Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise)

[Spectator]

Spec - I get that. I guess I am thinking 2131 is still a step forward and not an end by itself. The next logical step is to fight to increase in quota. Opposing 2131 is a classic case of Mumbai local trains where those inside oppose the outsiders and the same outsiders when become insiders oppose other outsiders.

2131 sure increases flow and wait times for everybody. But then the solution is not to control the flow. But rather increase visa supply.

By same token - if tomorrow somebody comes up with a bill to completely abolish H1B - which will reduce everybody's wait time reduce in the pipeline - will you think that is good bill ??

I think that's what my concern is. People opposing immigration for their own narrow interests.



I think this actually supports my contention that let 2131 pass congress or at least don't oppose. And if it passes congress then things will go to conference and at least there will be negotiations. Right? What am I missing?

Q,

I agree with the next logical step in your post.

I believe what rupen was saying, was that there is not a powerful enough lobby for EB immigrants to get that increase in Immigrant visas into any amended Bill prior to voting in the House or into any Conference Bill. The absence was not an oversight by the House Republicans and other lobbying groups have different agendas.

Realistically, if the Bill isn't amended before it is voted on in the House, or it isn't included in any Conference Bill, there will be no subsequent stand alone Bill to make it happen.

[qesehmk]

Spec - if I am not wrong CIR already has those increases e.g. not counting dependents towards quota effectively makes quota 2.2X times. Besides CIR also is planning to increase H1B twice as opposed to 3 times in 2131. Right? So 2131 itself doesn't need to have that increase. That can emerge as part of conference.

Any effort to get CIR done should be focused on reconciliation rather than confrontation. So opposing 2131 will be counter productive.

Q,

I agree with the next logical step in your post.

I believe what rupen was saying, was that there is not a powerful enough lobby for EB immigrants to get that increase in Immigrant visas into any amended Bill prior to voting in the House or into any Conference Bill. The absence was not an oversight by the House Republicans and other lobbying groups have different agendas.

Realistically, if the Bill isn't amended before it is voted on in the House, or it isn't included in any Conference Bill, there will be no subsequent stand alone Bill to make it happen.

[ROCK72]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle

[rupen86]

Q,

I agree with the next logical step in your post.

I believe what rupen was saying, was that there is not a powerful enough lobby for EB immigrants to get that increase in Immigrant visas into any amended Bill prior to voting in the House or into any Conference Bill. The absence was not an oversight by the House Republicans and other lobbying groups have different agendas.

Realistically, if the Bill isn't amended before it is voted on in the House, or it isn't included in any Conference Bill, there will be no subsequent stand alone Bill to make it happen.

You are almost right in what I was trying to say. But I want to clarify on your last point. If the bill is passed as it is from the house and then is merged with the senate bill as it is, that is what is going to stay in the final CIR. Senate negotiators would agree to that if they get concession on "path to citizenship". There won't be powerful lobby to prevent them from happening. Both side would feel that they made compromise and got something and we would be "sacrificed". Supporting 2131 in current form is a mistake in the hope that it won't make it in the final bill as it stands now.

[Spectator]

Spec - if I am not wrong CIR already has those increases e.g. not counting dependents towards quota effectively makes quota 2.2X times. Besides CIR also is planning to increase H1B twice as opposed to 3 times in 2131. Right? So 2131 itself doesn't need to have that increase. That can emerge as part of conference.

Any effort to get CIR done should be focused on reconciliation rather than confrontation. So opposing 2131 will be counter productive.

Q,

The only CIR Bill we have seen is from the Senate and the House have already said they are not going to vote on that.

Yes, there may be a House CIR Bill (from their Gang Of 7) and it will be interesting to see what that contains. It certainly cannot be worse than HR 2131 for EB immigrants.

At the moment, the House Republican strategy seems to be to pass a series of stand alone Bills which will be tacked together and called CIR. They are attempting to establish the "Sense Of Congress" by doing so and making it easier to shoot down any elements they may not like in the House CIR version from the Gang of 7.

To date, there has been nothing welcome in any of these Bills. If as seems likely at the moment, HR2131 represents the House Republicans solution for Immigrant Visas, then if its contents aren't changed, I would preferable to see CIR die rather than be subject to what this Bill would entail. The current House proposals do not include not counting dependents, visa recapture, not counting EB1, not counting MDs etc.

