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

[qesehmk]

gcq - kudos to you for saying this. This is exactly what I have always felt but never said. You said it very very well. If I were to form an organization in future - this is precisely the kind of things we should be fighting for. Government agencies execution is ultimately done by people who have their own biases which then gets reflected in implementing the country's laws. It may or may not always have basis ... but the receiving party - unless organized and represented well - has no way to fight back.

While McKinsey may have better talent .... the fact is employer - employee - client relationship at McKinsey or IBM is fundamentally no different than wipro or infosys.

Guess where you went wrong. USCIS itself is legally wrong in issuing the Jan-08 memo which you are referring to. That memo is illegal as it goes against the existing laws of the country. There is no separate definition of "employer-employee" for USCIS. Whatever that definition is, it has to come from the common law. If that employer-employee definition was correct not a single American company should be able to operate that model. Bottom line USICS memo is illegal.

Why is still USCIS able to use that memo against consulting companies.

1. These companies don't have the guts and file a lawsuit. They filed one, but didn't follow it up.
2. Democrats ( pro-union) in power (read Obama, Durbin). These pro-union democrats with anti-immigrant Grassley and co played behind the scenes.

Regarding consulting companies vs staffing companies, tell me what difference these companies have.

Companies like Deloitte and Bearing Point send their consultants to client place. The do the work, charge the client, company gets a cut, employee gets a cut.
Staffing companies -- ditto
Only difference is pay rate. Top consulting companies charge and pay exorbitant rates whereas staffing companies don't. Staffing companies are low end consulting companies.

One other category I can think of is companies like TCS, Infosys that grabs project and get their employees do it at their location or client location. How are they any different ?
Against the argument that "entire staffing/consulting companies should be eliminated because of some bad players", it is like saying marriage should be banned because some spouses ill-treat their counter parts.

[idiotic]

I feel that CIR will affect profitability of Indian companies & desi consultants as they will be forced to hire a certain percentage of americans (who won't work for lesser wages) to continue the business. This will only affect profitability of these companies and they have to find better ways of offsetting this increased cost of doing business. From employees perspective, it should still be same.

[vizcard]

Guess where you went wrong. USCIS itself is legally wrong in issuing the Jan-08 memo which you are referring to. That memo is illegal as it goes against the existing laws of the country. There is no separate definition of "employer-employee" for USCIS. Whatever that definition is, it has to come from the common law. If that employer-employee definition was correct not a single American company should be able to operate that model. Bottom line USICS memo is illegal.

Why is still USCIS able to use that memo against consulting companies.

1. These companies don't have the guts and file a lawsuit. They filed one, but didn't follow it up.
2. Democrats ( pro-union) in power (read Obama, Durbin). These pro-union democrats with anti-immigrant Grassley and co played behind the scenes.

Regarding consulting companies vs staffing companies, tell me what difference these companies have.

Companies like Deloitte and Bearing Point send their consultants to client place. The do the work, charge the client, company gets a cut, employee gets a cut.
Staffing companies -- ditto
Only difference is pay rate. Top consulting companies charge and pay exorbitant rates whereas staffing companies don't. Staffing companies are low end consulting companies.

One other category I can think of is companies like TCS, Infosys that grabs project and get their employees do it at their location or client location. How are they any different ?
Against the argument that "entire staffing/consulting companies should be eliminated because of some bad players", it is like saying marriage should be banned because some spouses ill-treat their counter parts.

Difference between staffing companies and true consulting companies.

Consulting firms model
- charge clients a rate and pay the employee a fixed salary regardless of the rate charged to the client. Employees don't get a "cut". So if Deloitte wants to do a project for free, the employee still gets paid
- Also, when NOT on a project, the employee still gets paid
- Deloitte partners oversee and review the employees project work. They are legally and criminally liable for damages if the work results in issues (look at the recent news about KPMG and Skechers)

Staffing companies
- charge clients a rate and pay the employee a rate less their "commission".
- when the employee is not on a project, the employee does not get paid at all.
- the client and not the staffing company manages and reviews the day to day work of the employee and generally has no liability when the employee screws up.

If thats not clear enough then I don't know what will be.

Also, this is the guidance from 2010 on what is employer-employee relationship-> Link

PS: BearingPoint doesn't exist any more. It declared bankruptcy several years ago and the pieces were bought by PwC and Deloitte. I personally worked on the due diligence and valuation process for that deal.

gcq - kudos to you for saying this. This is exactly what I have always felt but never said. You said it very very well. If I were to form an organization in future - this is precisely the kind of things we should be fighting for. Government agencies execution is ultimately done by people who have their own biases which then gets reflected in implementing the country's laws. It may or may not always have basis ... but the receiving party - unless organized and represented well - has no way to fight back.

