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

I think Track and Field would be a better analogy than Gymnastics.

what if, an athlete who clears heats (PERM) and semifinal (I-140) is not allowed to participate in the finals(I-485) based on his country of origin? or not allowed the medal(greencard) even after finishing finals (preadjudication).

I wonder how many Usain Bolt's dint win a medal in this idiotic country quota green card limbo,,,,,,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GhostWriter

Spec i agree Olympic is a country based sports competition and a poor choice of analogy.
Nobel prizes (even with all their controversies) probably represent a better choice. They do not have country based limitations, so if an American physicist wins the award it does not mean that an American Chemist or Biologist can not. Even for selection of best physicist there is no limitation that all the top contenders can't be from a single country. The idea is to pick the best physicist.

There is an alternate (and interesting) way to look at Olympics as well. Even Olympics does not limit the number of Golds (or medals) a country can win. Let us apply current USCIS policy to Olympics and see how it will look.
Assume only three games - Tennis, Swimming and Volleyball. USCIS will allow any number of entries from a country in each game (unlike the current Olympic policy), but it will cap the golds a country can win. So if US wins Swimming and Tennis its Volleyball team will be denied a medal even if it were the best.

Compare a GC (and the underlying job offer) to a medal (only for driving the point, i know the difference in stature !!!). There are three organizations - Intel, Boston Medical center and Citigroup. Any number of people from any of the countries can apply for these jobs. But if Intel and Citigroup have hired an Indian, then Boston Medical Center is forbidden from having an Indian doctor even if he is the best for the job.

Logic can often be twisted to arrive at results that we beleive in anyway :).

Keeping diversity as an immigration objective is not necessarily wrong but its impact on skills based categories certainly does not seem right.

---

I-V rally moved to Sept 8.

The news release also says that "key lawmakers" are scheduled to attend and the date was moved for this reason. The Republican and Democratic Conventions run back to back from Aug 25 to Sep 6 and availabilty of lawmakers/attention of media might have been a concern.Also arranging the rally closer to the resumption of Congress proceedings might help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

The news release also says that "key lawmakers" are scheduled to attend and the date was moved for this reason. The Republican and Democratic Conventions run back to back from Aug 25 to Sep 6 and availabilty of lawmakers/attention of media might have been a concern.Also arranging the rally closer to the resumption of Congress proceedings might help.

---

That seems like some positive news. I did not expect that lawmakers will be attending that. If that is indeed the case, this might be a setup to get some credit to pass this one. Others, any thoughts ?

On a lighter note :)

ELAINE (amused): So. Mom and Pop's plan was to move into the neighborhood...establish trust...for 48 years. And then, run off with Jerry's sneakers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwnanPuuCwk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

That seems like some positive news. I did not expect that lawmakers will be attending that. If that is indeed the case, this might be a setup to get some credit to pass this one. Others, any thoughts ?

---

I came across this article and as the summer recess in congress is drawing to a close,I felt we should revive this thread which has been inactive for a few weeks

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/8/prweb9823392.htm

It does mention Ms.Lofgren which we expected given her support for the Bill and the fact that she represents the constituency in San Jose. But no other lawmakers names attending this summit are available especially Senators.

Also no discussion in this forum yet about the proposed LCA changes for which the public comment period is about to end.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3762...lexibility.htm

http://www.business-standard.com/ind...-firms/483993/

These are independent of the proposed amendments from Sen.Grassley.Kd had brought this up briefly on one of the threads but went no further. It is tough to decide which of these sets of proposals are bad but in combination,the effect on Indian immigration would be devastating

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

I came across this article and as the summer recess in congress is drawing to a close,I felt we should revive this thread which has been inactive for a few weeks

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/8/prweb9823392.htm

It does mention Ms.Lofgren which we expected given her support for the Bill and the fact that she represents the constituency in San Jose. But no other lawmakers names attending this summit are available especially Senators.