It is those provisions, or at least keeping some of them, that makes the Senate Bil palatable, since it attempts to fix the unequal balance of supply and demand for EB immigrant visas. Without any of them, it's a no go for me. HR2131 actually goes in the opposite direction. I don't feel confident that we would get any of them back in any Conference discussions; the big players care more about including other provisions and there may be nobody influential enough to fight to retain them. They will become the sacrificial lamb if any compromise is possible.

Enough from me.

[Spectator]

You are almost right in what I was trying to say. But I want to clarify on your last point. If the bill is passed as it is from the house and then is merged with the senate bill as it is, that is what is going to stay in the final CIR. Senate negotiators would agree to that if they get concession on "path to citizenship". There won't be powerful lobby to prevent them from happening. Both side would feel that they made compromise and got something and we would be "sacrificed". Supporting 2131 in current form is a mistake in the hope that it won't make it in the final bill as it stands now.

rupen,

I totally agree.

If I didn't convey that, then my bad.

[rupen86]

Spec - if I am not wrong CIR already has those increases e.g. not counting dependents towards quota effectively makes quota 2.2X times. Besides CIR also is planning to increase H1B twice as opposed to 3 times in 2131. Right? So 2131 itself doesn't need to have that increase. That can emerge as part of conference.

Any effort to get CIR done should be focused on reconciliation rather than confrontation. So opposing 2131 will be counter productive.

While CIR increases H1b 2 times, it increases green card more than that. HR 2131 increases H1b 3 times but green card by less than 1.5 times. What can emerge as part of the conference is anyone's guess. But do not think that senate provisions are certain to remain as part of negotiations. Whoever has stronger lobby will remain. We certainly do not have that.

[qesehmk]

I guess Spec so now your main objections are:
a) worst case is - 2131 removes key CIR provisions.
b) best case is CIR becomes CIR + 2131.

I guess A) is already a no no for dems. So I wouldn't even worry about it. As per B - I don't see any problem there. Current GC backlogged candidates should not care about balance of demand and supply. All thye should care is if their pain is reduced in the short term by a straight combination of CIR and 2131.

Now lets see what happens if 2131 is defeated - there are two possiiblities:
1) House republicans feel pressured to do something on immigration and eventually support CIR.
2) House republicans harden further and CIR fails

If 2131 is defeated #2 is a very real possibility. #1 is the worst outcome for republicans and they won't do it.

Which is why #b above is better outcome where republicans claim partial victory where dems possibility make border a bit more strict. And dems possibility increase the path to citizenship or make it harder etc.

So more than merit of an individual path - we also need to think about realistically what is possible.

My last too on the topic. Already beaten this to death.

Q,

The only CIR Bill we have seen is from the Senate and the House have already said they are not going to vote on that.

Yes, there may be a House CIR Bill (from their Gang Of 7) and it will be interesting to see what that contains. It certainly cannot be worse than HR 2131 for EB immigrants.

At the moment, the House Republican strategy seems to be to pass a series of stand alone Bills which will be tacked together and called CIR. They are attempting to establish the "Sense Of Congress" by doing so and making it easier to shoot down any elements they may not like in the House CIR version from the Gang of 7.

To date, there has been nothing welcome in any of these Bills. If as seems likely at the moment, HR2131 represents the House Republicans solution for Immigrant Visas, then if its contents aren't changed, I would preferable to see CIR die rather than be subject to what this Bill would entail. The current House proposals do not include not counting dependents, visa recapture, not counting EB1, not counting MDs etc.

It is those provisions, or at least keeping some of them, that makes the Senate Bil palatable, since it attempts to fix the unequal balance of supply and demand for EB immigrant visas. Without any of them, it's a no go for me. HR2131 actually goes in the opposite direction. I don't feel confident that we would get any of them back in any Conference discussions; the big players care more about including other provisions and there may be nobody influential enough to fight to retain them. They will become the sacrificial lamb if any compromise is possible.

Enough from me.

