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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

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.

---

I agree. It won't happen before the election and lame duck session is the only real hope this year. As I have said before, in the election year, when economy is still recovering and job situation is not so great, no politician would want to give a message to their voters that they are passing pro-immigration bill.

We all know that removing per country limit is one of the least controversial and sensible thing to do in employment based legal immigration without adding a single new green card.

But in this time of hyperactive media and especially during election year, when every fact gets twisted and misrepresented to suit their own logic, no politician would want to take that risk of looking immigrant friendly. The last thing any politician would want before the election, is to make an average American who usually has a zero knowledge of legal immigration system, feel that more immigrants are going to snatch American jobs from Americans themselves.

We know that this is just a scare tactic and is not true representation but things always get represented in this way especially by extreme right wingers and many media outlets who don't even care to read the text of the bill.

In general, Democrats are overall pro-immigration (both illegal and legal) while Republicans are more pro-legal immigration. But Republican party has been more or less hijacked these days by far right tea-party Republicans who are extremely anti-Immigrant. I personally have more hopes on Democrats passing this bill compared to Republicans even though this bill was introduced by a Republican (Jason Chaffetz, R-UT) in House.

** may give credit to Sen. Grassley for amending this bill but deep down, we all know that he has damaged this bill greatly by holding it for a long time to add his own agenda which is not only unrelated to country quota in employment based green cards but may not also be acceptable to many corporations, immigration lawyers and even some of the Senators who may see it as a hindrance to corporations' ability to hire people and causing damage to their businesses and profits. Whether we like it or not, this is the reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes

In general, Democrats are overall pro-immigration (both illegal and legal) while Republicans are more pro-legal immigration. But Republican party has been more or less hijacked these days by far right tea-party Republicans who are extremely anti-Immigrant. I personally have more hopes on Democrats passing this bill compared to Republicans even though this bill was introduced by a Republican (Jason Chaffetz, R-UT) in House.

---

I think Romney supports STEM visas more than Obama but the problem is that like Obama, Romney doesn't necessarily do (or even say) what he believes. And it remains to be seen whether he'll hew to his own beliefs or to the Tea Party. If he wins (unlikely), he should be able to reform the system if he chooses to, especially with Ryan as VP - Ryan should be able to muster Tea Party support. It's murkier with Obama winning. But the big roadblock (illegals/DREAM) is now gone because of that (stupid) exec order. I think what was clear from that was immigration is not the political hot potato that people think it is. There was no big fallout. And what's a 100k GCs on top of a few million anyway...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes

I agree. It won't happen before the election and lame duck session is the only real hope this year. As I have said before, in the election year, when economy is still recovering and job situation is not so great, no politician would want to give a message to their voters that they are passing pro-immigration bill.

We all know that removing per country limit is one of the least controversial and sensible thing to do in employment based legal immigration without adding a single new green card.

But in this time of hyperactive media and especially during election year, when every fact gets twisted and misrepresented to suit their own logic, no politician would want to take that risk of looking immigrant friendly. The last thing any politician would want before the election, is to make an average American who usually has a zero knowledge of legal immigration system, feel that more immigrants are going to snatch American jobs from Americans themselves.

We know that this is just a scare tactic and is not true representation but things always get represented in this way especially by extreme right wingers and many media outlets who don't even care to read the text of the bill.

In general, Democrats are overall pro-immigration (both illegal and legal) while Republicans are more pro-legal immigration. But Republican party has been more or less hijacked these days by far right tea-party Republicans who are extremely anti-Immigrant. I personally have more hopes on Democrats passing this bill compared to Republicans even though this bill was introduced by a Republican (Jason Chaffetz, R-UT) in House.

** may give credit to Sen. Grassley for amending this bill but deep down, we all know that he has damaged this bill greatly by holding it for a long time to add his own agenda which is not only unrelated to country quota in employment based green cards but may not also be acceptable to many corporations, immigration lawyers and even some of the Senators who may see it as a hindrance to corporations' ability to hire people and causing damage to their businesses and profits. Whether we like it or not, this is the reality.

