http://www.christianpost.com/news/hi...-reform-91875/
Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
This article was surprisingly well written.
This seems like big news. Considering that there were members like Gutierrez and Labrador who are at opposite end of each other, if they can come up with the bill, it is big thing in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
To rupen86
I guess what you make of what is going on @ CPAC depends on which side of the fence you are on
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...y-at-cpac?lite
The conservative media is still not sold on the amnesty idea although the headline seems a little too strong here
http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...ration-amnesty
Finally-I feel that the FB reforms suggested by Sen.Graham will be difficult to enact as the interest lobbies especially in the Latino and Catholic community will target it
http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2...0lK/story.html
The immediate reaction from the powerful Catholic Lobby is unexpected.A more acceptable solution to the FB reforms may be to re-allocate those categories to spouses and children of GC holders
YES. FB Visa other than spouse/dependent children and (parents where the center of gravity is towards the sponsor) is meaningless; IMHO- All others categpries should be removed and I do not think no other country has these in place!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
There will be opposition from both sides no matter what comes out as a bill from "Gang of eight". There will be amendments but if those amendments are going to change fundamental structure of the bill, the way it went in 2007, it will loose support from the sponsors and then outcome will be uncertain.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
It's not as meaningless as one may think. FB immigration has a strong economic and cultural aspect. FB immigration is about 1M per year which contributes a minimum of 1/3 % GDP growth while extending the cultural fabric and preserving it at the same time.
p.s. - I was not careful in reading. You were only talking about other catgories! So yes they are not as meaningful. But they neither they are consuming large visas.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
Two words - opportunity cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...ids-over-visas
This what deralied it once, and this is what is going to derail it again! It just feels like deja vu...
An interesting take on FB immigration although the author is an immigration lawyer
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...gration-reform
Also the earlier plans of a post-Easter recess immigration blitz is not on the agenda now as this article seems to suggest Senate vote in the June-July time-frame (more July than June as we all know the pace at which things move in the Senate)
Will it allow enough time for the House to act on the Senate Bill before the August recess? The House Judiciary Committee seems in no rush to get to this as the Chairman has said that it should be a slow and deliberate process
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92D1B120130314
"On Thursday, Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a member of the group of eight, said he thanked Obama for "playing a role that's behind the scenes."
Flake said the issue of future immigration to the United States is a sticking point for Democrats, and that Obama could build support for that part of the pending immigration bill."
Does this imply that the other issues are sorted out?
The real issue will be Senate vs House not within each of the chambers. Both are introducing bills with different priorities when it comes to illegals.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
From Oh Law firm. Don't know why such pessimistic reading by Oh Law firm. May be reporter is referring to reports to cut FB numbers.
03/16/2013: Bleak Future of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation in 2013
After the November 2012 election, this site has spent enormous amount of time to review the issues and bottlenecks for past CIR efforts, including the history of Reagan CIR proposal in 1980s and Kennedy-McCain CIR in 2000's. Shockingly enough, the current CIR players in the Congress and the White House are moving towards a direction more or less copying the past efforts that ended up with a failure. As we suggested, the success to the CIR this time around would depend on these leaders to accept overall increase in "legal" immigrant visa numbers rather than being messed up with power struggles between the Republican and Democratic parties relating to the demographic changes and attempting again to achieve xenophoebic agenda of the immigration reform to contain and control of the number of "legal" immigrants in the long haul. This CIR move in 2013 is doomed to failure. The country may as well focus on piecemeal immigration reform efforts focusing on the reform of the immigration system that can boost the country's economy first. How disappointing these political leaders are. We have lost faith in these political leaders.
Perhaps because of this observation ..I think that's exactly what's happening. Although I am not sure where this is going to land up..Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us...ds.html?ref=us
interesting developments. nothing for legals yet.
I do not see any specific solution here. The article continues to highlight the problems that need to be solved.Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...reform-report/
Whether the congressmen/Senators who have to face primaries/elections will heed this report is a different question
As if things were not difficult already
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...rm-discussions
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/...eID_1502=45141
On a different note-the I-squared Act has 20 co-sponsors now although the bigger players like Grassley/Schumer/Durbin/Leahy etc have not signed on.Interestingly 13 of the 21 sponsors are first-term senators which may lead one to believe that they may have a different perspective on immigration issues especially EB
This was kind of expected. This is the area that he is most interested in and Durbin is his partner.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
The most important one seems to be this.
Ensures that an H-1B application filed by an employer that employs 50 or more U.S. workers will not be accepted unless the employer attests that less than 50 percent of the employer’s workforce are H-1B and L visa holders.
The fight is only just beginning
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/0...ainst-economy/
Presidential ambitions?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...052.html?hp=r7
Senator Grassley starting to appear increasingly in the picture
http://www.rollcall.com/news/rnc_imm...html?pos=oplyh
Another article by a conserva-skeptic
http://theweek.com/article/index/241...gration-reform
I have absolutely zero problem with this. It's obvious that currently the main beneficiaries of the H1B program are Indian IT outsourcers - big and small.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
Not only is the immigration debate a waste of time, so is border control. It reminds me of the continual talks for peace in the Middle East. There will never be border control nor illegal immigration control in the same way there will never be peace in the Middle East. We will just have more and more non-productive “talks” and “debates. If the bill comes up in Senate Sen. Grassley or some other Senator will fillibuster this for some reason, again if Senate was able to pass with cloture it will stuck in congress with another fillibuster by some Repub representative..