[qesehmk]

Rupen - yes I get that. But the point I made above is - likelihood of CIR failure increases if 2131 fails. 2131 if succeeds - makes it more likely that CIR will succeed. All of this because of a simple thing called "allowing other party to save their face".

I rest my arguments here!

While CIR increases H1b 2 times, it increases green card more than that. HR 2131 increases H1b 3 times but green card by less than 1.5 times. What can emerge as part of the conference is anyone's guess. But do not think that senate provisions are certain to remain as part of negotiations. Whoever has stronger lobby will remain. We certainly do not have that.

[ROCK72]

Some good news in the House....
1) http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0....html?hp=t1_3#

2)http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...976.html?hp=l1

I think D's want Pathway to Citizenship & some R's want Pathway to legalization + Border Security ---> Pathway to Legalization + some more Border security (Compromise)

[seahawks2012]

I think D's want Pathway to Citizenship & some R's want Pathway to legalization + Border Security ---> Pathway to Legalization + some more Border security (Compromise)

Lets face it, without Pathway to Citizenship there is no motivation for Democratic party to fight this battle. If there are no new votes added to the system...

[ROCK72]

Yes, they may still have some path for citizenship. From CNN.com

"In an interview on Tuesday with PBS, GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who chairs a House subcommittee on immigration, made clear that the Senate measure had no chance of passage but also indicated areas of potential compromise regarding a path to legal status.

For example, Gowdy said some immigrants -- such as those who served in the military and children of undocumented immigrants brought into the country illegally by their parents -- could have a faster mechanism to residency and eventual citizenship.

In addition, he said those who had been in the country illegally for many years and made positive contributions could get a faster path to legal status than illegal newcomers.

In a separate interview, GOP Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho told MSNBC on Wednesday that the House would take a incremental approach by considering specific provisions that would add up to comprehensive immigration reform in the end.

Like Gowdy, Labrador included legal status for undocumented immigrants as part of the effort.

"It will include a path to legal status. I don't know that it will include a path to citizenship," he said. "It will be some sort of legal status, which I think should not prevent anybody from becoming citizens, but will not necessarily give them citizenship status."

Sticking points in the House debate include whether undocumented immigrants would be eligible for health care benefits during the years it would take to get citizenship, and empowering state and local police to work with federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws."

[rupen86]

Rupen - yes I get that. But the point I made above is - likelihood of CIR failure increases if 2131 fails. 2131 if succeeds - makes it more likely that CIR will succeed. All of this because of a simple thing called "allowing other party to save their face".

I rest my arguments here!

I do not see how failure of the HR 2131 is failure of CIR. CIR is certainly not dependent on HR 2131. House just needs a vehicle to get to conference committee. If HR 2131 is not included in that vehicle, it won't stop it from going to conference committee. It just needs to pass 1 or more bills and it can technically go to conference. I again reiterate, if house does not have high skill bill, then it is better because then there is no negotiation on that part since senate will be the only bill on high skill part.

[rupen86]

I guess Spec so now your main objections are:
a) worst case is - 2131 removes key CIR provisions.
b) best case is CIR becomes CIR + 2131.

I guess A) is already a no no for dems. So I wouldn't even worry about it. As per B - I don't see any problem there. Current GC backlogged candidates should not care about balance of demand and supply. All thye should care is if their pain is reduced in the short term by a straight combination of CIR and 2131.

Now lets see what happens if 2131 is defeated - there are two possiiblities:
1) House republicans feel pressured to do something on immigration and eventually support CIR.
2) House republicans harden further and CIR fails

If 2131 is defeated #2 is a very real possibility. #1 is the worst outcome for republicans and they won't do it.

Which is why #b above is better outcome where republicans claim partial victory where dems possibility make border a bit more strict. And dems possibility increase the path to citizenship or make it harder etc.

So more than merit of an individual path - we also need to think about realistically what is possible.

My last too on the topic. Already beaten this to death.

How is A no no for dems. They would be ok with A as long as CIR has "pathway to citizenship". Dems will be just fine if it is CIR- High Skill + 2131.
If 2131 fails, republicans will abandon their effort? I completely disagree with this. I would agree if it was something like border security or e-verify but not 2131.

