Hope they change this tune in case CIR fails. It would be ridiculous to keep skilled reform hostage until after 2016 election.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
Hope they change this tune in case CIR fails. It would be ridiculous to keep skilled reform hostage until after 2016 election.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
Democrats' dilemma on high skilled immigration
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/...eform-20130306
Current hurdles in immigration reform.
http://www.examiner.com/article/talk...hurdles-remain
Repeating my last post. Assure you all that waiting for this CIR or any other reforms on immigration is a waster.
All big show offs. next 4 years nothing is going to happen on Legal immigration front. The only thing which is going to happen is if CIR fails.. President will issue an executive order to make 11 million Illegals as Legals and path to the citizen ship.. Finally Legal immigration will continue as of now. After 6 months I will revisit my statemets again.
Remember what democrats said after the elections... as soon as the President second term starts ....and that became as soon as he gives his speech on State of the union and again nothing happened, again they said around 1st week of March. Now they say April ... Friends this is only showing carrots. Never ever believe any Politician's promise. NOTHING is going to happen.
Another day-Another Indian consulting firm-same BS. This has got to stop and the rules should be enforced.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...e_U.S._alleges
I think that the Unions/Grassley etc will not allow any hike in H-1B visas without tightening regulations significantly and enforcement/audits etc.
Immitime's pessimism appears well-founded considering how complex this issue is
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...t-worker-plan/
Immitime's pessimism appears well-founded considering how complex this issue is
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...t-worker-plan/[/QUOTE]
This article summarizes current immigration effort and the challenges that remain. Including H1B provisions from I-Square will be difficult but our interests will be served if Green card provisions are included for which there seems to be better support. I think there is more than 50% chance of CIR passing but significant challenges remain ahead including pathway to citizenship, secure border, low skill immigration, LGBT, H1B etc. Legal immigration has been held hostage to comprehensive immigration and that is not going to change in current political environment whether it is right or wrong (the words which have no meaning in politics).
At last finally, someone talking about physicians and immigration reform.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_2727971.html
What you said could be very true but I would not give up so easily. The CIR has not even been introduced in Senate yet and there is a lot of activity on the hill. Lets wait and watch. However, having said that, I feel very sad that legal immigration is being held hostage to CIR (read illegal immigration) and it is not going to change soon. I hope I don't sound too optimistic. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by immitime
Wow, Rand Paul's "traditional" filibuster in the senate is going on for 11+ hrs and no sign of ending. Gives me an eerie feeling about CIR, although am not giving up on it.
Breaking the filibuster takes 60 votes and they are going to have that many. If they do not, there won't be any hope for passing in the house even if it passes senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by kuku82
Standard propaganda politics "keeping high-tech immigration hostage while pursuing their own agenda". Wonder if Sen. Grassley would be happy satisfying with "comprehensive immigration" instead of the "H.R. 3012".
I believe he will have his say in h1 component. That seems to be his area. Other than that, I do not think he can influence much. In HR 3012 case, he succeeded in stalling the bill because there was no political will to overcome him which is not the case now.Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawks2012
This seems to be good news for immigration reform.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/hi...-reform-91083/
The only good news for immigration reform is no more conflicts or issues rising. This definitely is not a good news if it means "Comprehensive Immigration" gets blocked as there is far less chance of individual high-skilled immigration passing without comprehensive immigration reform.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
If LGBT is omitted, it would be more palatable to republicans (which McCain has already said) which means good thing for CIR. I do not know how it can not be good news.Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawks2012
May be I am wrong ... but it's interesting that president is calling this "Commonsense" immigration reform rather than "comprehensive". This indicates he is willing to do some compromise and give up the emphasis on "comprehensive". Or may be i am wrong! Who knows!Quote:
Originally Posted by pakkpk
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Jeb Bush downplaying differences.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ration-reform/
It's just so unfortunate it is going this route. The CIR again seems doomed.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
Going through the lengthy process may not be beneficial. If CIR has to pass, it has to pass before the summer recess around August. Otherwise, it could meet the same fate as Obama care when it met with angry town hall protests.Quote:
Originally Posted by cbordu_111
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4603683.story
The last paragraph says it well
"Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute at New York University School of Law, said the real legislative battle over immigration would come after the bill was made public.
"We haven't even begun to see the opposition to the bill," Chishti said. "Because there isn't meat on the bone."
http://www.rollcall.com/news/senate_...10-1.html?pg=1
Both house and senate bills are expected to be introduced in April.