---

If election year politics was the reason, then what was the reason for Schumer to reach some kind of deal with Grassley which made it possible for him to lift the hold ? The only logical possibility that I see is some objections would have come after the hold was lifted possibly because of Grassley's amendments. It is hard to imagine that the bill which passed in the house with such overwhelming majority in republican controlled house would not have 60 votes to pass. In general, senate works with unanimous consent. In recent times, cloture use is increased because of gridlock in senate. But they would use that only for bills that are supposed to give them rich political dividends. This bill does not come in that category. I highly doubt either party has any considerable interest in passing the bill. Had Grassley not put a hold, this bill would have easily passed with unanimous consent. But his hold muddled the things. If there is real opposition to Grassley's amendments, either those amendments would have to be amended or the bill has to go through against the opposition. I do not see good chances either way. But I hope this is wrong analysis and the bill passes in November

To rupen86

Senator Schumer probably negotiated with Sen.Grassley to allow the Irish E-3 Bill to come to the Senate Floor but objections could have been raised to this by other Senators. If Senator Schumer was very keen on 3012 provisions he would have encouraged stand-alone passage of the same without including the Irish provisions in his Bill or would have moved to co-sponsor the Senate version of 3012 introduced by Senator Lee. Basically HR 3012 is a Republican Bill in a Democratic Senate and the Democrats would like to have their pound of flesh before letting it through. That said,if we cast our mind back to the original Politico article (before their correction) about Sen.Grassley removing his hold,there was already am mention that other senators would block it if he chose to move it forward. The opposition to this Bill is mainly from Senate Republicans and the people opposing it (Sessions & Vitter are the only ones publicly known and neither of them faces an election this year) are likely to be still there in the lame-duck session and I cannot see how that will change things.
Also the recently circulated Sen.Hutchinson letter mentions "enough opposition". Are we to believe that there is more widespread opposition then what we are led to believe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

To rupen86

Senator Schumer probably negotiated with Sen.Grassley to allow the Irish E-3 Bill to come to the Senate Floor but objections could have been raised to this by other Senators. If Senator Schumer was very keen on 3012 provisions he would have encouraged stand-alone passage of the same without including the Irish provisions in his Bill or would have moved to co-sponsor the Senate version of 3012 introduced by Senator Lee. Basically HR 3012 is a Republican Bill in a Democratic Senate and the Democrats would like to have their pound of flesh before letting it through. That said,if we cast our mind back to the original Politico article (before their correction) about Sen.Grassley removing his hold,there was already am mention that other senators would block it if he chose to move it forward. The opposition to this Bill is mainly from Senate Republicans and the people opposing it (Sessions & Vitter are the only ones publicly known and neither of them faces an election this year) are likely to be still there in the lame-duck session and I cannot see how that will change things.
Also the recently circulated Sen.Hutchinson letter mentions "enough opposition". Are we to believe that there is more widespread opposition then what we are led to believe?

---

It is reported that Sessions & Vitter had put a hold because they had objections on I3 bill getting attached to 3012. With I3 gone, they do not have objections and will release hold. At least that is what is published in the media. So, we can not say that they are the ones who have objection to 3012. If Grassley negotiated with Schumer to remove I3 from 3012, what would have Schumer got in return? Who would have been involved in negotiations on Grassley's amendments ? Also, Grassley's principle opposition was to 3012 to advance his agenda. In any case, Schumer had no obligation to agree because of which the hold was released. The bill would have died anyway without doing anything.

I think Grassley removed the hold just to get rid of the people who call his cell phone while he is talking on the floor.

Good thinking. This way anybody can make Senetors remove holds by making calls on their cell phones. I see many comments and analysis by posters have hidden special interest or agenda except yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chengisk

I think Grassley removed the hold just to get rid of the people who call his cell phone while he is talking on the floor.