[qesehmk]

The reason being then dems can go on a victory parade saying republicans failed in their efforts and finally had to come and join us. That's why republicans if they fail in 2131 or other similar efforts altogether - will NEVER back CIR at all.

The only way they could back CIR is if one or more of their own measures succeed and then Dems somehow create an illusion of breaking CIR down or striping it off some things and then club the remnants of dem and rep bills.

I do not see how failure of the HR 2131 is failure of CIR. CIR is certainly not dependent on HR 2131. House just needs a vehicle to get to conference committee. If HR 2131 is not included in that vehicle, it won't stop it from going to conference committee. It just needs to pass 1 or more bills and it can technically go to conference. I again reiterate, if house does not have high skill bill, then it is better because then there is no negotiation on that part since senate will be the only bill on high skill part.

[rupen86]

The reason being then dems can go on a victory parade saying republicans failed in their efforts and finally had to come and join us. That's why republicans if they fail in 2131 or other similar efforts altogether - will NEVER back CIR at all.

The only way they could back CIR is if one or more of their own measures succeed and then Dems somehow create an illusion of breaking CIR down or striping it off some things and then club the remnants of dem and rep bills.

If republicans are not able to pass any of their 5 bills that came out of judiciary committee, then democrats can claim that. Is it going to happen with just HR 2131 failing? I can't imagine that in the wildest dream. For the argument sake, let's say that it is true. Is CIR - High Skill + 2131 better than status quo for us? I do not think so. I agree with Spec that given choices between status quo and 2131, status quo is better.

[rupen86]

Confusion everywhere. There is even confusion over whether this is dead or not.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ills-prospects

[rupen86]

2 things have been heard repeatedly.

1) Pathway to citizenship
2) House will only pass bill that majority supports

These 2 are contradictory and I do not see a way out of this.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/31...on-immigration

[gcq]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle

Hopefully saner voices in GOP will prevail.

The dumbest strategy is to follow the Steve King anti-immigration caucus and simply let the Senate bill die while further militarizing the border. This may please the loudest voices on talk radio, but it ignores the millions of evangelical Christians, Catholic conservatives, business owners and free-marketers who support reform. The GOP can support a true conservative opportunity society or become a party of closed minds and borders.

[qesehmk]

I would certainly disagree with this because this is basically saying -- now that I am on the train - I am not going to allow any more people on the train because it will increase the backlog on the train going to the next station. Think about it.

..given choices between status quo and 2131, status quo is better.

[gten20]

@#$! Boehner.. the worlds saddest tangerine.

http://www.gop.gov/press-release/13/...t-by-house-gop

[seahawks2012]

http://www.gop.gov/press-release/13/...t-by-house-gop

The article at least proves the two points:
1. It is going to be piecemeal approach in House and that eventually will land in conference with the Senate bill
2. House will take up 2 or more small bills that deal with immigration (This is good news as it is better than "do nothing" approach)

[rupen86]

I would certainly disagree with this because this is basically saying -- now that I am on the train - I am not going to allow any more people on the train because it will increase the backlog on the train going to the next station. Think about it.

You can draw whatever conclusion you want to draw but that is not what I am saying here. If the bill is making current situation worse then I would rather have the current situation. I think that would be the position of most people on this forum whose main concern is green card backlog.

[qesehmk]

I think you wrote this. So clearly there is concern about backlog. But then your solution is to oppose the backlog as opposed to increase supply. That's what I compared with the example of train with backlog going to next station. Didn't mean to demean you. Just wanted to point out the fallacy of the rationale. My last on this topic.

No GC increase and increase in H1B by 3 times..it is going to make backlog situation worse

You can draw whatever conclusion you want to draw but that is not what I am saying here. If the bill is making current situation worse then I would rather have the current situation. I think that would be the position of most people on this forum whose main concern is green card backlog.

[rupen86]

I think you wrote this. So clearly there is concern about backlog. But then your solution is to oppose the backlog as opposed to increase supply. That's what I compared with the example of train with backlog going to next station. Didn't mean to demean you. Just wanted to point out the fallacy of the rationale. My last on this topic.

I do not know what the confusion is. This bill as it stands is making green card backlog situation worse. That is why I am asking to oppose that. If by some magic, green card provisions are included in the same bill, we could support that but not without that.