Also no discussion in this forum yet about the proposed LCA changes for which the public comment period is about to end.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3762...lexibility.htm

http://www.business-standard.com/ind...-firms/483993/

These are independent of the proposed amendments from Sen.Grassley.Kd had brought this up briefly on one of the threads but went no further. It is tough to decide which of these sets of proposals are bad but in combination,the effect on Indian immigration would be devastating

---

Devastating might be too strong. It will be painful from an administrative standpoint but if there's demand, ppl will figure out a solution. There might be a lot more off-shoring which is not good for the US economy and if Obama has his way, there will be penalties, which might be an incentive to deal with the issues. It will also expose some questionable practices that these firms use which is always a good thing.

Good to see some post after a long time. Do these changes not require any house or senate approval ? If not, I wonder why Grassley had to fight so hard. He could have easily done this through backdoor. This is indeed going to have bad impact on firms who work on EC or EVC model. In a way, H1B LCA is becoming like PERM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

Devastating might be too strong. It will be painful from an administrative standpoint but if there's demand, ppl will figure out a solution. There might be a lot more off-shoring which is not good for the US economy and if Obama has his way, there will be penalties, which might be an incentive to deal with the issues. It will also expose some questionable practices that these firms use which is always a good thing.

---

I am not sure how credible this story is but this was posted by a forum member on trackitt

""Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I believe current U.S. immigration law is unsatisfactory in many ways, ranging from illegal immigration to arbitrary limitations on admissions of highly skilled professionals needed by U.S. businesses.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allocates 140,000 visas annually for employment-based legal permanent residents (LPRs). They made up 14.2% of the total 1 million LPRs in fiscal year 2010. The INA also includes an annual, country-specific limit of 7% of total U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits, or country caps.

On September 22, 2011, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced H.R. 3012, which would eliminate country-specific numerical restrictions on permanent employment-based admissions. It would also raise the per-country cap on family-based immigration from 7% to 15% over several years.

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,"

The name of the Senator was not mentioned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

I am not sure how credible this story is but this was posted by a forum member on trackitt

""Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I believe current U.S. immigration law is unsatisfactory in many ways, ranging from illegal immigration to arbitrary limitations on admissions of highly skilled professionals needed by U.S. businesses.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allocates 140,000 visas annually for employment-based legal permanent residents (LPRs). They made up 14.2% of the total 1 million LPRs in fiscal year 2010. The INA also includes an annual, country-specific limit of 7% of total U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits, or country caps.

On September 22, 2011, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced H.R. 3012, which would eliminate country-specific numerical restrictions on permanent employment-based admissions. It would also raise the per-country cap on family-based immigration from 7% to 15% over several years.

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,"

The name of the Senator was not mentioned

---

If this story is real, than it would probably be the end of the road for this bill for this year. There is complete uncertainty about what will happen next year with the new Congress. Whoever wins, I just wish that they control both House and Senate instead of a House controlled by Republicans and Senate controlled by Democrats or vice versa. Almost everything has been stalled in last 4 years in Washington because of this situation.

I wish the sanity prevails in the end so we can get out of this backlog.

Lets see what happens in the September session, especially after the ** rally in San Jose. Frankly, I don't have much hopes unless a miracle happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes

If this story is real, than it would probably be the end of the road for this bill for this year. There is complete uncertainty about what will happen next year with the new Congress. Whoever wins, I just wish that they control both House and Senate instead of a House controlled by Republicans and Senate controlled by Democrats or vice versa. Almost everything has been stalled in last 4 years in Washington because of this situation.

I wish the sanity prevails in the end so we can get out of this backlog.

Lets see what happens in the September session, especially after the ** rally in San Jose. Frankly, I don't have much hopes unless a miracle happens.