---

To rupen86
I am still having trouble understanding the rationale behind the hold on HR3012 by Senators Vitter & Sessions. The Irish E-3 reason was actually provided by the organization that is promoting HR 3012 and was picked up by some Indian media outlets and reported.I did not see widespread publication of this. HR 3012 in its native form had no I-3 provisions at all and it would have been more logical/sensible to place holds on Bills by Sens.Schumer & Brown which had those provisions. To place a hold on a Bill to prevent certain amendments being added seems futile as the Democrats if they choose to do so, can always add these to any of the multiple Bills that clear the Senate every week. In any case if Sen Schumer is waiting for approval of Irish E-3 before bringing HR 3012 to the floor-in the 3 weeks of Senate activity between official release of Hold (July 11) and Senate adjournment (Aug 2) no action was taken ether in Committee or Floor on this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

To rupen86
I am still having trouble understanding the rationale behind the hold on HR3012 by Senators Vitter & Sessions. The Irish E-3 reason was actually provided by the organization that is promoting HR 3012 and was picked up by some Indian media outlets and reported.I did not see widespread publication of this. HR 3012 in its native form had no I-3 provisions at all and it would have been more logical/sensible to place holds on Bills by Sens.Schumer & Brown which had those provisions. To place a hold on a Bill to prevent certain amendments being added seems futile as the Democrats if they choose to do so, can always add these to any of the multiple Bills that clear the Senate every week. In any case if Sen Schumer is waiting for approval of Irish E-3 before bringing HR 3012 to the floor-in the 3 weeks of Senate activity between official release of Hold (July 11) and Senate adjournment (Aug 2) no action was taken ether in Committee or Floor on this

---

Grassley had put a hold on 3012 as soon as it arrived in the senate. At that time, there was no discussion about Irish E-3 and in the objections he had said that he was concerned that "this bill (3012) does nothing to protect American workers". He might also have problem with Irish E-3 being attached to 3012 for which he might have negotiated with Schumer to put E-3 as standalone bill. But his main negotiations might be with other parties to put H1B restrictions. I still do not know what Schumer would have got in return. I do not know whether Vitter & Sessions have put hold on 3012 or the companion senate bill but their intention is with E3 and not 3012 according to the reports. It might be possible that after Schumer agreed to drop Irish provisions that bill would have become identical as 3012 with Grassley's amendments and now it might be referred as one bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

Grassley had put a hold on 3012 as soon as it arrived in the senate. At that time, there was no discussion about Irish E-3 and in the objections he had said that he was concerned that "this bill (3012) does nothing to protect American workers". He might also have problem with Irish E-3 being attached to 3012 for which he might have negotiated with Schumer to put E-3 as standalone bill. But his main negotiations might be with other parties to put H1B restrictions. I still do not know what Schumer would have got in return. I do not know whether Vitter & Sessions have put hold on 3012 or the companion senate bill but their intention is with E3 and not 3012 according to the reports. It might be possible that after Schumer agreed to drop Irish provisions that bill would have become identical as 3012 with Grassley's amendments and now it might be referred as one bill.

---

Its Ironical that inside GrassUncle's brian the following lingers.. RAW politics anyway.

"this bill (3012) does nothing to protect American workers".

My question is, How about The President ordered to issue EAD to all under 30 years dreamers who are really Illegals, how he is going to protect the American Workers now.. He will buy a blanket to each one..?? while Legal , lawful EB immigrants are waiting for decades... During DNC none of them talking about Immigration, because they know they don't get the votes, if they do. What these people forget is they are all IMMIGRANTS here, by hook or crook. This is real politics. H.R.3012 should be on senate floor[after the elections] by November lastweek. this is only my view point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

Its Ironical that inside GrassUncle's brian the following lingers.. RAW politics anyway.

"this bill (3012) does nothing to protect American workers".

My question is, How about The President ordered to issue EAD to all under 30 years dreamers who are really Illegals, how he is going to protect the American Workers now.. He will buy a blanket to each one..?? while Legal , lawful EB immigrants are waiting for decades... During DNC none of them talking about Immigration, because they know they don't get the votes, if they do. What these people forget is they are all IMMIGRANTS here, by hook or crook. This is real politics. H.R.3012 should be on senate floor[after the elections] by November lastweek. this is only my view point.

---

Right. That does not protect American workers. But the logic here is that by doing this, he would be getting more Hispanic votes. Doing anything about illegal immigration is considered to be a booster for Hispanic votes and that's what the polls also reflect. He increased his advantage with Hispanic voters after he announced this change. Had he done the same for H4, or 3012 how would his poll numbers go ? It certainly would not improve.

immitime - they did talk about DREAM act and firmly supported that.

What I was amused was how president Obama moved away from his script and singled out China as the main source of competition for labor. In doing so - he avoided making a reference to Indian outsourcing - if you think about it.