Lindsey Graham gets support from Super PAC for immigration effort. This is positive news because it will provide cover for other republicans who plan to support it who might face primary challenges.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...ry?id=18718514
The proposed changes to the family system have angered immigration advocates, who warn the move could threaten the chances of a broader reform agreement.
“Eliminating these categories would produce only a small reduction in visas while creating greater hardship for thousands of U.S. citizens and their loved ones,” two dozen members of the House Asian Pacific American caucus wrote in a letter to the eight senators last week. “We oppose any efforts to further limit the definition of family.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...ad2_story.html
More leaks to gauge temperature. Would be fun to see when entire thing comes out. Everyone will have something to complaint about.
This is more sensible policy option. It's absolutely moronic to have very strict restrictions on people who are competent and marketplace wants them and then almost have no controls over family immigration and where the immigrants also don't value the immigration that much and are less likely to contribute to the society since their productive years might be behind.
However i do think that not having any cap on EB is the best way to go. Rather have rules in place that makes sure there is a fair game there that doesn't exploit either the immigrant labor or shortchange of the American labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PD2008AUG25
How about a flexible cap Q that can be flexible to the economic cycles? I don't think the no cap option will go anywhere close to approval - especially when it comes to EB...Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
You know the funny thing in all of these discussions? It's almost as if the concept of opportunity cost doesn't exist for all these people who are advocating greater family reunification, amnesty, etc.
Republicans are certainly of the opinion that family green card numbers need to be reduced which would be assigned to EB. Also, they would want to eliminate diversity visa program and assign that to EB. So, it would be like 90k+55k assigned to EB which would double the existing EB numbers without increasing overall numbers. Their give for this would be pathway to citizenship. I think it is a good compromise. This compromise would have opponents from both the parties. It needs to be seen if it gets enough numbers from both the parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by PD2008AUG25
Labrador however is pessimistic.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...-pass-20130314
Well summarized. I am optimistic something gets done by an overwhelming majority of Democrats and a large minority of Republicans in both the Senate and the House.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
The Dems absolutely want to get something done for the illegals before they go back to the voters in 18 months. If they have are successful, the Hispanic vote could help them keep the Senate in a tough year (in 2014 again, more Dem Senators are up for election than GOPs, and many of them are from red states), and further even the numbers in the House. So, they are likely to give up on family reunification (immigrants not yet on their shores) in favor of illegals (immigrants here already). Besides, the Mexican/Chinese/Philippino/Indian family reunification folks will be happy enough if the 7% cap is raised to 15% even if it is accompanied with a reduction in a couple of categories.
I don't really see the need for a pathway to citizenship for anyone other than DREAMers. Thinking about it from the perspective of an illegal immigrant, would I want to endanger the possibility of legally staying in the country in search of the vote? I think not. The vast majority of them will be satisfied with a legal framework that allows them to continue to live and work in the US, with citizenship guarantees for any kids and grandkids that they have here.
I think that's where that issue will end up. A special pathway to citizenship just for the DREAM kids, and an opportunity to legally remain in the country and get into line for a GC for the others (either through the EB path - in conjunction with some sort of EB reform that allows lower skill but high demand jobs access to a path to a GC; or through the FB path - assuming they have DREAMer that gain citizenship or US Born kids).
Yes. Although it doesn't exist formally - in reality that's how it works. e.g. it was not a coincidence that AC21 was passed in 2000 right at the height of dot com bubble, and then in 2003/4 the unutilized FB visas were given to EB which cleared not only EB2 but EB3 backlog. However now the times are exactly opposite and so EB immigration by itself has zero chance of happening. Which is why it is critical to tag along with FB as part of CIR.Quote:
Originally Posted by geeaarpee
Although illegals themselves would be satisfied with some legal status, politicians(democrats) do not care about that. Their goal would be to have pathway to citizenship so that they have access to that many voters in the future. I do not agree that democrats would agree to give up on that demand. On family green cards also, it seems difficult that democrats would give up. It would depend on the democratic and republican leadership's approach to the bill. If they decide that they want to advance the bill irrespective of how many members of their party support it, it might end up getting passed with mix of republicans and democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
Though these new proposals may make economic sense, this is a recipe for CIR failure. Family unification lobby is quite strong. They can bring down a CIR. IMO GOP senators are playing a game pitting family reunification against illegals both of which are Democrat's babies. Maybe they are using the family re-unification reduction threat to gain more concession from Democrats for undocumented legalization. If this game goes wrong, CIR can fail !Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
That is a very good observation. Didn't think that way. I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
This article beautifully summarizes what I was trying to say here.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
http://washingtonexaminer.com/shikha...rticle/2524332