Now you are back to personal attacks. And I will respect your opinion that it is not objective. I am sure people are smart to decide for themselves. Let’s leave it at that.Quote:
You are a sly person. You always take conversation in an irrelevant direction but never speak objectively to specific issues. My citizenship status, or issue with IV is irrelevant.
UC path was decided by both parties based on the content of the bill. No one gets played, at least not by pushing for UC. There is some parts of UC for every bill. Again please look up what is UC in the first place. It is your opinion that UC is impossible, not fact. No one expected Durbin to act as Sessions, so yes, that was a surprise.Quote:
What's important is - "Who put us on UC path which was impossible to begin with? How and why IV decide Durbin is the EVIL? Did they get played? Have they hurt EB-I? And what can be done to fix the damage?"
Based on my understanding of why Durbin is being called out:
1. He has generally been against Indian immigrants and has a view that they are cheap labor, scamsters etc.
2. He was against including aging out legal Indian Indian kids to DACA so they can at least get EAD and AP.
3. He cosponsored the same bill when it included relief for Irish undocumented immigrants
4. He always purported to support this bill for a decade and never indicated any concern for the bill till the last minute, when it was just about to pass.
5. For blocking the bill, he held constituent coffee event to show opposition. Read the account of one of the attendees on medium for first hand information.
6. He blocked the bill and tried to tag on poison pills to kill the bill and introduced his own bill to put up a show. He himself acknowledged on the floor his ask will not pass, yet he wanted to add them to the bill.
7. He refused to even negotiate after the hold till he felt pressured into negotiating due to his Indian constituents starting to mobilize against him.
8. He demanded that no one else be part of negotiation and it be done in secret. Yet, his office started leaking information to gather opposition.
9. When the negotiation was complete, he insisted on bringing the bill to the floor immediately without socializing the new agreements. There was a call campaign asking him to to not do so. He relented and that is the video you linked to.
10. When the new agreement was socialized, some senators requested minor updates to implementation and are willing to negotiate with him on that.
11. Now he is refusing to engage or negotiate with others for the changes and is simply holding the bill.
12. Actively trying to get others to oppose the bill. If he had even one other senator oppose the bill, he would have let it go. So the fact that he is holding the bill still without negotiating should be telling.
Where did you prove the bill doesn’t enjoy majority support in the senate? You linked to a video where Durbin said at this moment it cannot pass, meaning UC will not pass. That is because the new agreements had not been socialized at that point at all. In the same video, Sen. Lee said as much. That does not mean the bill did not have majority support. And both senators said they will work with their respective parties to address concerns if any after socializing the bill.Quote:
Despite me having issues with IV, I have actively encouraged people to do what they can along side IV. But they once again proved me wrong.
UC or no UC in house, it was an example that if there was UC in house even house would not pass HR1044. I never said there is no support. I said the bill doesn't enjoy majority support (in the senate). On the contrary you are saying ONLY durbin is in the way i.e. 99% people are supporting. That is a lie and I proved it.
Since then it was socialized and negotiations happened with others and minor changes were made to implementation. How do you know there is no majority support for this? My proof is that volunteers have been working with every office socializing the bill and asking if the offices had any concern. None of them did. So based on the responses from offices themselves, no one is opposing it but for Durbin who is holding it and is not even willing to negotiate.
Where is your proof that majority don’t support the bill, especially the one after socializing the new updates?
If there were others, Durbin should just release the hold and the bill will fail right? Why has he not done so and is taking heat for holding the bill?
Also I am not saying there there will be no other hidden opposition that will crop up at the last minute. As of now, based on what we know from the discussions, no other office has expressed concern with the bill. We will never know till Durbin releases the hold and the bill is brought to the floor. Then the bill will either pass or we will work through any objections. That is how the process works. Just holding the bill without negotiating is just to kill the bill. There is no other justification for it. Either express concerns or release the hold, that is all we are asking.
I never said immigration is not controversial. I said this bill, asking for equality in immigration is not controversial. Again, I am basing this on the work of volunteers who work with every single office and going to multiple advocacy events myself over the past decade.Quote:
You say this topic is not controversial. That is a lie. Immigration is one of the most controversial topics since GB Bush.
Yes, I am doing a disservice by spending my money, time and effort by advocating for this on the hill for a decade.Quote:
It is a good thing you are surrendering because you are doing a disservice to EB-I.
You are doing a great service by doing nothing for this bill other than comment on what should be done and why the approach is wrong, discussing strategy without even basic understanding of how things work on the hill or having advocated for anything on the hill.
If you have, please let everyone know what you have done on the hill for any bill. Or are you just basing all your opinions on what you feel is right based on your understanding reading google or news items.
There is no animosity to Durbin. From where I see, he is just being called out. His actions speak louder than words.Quote:
This animosity with Durbin is very detrimental to EB-I and must stop and be reversed.
There is discrimination based on country of birth. Even he acknowledges that. He also acknowledges that the bill is asking for equality.
His concern is that others will have to wait to get GC increasing numbers, which he also acknowledges will not happen in the current climate.
So he is saying it is not acceptable for non Indians to wait for 2 years for early filing of 485 and getting ead and waiting for 7 to 8 years, but is is fine if Indians will never get GC in their lifetime, with no early filing, no ead and children aging out.
He is more concerned about non Indians who will come into the system 3 years from now than Indians who are already waiting for more than 5 years.
He is demanding other conditions to be met in his preferred way before Indians can be treated equally when it comes to eb immigration. Otherwise they will have to continue to suffer.
In your words what do you call this?
Good for you.Quote:
p.s. - I also never said I am a citizen. I said I am 4 years past my citizenship application. And you know why? Because it was painful for me to give away my Indian passport.