Just an observation. I haven't formed any opinion one way or other on this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

Its Ironical that inside GrassUncle's brian the following lingers.. RAW politics anyway.

"this bill (3012) does nothing to protect American workers".

My question is, How about The President ordered to issue EAD to all under 30 years dreamers who are really Illegals, how he is going to protect the American Workers now.. He will buy a blanket to each one..?? while Legal , lawful EB immigrants are waiting for decades... During DNC none of them talking about Immigration, because they know they don't get the votes, if they do. What these people forget is they are all IMMIGRANTS here, by hook or crook. This is real politics. H.R.3012 should be on senate floor[after the elections] by November lastweek. this is only my view point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

immitime - they did talk about DREAM act and firmly supported that.

What I was amused was how president Obama moved away from his script and singled out China as the main source of competition for labor. In doing so - he avoided making a reference to Indian outsourcing - if you think about it.

Just an observation. I haven't formed any opinion one way or other on this topic.

---

Q, yes.. they did talk about DREAMers because they will get all the Latino votes. Our community as soon as they get GC,... they are Americans by all means... I do not want to elaborate on this. Even one of my family friend from India who is a US citizen said he no more belongs to India and he is not from that country!.. Hope you got what I am pointing.

Your observation is 100 % correct.. NEVER BELIEVE ANY POLITICIAN ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD... Whatever Charisma they show.. they only work for their own personal goals... is it not?

The House Appropriations committee has released the text of the Continuing resolution to extend spending at current levels till March 2013

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/...PIH-CR2013.pdf

It is a clean spending bill and contains no reference to any immigration provision added on. There was some slim chance that 3012 provisions may be added to this but it appears like that has to go through on its own. More significantly many media outlets are reporting that both chambers may pass the resolution as early as by the end of this week.Hopefully this will not advance adjournment date and there will be time left for more legislative action after that.
This from POLITICO

“Democrats will engage in the game, too, putting up jobs bills that have no Republican support and little chance of passing. To add more fuel to the ‘do-nothing Congress’ label, at least one chamber — the Democratic-led Senate — could adjourn as early as Sept. 21 for another seven-week recess, coming on the heels of the five-week August recess. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will be playing ‘prevent defense’ through the Nov. 6 election, GOP aides said.

I've asked this question on Ron's forum before but didn't get a response and was drowned out by the India haters (Jeff and DaveUK). So I'll ask it here again: how is it that in this day and age the immigration system can be so blatantly discriminatory? Under the civil rights act, employers can't discriminate based on national origin, so why can the government? Would it be legal if the government put a quota of 50 on immigrants who were black and 39,950 on others? Or hypothetically, would it be legal if they said that Christians (who only make up 34% of the world's population) have a quota of 39,500 and everyone else gets 500 visas? Or could they introduce separate immigration quotas for men and women? And if so, on what grounds?

I understand that they can have a diversity visa or sign special treaties with Chile and Singapore, but it seems like a national origin quota should be against the law for a general purpose employment based immigrant visa, which is what the EB program is. Are there really no grounds for a legal challenge against the country quota system? (This is probably a rhetorical question since I assume if there were grounds, some lawyers would have brought such a case to court.)

Why should others like us when we ourselves don't. Look at your own posts. There can be a period of few years to few decades when "India has a higher number of skilled migrants to offer the US as compared to all other nations." It depends on demographics, education, wage differential, population, language and many other factors. I don't think I am delusional.
I am equally frustrated with the GC wait and some of the random policies but the solution is not to demean ourselves. What exactly do you expect that others should stop using the best option available to them (whether it is EB1-C or L1 or EB3-EB2 porting) and you get your GC !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

I've asked this question on Ron's forum before but didn't get a response and was drowned out by the India haters (Jeff and DaveUK).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

As always, we Indians have screwed up the system for ourselves. (Yes, I am aware there are a lot of flaws but somehow every other country except India managed not to overload the system. And you are delusional if you think India has a higher number of skilled migrants to offer the US as compared to all other nations.)