---

For all that it is worth, I got a similar response to a canned email petition on HR3012 that I sent to a bunch of senators about a month or so ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

I am not sure how credible this story is but this was posted by a forum member on trackitt

""Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I believe current U.S. immigration law is unsatisfactory in many ways, ranging from illegal immigration to arbitrary limitations on admissions of highly skilled professionals needed by U.S. businesses.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allocates 140,000 visas annually for employment-based legal permanent residents (LPRs). They made up 14.2% of the total 1 million LPRs in fiscal year 2010. The INA also includes an annual, country-specific limit of 7% of total U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits, or country caps.

On September 22, 2011, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced H.R. 3012, which would eliminate country-specific numerical restrictions on permanent employment-based admissions. It would also raise the per-country cap on family-based immigration from 7% to 15% over several years.

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,"

The name of the Senator was not mentioned

---

The below three lines are fake and added by some ROW guys. No Senator will reply with so much details. Until and unless you got a reply from the Senator.. never believe this false letters.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allocates 140,000 visas annually for employment-based legal permanent residents (LPRs). They made up 14.2% of the total 1 million LPRs in fiscal year 2010. The INA also includes an annual, country-specific limit of 7% of total U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits, or country caps.

On September 22, 2011, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced H.R. 3012, which would eliminate country-specific numerical restrictions on permanent employment-based admissions. It would also raise the per-country cap on family-based immigration from 7% to 15% over several years.

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

Immitime - i thought initially that this was fake... no senator would be so commital in an email that something will or will not be taken up...likely they will just state their stance on the bill. but the poster was an indian and not someone who just recently created an id...so got me thinking... anyway i hope you are right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vishnu

Immitime - i thought initially that this was fake... no senator would be so commital in an email that something will or will not be taken up...likely they will just state their stance on the bill. but the poster was an indian and not someone who just recently created an id...so got me thinking... anyway i hope you are right

---

There are lot of infiltration.. like Bangladeshis infilterate in India,(and govt just closes their eyes, providing rationcard and voting rights) people have multiple id's probably with each category and country.. Fear mongering and false news are the techniques to engage on un-necessary fights in that forum. One should be really insane or ignorant to believe that this is really from a Senator!

agreed immitime, but this character who posted was pro hr 3012 in prior posts... anyway, as i mentioned, I HOPE you are right...

The above mentioned note is correct. I had sent a note to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison using ** link to support HR 3012. I got the same response. Following is the full text of message that i received -

"Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I believe current U.S. immigration law is unsatisfactory in many ways, ranging from illegal immigration to arbitrary limitations on admissions of highly skilled professionals needed by U.S. businesses.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allocates 140,000 visas annually for employment-based legal permanent residents (LPRs). They made up 14.2% of the total 1 million LPRs in fiscal year 2010. The INA also includes an annual, country-specific limit of 7% of total U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits, or country caps.

On September 22, 2011, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced H.R. 3012, which would eliminate country-specific numerical restrictions on permanent employment-based admissions. It would also raise the per-country cap on family-based immigration from 7% to 15% over several years.

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator"

At Chinese website mitbbs they are reporting the same letter, again from Senator Hutchinson from Texas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandeep2011

The above mentioned note is correct. I had sent a note to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison using ** link to support HR 3012. I got the same response. Following is the full text of message that i received -

"Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I believe current U.S. immigration law is unsatisfactory in many ways, ranging from illegal immigration to arbitrary limitations on admissions of highly skilled professionals needed by U.S. businesses.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allocates 140,000 visas annually for employment-based legal permanent residents (LPRs). They made up 14.2% of the total 1 million LPRs in fiscal year 2010. The INA also includes an annual, country-specific limit of 7% of total U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits, or country caps.

On September 22, 2011, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced H.R. 3012, which would eliminate country-specific numerical restrictions on permanent employment-based admissions. It would also raise the per-country cap on family-based immigration from 7% to 15% over several years.

