better than two int the bush".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jagan01

Rupen,

You said it right there. H1 is dual intent. Not single intent. Also you used the word "majority" and that also means that there are some who want to go back to India and do not care about GC. I am not contending the fact that majority like to go for GC. It is more true for Indians compared to Europeans, British, Canadians, Australians, etc. The H1 and GC rules are the same. Have you ever wondered why "we indians" want to stay here more compared to other richer countries. Think from the US govt perspective as it is their law. Not from your perspective.

The question here is "Is this bill better than status quo". Please tell me what you think. I think your answer in YES/NO will sum up the debate. The moment we get to reality and come out of the subjective world , things become crystal clear.

I think you are too concerned about the Senate bill and comparing everything with Senate bill. Dont you think "One bird in hand is better than two int the bush".

---

I have already answered that. This bill is not better than status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GhostWriter

A new thread with the poll (Do you favor HR 2131 over status quo) along with relevant information about the bill has been created at the link below. Please review the information and vote. This can give us an idea about our opinion in aggregate. The poll is at the top of the page.

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...-quo-(no-bill)

Thanks

---

I would suggest Following polls.

1) Passing HR 2131 will help us in conference process to include senate green card provisions or not passing it
2) Is H1 increase at the expense of green card backlog good solution ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

I am not for status quo.

---

Great. We are also not for status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

My position is that senate green card provisions should make into final bill.

---

Good. We all feel the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

If we do not ask for it, it is not going to be automatically done.

---

Lobbying against HR2131 will only hurt the CIR progress. Instead there should be some meaningful amendment to HR2131 prepared by some lobbying organization and you can support that amedment if such things exists. If it exists, let us know and we can support the amedment.

If no such thing exists, instead of lobbying against any individual immigration bills we have to focus on lobbying for whatever the house has as that is the only thing we can practically do for progressing CIR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

We are better off in the conference without HR 2131.

---

First we have to get to the conference. For that house has to pass its version of CIR. Since they are proposing an alternate solution to Senate bill, they have an obligation to address all the current problems in today's immigration system. How can we expect them not to address high tech problem and present something as their solution. It is just not practical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

If we are just satisfied with whatever we get like HR 2131, there is not going to be another chance to get senate like provisions.

---

No one knows what will the conference committee decide. It is our best chance atleast for next couple of years to proceed with whatever we have rather than obstruct on things we do not agree. We may not like it all but as long as the bill makes progress we should support it for the benefit of the whole CIR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

It is not the bill that we have to ask support for. It is the green card provisions for which we have to ask support for.

---

Disagree. It is the CIR we have to support for as a whole immigrant community and we have to fight in a united way. United we will stand, divided we will fall.

rupen, you can conduct any poll that you think is helpful and see the response. It is fairly easy to set up, the question is what are you trying to accomplish. I can tell you my motivation. I was opposed to the bill based on the opinions that were posted here initially. But when the discussion between mostly four of you started and i looked at the summary posted by Spec, the summary on links provided by you and idiotic and the arguments provided by all four of you, then I actually ended up challenging my initial opinion. I was also sincerely interested in knowing what will people chose if the facts are clearly laid out. One thing i had overlooked earlier was H4 authorization and the second was trying to actually see how things will look year by year. I gave it some thought and looked at the short term pros and long term cons and reached a conclusion that I will take it over status quo (i.e. no bill).

The current EB2-I people have been backlogged for 5+ years and current EB3-I people have been backlogged for 10+ years. The bill will reduce that to zero for EB2-I and 5 years for EB3 as I tried to explain here. The new backlog will start from 2018 onwards and that will be fresh (A person filing in 2018 will be backlogged by 1 year in 2019). The system is horrible after 2019 (with a lot of assumptions which may or may not hold true but let us say they do) and it will totally breakdown in 1-2 years if the backlog increases as expected (by 2020) requiring a fix. Unlike the current situation where the backlog built slowly it will build very fast (in 2 years) to a level that will draw attention. For EB-I the great thing would be there will be no EB-I there will only be countryless EB categories. 7 years from now is not a short time frame to think of new bills.