---

The country quota was there decades from today for obvious reasons. Why you did not notice for decades? Reason is backlog was reasonable level and you were able to pass another bills like recapture. Now no way around you are trying to remove the country quota. If Indians would have tried to remove the country quota with recapture or STEM they might not have opposed. Or atleast if you would have given a better phase out plan or removing the country quota gradually you might not get this much opposition. In immigration the government can bring any law for protection of country. You cannot question anywhere except congress. Now everyone knew that backlog is so much only for India as number of H1b persons are 60% every year. Next highest is china that is less than 10%. See the difference. China may not need HR 3012 in couple of years as their waiting will improve. The best solution will be one time releif for all the backlogs and restrict the future H1b

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

I've asked this question on Ron's forum before but didn't get a response and was drowned out by the India haters (Jeff and DaveUK). So I'll ask it here again: how is it that in this day and age the immigration system can be so blatantly discriminatory? Under the civil rights act, employers can't discriminate based on national origin, so why can the government? Would it be legal if the government put a quota of 50 on immigrants who were black and 39,950 on others? Or hypothetically, would it be legal if they said that Christians (who only make up 34% of the world's population) have a quota of 39,500 and everyone else gets 500 visas? Or could they introduce separate immigration quotas for men and women? And if so, on what grounds?

I understand that they can have a diversity visa or sign special treaties with Chile and Singapore, but it seems like a national origin quota should be against the law for a general purpose employment based immigrant visa, which is what the EB program is. Are there really no grounds for a legal challenge against the country quota system? (This is probably a rhetorical question since I assume if there were grounds, some lawyers would have brought such a case to court.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

To rupen86
I am still having trouble understanding the rationale behind the hold on HR3012 by Senators Vitter & Sessions. The Irish E-3 reason was actually provided by the organization that is promoting HR 3012 and was picked up by some Indian media outlets and reported.I did not see widespread publication of this. HR 3012 in its native form had no I-3 provisions at all and it would have been more logical/sensible to place holds on Bills by Sens.Schumer & Brown which had those provisions. To place a hold on a Bill to prevent certain amendments being added seems futile as the Democrats if they choose to do so, can always add these to any of the multiple Bills that clear the Senate every week. In any case if Sen Schumer is waiting for approval of Irish E-3 before bringing HR 3012 to the floor-in the 3 weeks of Senate activity between official release of Hold (July 11) and Senate adjournment (Aug 2) no action was taken ether in Committee or Floor on this

---

It is not difficult to undertand some of the Senators views. See if country quota is removed a person from Isrel,UK needs to wait for 5 to 7 years similar to India. Being a Staunch ally for many decades they think they need a seperate queue. US was never trusted by India and US never trusted India till 21st century. Now slowly changing but long way to go. So it is going to be tough task to remove the country quota and all possible hurdles will come. It may take years to remove to country quota as it takes time to remove the obstacles. But what will happen if country quota is removed. There will be lot of interest in studying MS in non accredited colleges and many Indians will apply GC while OPT and more overcrowding may happen. There is no fair solution for this as the problem was created by Indians and soution also suggested by them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GhostWriter

Why should others like us when we ourselves don't. Look at your own posts. There can be a period of few years to few decades when "India has a higher number of skilled migrants to offer the US as compared to all other nations." It depends on demographics, education, wage differential, population, language and many other factors. I don't think I am delusional.
I am equally frustrated with the GC wait and some of the random policies but the solution is not to demean ourselves. What exactly do you expect that others should stop using the best option available to them (whether it is EB1-C or L1 or EB3-EB2 porting) and you get your GC !!

---

Others should like us for our ability to introspect and correct our flaws and make ourselves better people. I find it sad that you don't possess the courage to see the shortcomings in (y)our fellow countrymen. I guess it is easier to criticize Americans for going to Iraq but much harder to see our own failings - whether it is with a clogged immigration system or opressing religious minorities in Kashmir or in the N. East. Just because someone is an American or an Indian doesn't mean they can't be critical of their own country.

If Indian demographics, education levels, language skills, wages were truly world class as you implicitly claim, India would be a much better place today. You seriously believe that India generates over HALF of the highly skilled qualified workers in the world that want to immigrate to the US and that labor cost arbitrage/skirting the rules is not a component to the mass influx of Indians employed in IT? The wilful blindness is truly staggering. It's one thing to be cogniznant of the situation and still game the system, but to deny the part Indians play in messing it up is ridiculous and cowardly.