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator"

---

This is one of those where Chinese and Indians are in together. Hindu/Chinese Bha Bhai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justvisiting

At Chinese website mitbbs they are reporting the same letter, again from Senator Hutchinson from Texas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandeep2011

The above mentioned note is correct. I had sent a note to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison using ** link to support HR 3012. I got the same response. Following is the full text of message that i received -

"Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I believe current U.S. immigration law is unsatisfactory in many ways, ranging from illegal immigration to arbitrary limitations on admissions of highly skilled professionals needed by U.S. businesses.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allocates 140,000 visas annually for employment-based legal permanent residents (LPRs). They made up 14.2% of the total 1 million LPRs in fiscal year 2010. The INA also includes an annual, country-specific limit of 7% of total U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits, or country caps.

On September 22, 2011, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced H.R. 3012, which would eliminate country-specific numerical restrictions on permanent employment-based admissions. It would also raise the per-country cap on family-based immigration from 7% to 15% over several years.

In spite of several attempts to take action on this sensible proposal, it appears that there is enough opposition in the Senate to prevent it from being considered before the end of 2012. My term in office will end this year, but I hope that the next Congress will take action on needed immigration reforms like this.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator"

---

I still do not believe this.. and suppose if this is true (only 5 % true).. AILA/Attorney community is heavily lobbying against this bill backdoor, and Sen.Kay Bailey Hutchison
will be one of them. But if this is so, everychance of cloture motion. the bill will pass for 60/38 margin! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

I still do not believe this.. and suppose if this is true (only 5 % true).. AILA/Attorney community is heavily lobbying against this bill backdoor, and Sen.Kay Bailey Hutchison
will be one of them. But if this is so, everychance of cloture motion. the bill will pass for 60/38 margin! :)

---

I'm not sure why she would incldue that in the canned response email, but it is all over the internet now: http://www.opencongress.org/contact_...Immigrants-Act

I think there is a very good chance that the letter is authentic. I have personally written to AZ senator McCain and he was very particular to respond to me in great details. I can assure you it was not a standard response letter I received.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

I still do not believe this.. and suppose if this is true (only 5 % true).. AILA/Attorney community is heavily lobbying against this bill backdoor, and Sen.Kay Bailey Hutchison
will be one of them. But if this is so, everychance of cloture motion. the bill will pass for 60/38 margin! :)

---

I do not think cloture is an option here. If it was, there was no need to negotiate with Grassley. ** organizing a rally indicates that negotiations have come to a dead end. It is hard to see a way forward for this bill in this congress or next. That being said, I wonder how anything related to legal immigration can pass if things like these can not pass.

This from a immigration lawyer website-hard to say if he is for or against the current version of the Bill

http://www.lawfirmnewswire.com/2012/...t-hits-a-snag/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

This from a immigration lawyer website-hard to say if he is for or against the current version of the Bill

http://www.lawfirmnewswire.com/2012/...t-hits-a-snag/

---

I do not see any new information here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

I do not think cloture is an option here. If it was, there was no need to negotiate with Grassley. ** organizing a rally indicates that negotiations have come to a dead end. It is hard to see a way forward for this bill in this congress or next. That being said, I wonder how anything related to legal immigration can pass if things like these can not pass.

---

If more than 30 senators are against.. (eating the AILA lobbying money).. then cloture is the only option. Negotiating with Grassley is a different matter altogether, he will do fillibuster otherwise. This is really election year politics. ** rally can help, Senators will know how much public support this bill got.

The Senate Majority leader or any other Senator should propose the bill to be voted on the floor, they won't do it before elections.(Schumer can do it if he wants!) Because the name will go to Republicans if this bill passes in the Senate, so if any thing is going to happen, it is going to be in the Lame duck session. Before elections if this bill passes the Senate, then it is a big surprise and another talking point to Romney during Presidential Debate(claiming republicans are capable of doing bipartisan.. (example H.R.3012 passed Senate..and congress ...subsequently). So we can expect something during November or December 2012.