Till last year we were all excited about just removal of country cap and this offers 85K extra GCs, H4 work authorization and a backlog not in immediate future but at least 4-5 years from now.

Irrespective of our opinions the fact is that in the limited sample people will chose this bill over nothing. It will improve their situation (without making anyone in current EB-I worse-off).

Coming to your two poll questions the first one is a very technical political opinion. I would say if you can provide some research or facts related to the conference process that would be helpful in educating everyone (myself included). I have very limited idea about that process and I wouldn't even be able to participate in your poll question due to the lack of that knowledge. If you provide the facts I will certainly try to make a choice.
The second one is already incorporated in the existing poll. The trade-off depends on the number of new GCs and new H1Bs. They are posted on the poll page, people looked at that and arrived at the conclusion that they will take it. It does not matter what motivated people to make that choice, the fact is they chose it.

Senate bill is the best option and no one disputes it. The question is do we prefer HR2131 over nothing or not and it seems from the current results that people do prefer it.

PS: I saw after posting my reply that you are in banned status, but I hope you can see my response. You are very helpful in providing updates about the bill and i hope you return. At the same time irrespective of our opinions we should respect the choices that people make for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

I would suggest Following polls.

1) Passing HR 2131 will help us in conference process to include senate green card provisions or not passing it
2) Is H1 increase at the expense of green card backlog good solution ?

---

Writing in the conservative National Review, Fred Bauer argues that even if the House only passes a series of small-bore immigration bills, the far more ambitious Senate legislation will set the terms of debate when House and Senate conferees meet to hash out the final version: "Instead of being independent pieces of legislation, the House's piecemeal immigration measures would become mere details in a broader Senate-driven bill." [See On Immigration, Conference Means Ruin, by Fred Bauer, 22.Aug.2013, National Review Online.] According to Bauer's National Review article, the piecemeal approach lets CIR opponents have it both ways: they can "talk tough" while supporting individual House immigration bills, but emerge with enough political cover to pass a Senate-dominated conference bill in the end.

http://www.murthy.com/2013/09/03/new-momentum-for-cir/

Right bipartisan moment is finally here for Gang of 7 .. plan is to club appropraitions and immigration.. Republicans already linked appropriations and Obamacare.. Its going to be fun this fall once syria issue is done with :)

Becerra is a member of the House’s “Gang of Seven,” which is working on a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill it hopes to introduce in October. Becerra believes his party's immigration reform plan tackles two big issues that will be before Congress this fall with a single strike.

http://www.ibtimes.com/2013-immigrat...uction-1403139

Cantor's official memo to GOP lawmakers of agenda this september and october...

Good news for immigration.. It's not dead yet.. Things will be clear by October 31.. World needs a time machine..

http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/ca...hin-two-weeks/

Immigration
==========
We know that the current legal immigration system is broken and should be fixed in a deliberate and responsible manner. That is why the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees have produced a number of specific bills which the House may begin considering this fall. Before we consider any other reforms, it is important that we pass legislation securing our borders and providing enforcement mechanisms to our law enforcement officials.

Now that members of Congress are returning to Washington, D.C., immigration reform advocates have bigger plans.
They are gearing up for major mobilization efforts in October.

http://octoberimmigration.org/

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/return-congress...#ixzz2eQkSHwCc

Some practical issues

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...out-bills.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by idiotic

Now that members of Congress are returning to Washington, D.C., immigration reform advocates have bigger plans.
They are gearing up for major mobilization efforts in October.

http://octoberimmigration.org/

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/return-congress...#ixzz2eQkSHwCc

---

http://homeland.house.gov/hearing/su...ting-biometric

Biometric exit hearing postponed due to syria