As to whether I expect people to keep using the best possible option available, I expect a modicum of honesty in the process. This is why India is a mess - everyone is trying to use the "best option" available to them, which includes everything from employing underage laborers to skipping red lights. The law and propriety be damned. Sab chalta hai.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramsen

If Indians would have tried to remove the country quota with recapture or STEM they might not have opposed.

In immigration the government can bring any law for protection of country. You cannot question anywhere except congress.

Now everyone knew that backlog is so much only for India as number of H1b persons are 60% every year. Next highest is china that is less than 10%. See the difference. China may not need HR 3012 in couple of years as their waiting will improve. The best solution will be one time releif for all the backlogs and restrict the future H1b

---

Point 1 is a non-starter. Nothing that raised immigration would have passed in this Congress.

Point 2 is wrong. Laws passed by Congress can still be challenged in the court on Constitutionality grounds (see Obamacare). It's really a matter of making a creative argument. Until Obamacare passed people weren't even thinking of Constitutional challenges.

I agree with you on point 3 but I'm clearly in the minority here.

What is the chance HR 3012 will be taken up before elections ? There are only 5 legislative days before election and there is a hold on the bill still. Is it possible to get this taken up before elections ?

After elections priorities for many of the supporters of the bill changes. Many might have supported the bill to get funding for their election campaigns. After elections that is not the case.

What do you guys think ?

Atleast not in their agenda so far. Unless there is a new development it is not being considered for September. Still no specific reason or status of the bill was publicly announced. That is a positive and negative. Best time will be Lame Duck if they are really interested on this bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

What is the chance HR 3012 will be taken up before elections ? There are only 5 legislative days before election and there is a hold on the bill still. Is it possible to get this taken up before elections ?

After elections priorities for many of the supporters of the bill changes. Many might have supported the bill to get funding for their election campaigns. After elections that is not the case.

What do you guys think ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

I remember reading somewhere that the only chance for this bill is the lame duck Congress *after* the election.

---

Ron wrote this I believe because most immigration legislation has historically been passed in lame duck sessions.

3012 has no budget implication. I do not understand (except spreading negativity) why you are linking both. E2 was passed for Israeli investors. What provisions allotted for that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

The House Appropriations committee has released the text of the Continuing resolution to extend spending at current levels till March 2013

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/...PIH-CR2013.pdf

It is a clean spending bill and contains no reference to any immigration provision added on. There was some slim chance that 3012 provisions may be added to this but it appears like that has to go through on its own. More significantly many media outlets are reporting that both chambers may pass the resolution as early as by the end of this week.Hopefully this will not advance adjournment date and there will be time left for more legislative action after that.
This from POLITICO

“Democrats will engage in the game, too, putting up jobs bills that have no Republican support and little chance of passing. To add more fuel to the ‘do-nothing Congress’ label, at least one chamber — the Democratic-led Senate — could adjourn as early as Sept. 21 for another seven-week recess, coming on the heels of the five-week August recess. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will be playing ‘prevent defense’ through the Nov. 6 election, GOP aides said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

I've asked this question on Ron's forum before but didn't get a response and was drowned out by the India haters (Jeff and DaveUK). So I'll ask it here again: how is it that in this day and age the immigration system can be so blatantly discriminatory? Under the civil rights act, employers can't discriminate based on national origin, so why can the government? Would it be legal if the government put a quota of 50 on immigrants who were black and 39,950 on others? Or hypothetically, would it be legal if they said that Christians (who only make up 34% of the world's population) have a quota of 39,500 and everyone else gets 500 visas? Or could they introduce separate immigration quotas for men and women? And if so, on what grounds?

I understand that they can have a diversity visa or sign special treaties with Chile and Singapore, but it seems like a national origin quota should be against the law for a general purpose employment based immigrant visa, which is what the EB program is. Are there really no grounds for a legal challenge against the country quota system? (This is probably a rhetorical question since I assume if there were grounds, some lawyers would have brought such a case to court.)

---

I too have the same question. Current laws do not allow to discriminate based on race, color and country of origin in employment. But current country quota is just doing that. I would think that if there is lawsuit, it would have a decent chance.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...lly-senseless/