This can be fixed within a week by the present Administration.. what the Captain has to do is just sign an executive order to eliminate the family members from EB immigration quota.. back log will be reduced. Everyone is happy. Illegal immigration they need to deal seperately. Legal immigration people are tax payers without any voting rights!. But this is only a dream and never going to happen. We are always Hostages to some politics or Politricks!
If we put this in to perspective, we would be hoping for executive order from a person who put an amendment to replace merit based system with family based system.Quote:
Originally Posted by immitime
The new buzzword/mantra from House Republican Leadership is "education of fellow Republicans"
This from Speaker Boehner today
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/28...migration-deal
This from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...complex-issue/
This appears to be a tactic to slow down or stall the process.Time will tell
Thanks Q for providing a platform for sharing.
IMHO- No CIR will be successful and will not serve any purpose unless all or most of the following are implemented.Any temperory measures will improve situation for only 1-2 years and similar issues will crop up gain. (e) onwards these may be too much Utopic.
a) Tighten border security before passing laws to favor illegal immigration
b) Tighten H1B visa issuance and check each and every H1B visa regularly if the Visa applicant is working in same skill area/salary as per LCA. In case of any bench issue or salary non payment issue, take action immediately. but increase time duration so that H1B applicant can exit easily.
c) Check and verify PERM and skill category of job offered in GC is relevant to the major qualification of the applicable degree.
d) Any experience/qualification statement used for either H1B or I-140 should be strictly verified and any fraud statements should face civil and criminal action.
e) Categorize skill areas- Manufacturing/Health/services/IT etc. and provide EB quota based on previous statistics,requirement and any other criterion based
on research and long term projection (and not just immediate demand- which can be met by H1B anyway). Remove country quota and replace by skills quota, Research, publish and update lacking skills demand frequently. If a skilled surgeon with MS is eligible for Eb2 and if a consultant(worked in home
company and after transfer to a US company) being eligible for EB1, both cases should be reviewed and analyzed which will be more beneficial to US on long run. Salary cap alone need not be the criterion. Some special skills should be prioritized/promoted and utilized to train the locals in the same area.
f) If tax residence in USA for more than a fixed duration(5 years) should automatically offered GC. it is surprising that USA IRS can tax your world-wide
income but still would not consider you as a permanent resident!.
g)H1B renewal after 3 years should be reviewed with attention and this review should be enough for GC, without any need for separate PERM and I-140.Once again
h) if any specific sector is prone to misuse or found repeated misuse and receiving lot fo complaints, this sector should be given more specific attention and thorough investigation with severe penalties if found of wrong practices
.
i) A legal tax resident in USA, should be able to obtain a re entry visa rather than going to home country and coming back
J) Citizenship should be offered to legal tax residents of more than 8 years, irrespective of GC
K) Remove category of sponsoring brother/sister etc. in FB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by immitime
Sorry to keep posting in bits & pieces but just saw this on my twitter feed
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...ry?id=18764590
All sounds good to the ears..
But they could not pass a bill to lift the country caps...Nothing is being done for taxpaying legal immigrants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us...nted=all&_r=1&
The proof is here.
Even if the Senate passes an immigration overhaul later this spring or summer, it still faces an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled House. A group of House Republicans told Speaker John A. Boehner last week that they were close to releasing a set of principles to guide their own legislation.
House Republicans would prefer to tackle an immigration overhaul in several smaller bills rather than one big bill. And many House Republicans want to offer illegal immigrants a legal status that stops short of a pathway to citizenship.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/0...ainst-economy/
Jeff Sessions of Alabama acting up as if he likes skilled immigration. He is the one who blocked HR 3012 in senate. ( He and Grassley are R* disguised as anti-immigrants)
Just because somebody blocked 3012 is not necessary anti immigrant. Maybe you can call him racist because he does not want 70% of high skilled immigrants to be from India.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
I also agree that country cap is something agaist equal opportunity and it should have been passed!
But on CIR - MHO - Law makers do not get convinced to so called problems facing by Legal immigrants and these can be easily or even partly solved by doubling Visa numbers this year.
They always face this dilema - What if they double the number this year and by next year demand gets doubled?
This was the precise reason for putting H1B cap and hence lottery. Even this year the Cap is expected to reach within a week!
Actual facts show that despite all backlogs, the H1B and GC demand is ever increasing.
Only way - one will understand if there is any reduction in quality/skills making any deference in economic develpment due this back logs faced? and if the creamy layer looking elsewhere? I am sure some one is working on this and this would sail us through.
Or else why they should consider any change if they are getting numbers and demand is ever increasing?
Hence CIR should consider all these.Otherwise just increasing quota would not help - IMHO
Quote:
Originally Posted by immitime
From Oh Law Firm, good summary report of the progress so far.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/28...rtisan-backing
To rupen86
Following up on your post from yesterday about the letter from the GOP Judiciary Committee Senators-this from the Salt Lake City Tribune today
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...h-lee.html.csp
It is very interesting to note that the only 2 GOP committee members who did not sign the letter are part of the "gang of eight". It is very important for the Bill to come out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a strong bipartisan backing to clear the whole Senate as we cannot take 55 Democratic votes for guaranteed. We all remember how close the last Bill came in 2007 before falling a few votes short.
Pretty sure they will propose a amendment to just strike out the entire bill retaining only the bill number & title and replace it with H1B reform :)Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
Interesting to note that Hatch is the sponsor of the I-Square act.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968