While McKinsey may have better talent .... the fact is employer - employee - client relationship at McKinsey or IBM is fundamentally no different than wipro or infosys.

Q -
I consider TCS, Wipro and Infosys as consulting firms as they have a clear employer-employee relationship as defined by the USCIS. But there are true body shops out there that employ questionable practices as far as immigration goes. Its a different debate as to whether or not current rules are just. I also think that lobbying would be a good idea to change the current rules. But the fact is that there are rules today..and there are companies that commit fraud.

[qesehmk]

Q -
I consider TCS, Wipro and Infosys as consulting firms as they have a clear employer-employee relationship as defined by the USCIS. But there are true body shops out there that employ questionable practices as far as immigration goes. Its a different debate as to whether or not current rules are just. I also think that lobbying would be a good idea to change the current rules. But the fact is that there are rules today..and there are companies that commit fraud.

Viz - I think you are missing the point. The USCIS memo itself can't stand the test of INA should somebody sue them according to gcq. Although I am not an expert on law - I tend to side with his side on argument on the validity of the memo.

However I agree with you that there are McKinsey's / there are IBMs / there are Infys and there are mom and pop body shoppers. I would agree that the talent is certainly better on the McKinsey side of spectrum. However what I fail to understand is - how does Employee-employer relationship matter at all when a labor is approved and H1 or 140 is based on that approved labor. The USCIS memo is an unfair artificial lens that tries to look into something that has no legal basis is what gcq is saying an I tend to agree with him (unless of course somebody here can enlighten all of us better!).

Thanks for a civil dialogue to both of you!

[seattlet]

my 2 cents. USCIS had put in the employee / employer relationship & other rules predominantly to prevent benching. If IBM / Accenture / Deloitte / big consulting firms dont have a project for their employees they will still pay them monthly wages until layoff / send them back to india. However small / mid size consulting firms cannot afford it since their margins are mostly low. Hence they resort to the illegal bench practice. On other hand even most employees of small / mid size consulting firms prefer benching and an 80 / 20 cut. This might explain why the big firms never have any issue in getting their H1 approved. It is a matter of trust and USCIS has seen that most small / mid size consulting firms dont specify the truth in the H1 B application. (by site visits / audits)
USCIS actions might be unconstitutional, but that is predictable when larger number of these firms break the promise they make in their H1 application (Location, wages, job description, client name etc)

vizacard,
You are judging consulting companies based on your prejudice. My company never paid me a cut. Deloitte also may not be paying a cut theoretically. But actually it is a cut. They are making profit by the work done by their employees. They are servicing the client. They don't have their own business like regular fulltime companies.

Your assumptions which are wrong( There maybe companies doing it. They are just bad players )
As far as H1B goes, all employees need to be paid salary. They cannot work on commission or percentage. That is the law.

Basing your assumptions on the illegal USCIS memo, even after me explaining it, is you looking the other way as if you don't want to acknowledge it.

BTW I am not against any consulting model big or small. For me they are all valid business models.

[gcq]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rquist-support
Grover Norquist

[gs1968]

I feel this op-ed piece is mainly to put pressure on House Leadership to allow the Judiciary Committee to have control over the process rather than being bypassed.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...ration-reform/

I have not seen any date for release of the House Bill

[vizcard]

gcq, Q
Lets just agree to disagree. There are companies that don't pay their employees when they are on the bench and they don't have control over what their "employees" are doing at the client site. As for the "getting a cut" issue, ask yourself "if the petitioner decides not to charge for a project, would the employee still get paid?". If the answer is yes, then it meets one of the two conditions, if the answer is "no", then it violates the salary condition. That's the litmus test for the USCIS. I'm not going to argue whether or not the guidance or the law or the spirit of the law is unconstitutional but I won't go as far as to say its "illegal". Paying FICA taxes but not being eligible for FICA benefits because you on H1B or EAD is also against the spirit of the law but it is what it is under the current system.

That's all I'm going to say on this topic.

[idiotic]

Good News :
==========

The House Judiciary Committee has held numerous hearings on immigration and also plans to hold one on the Senate immigration bill in the coming days to consider its merits and flaws.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2ROORxLNC

[gs1968]

A couple of items on my twitter feed one positive and the other not so sure

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...er_share=54920

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/29...migration-bill

There is a significant disconnect between the pace in the House and the Senate with the House showing no urgency at all. I would think a parallel process rather than a sequential process would be more beneficial
The interesting irony is that the House is considered a Bill Mill churning out Bills by the dozen and send it to the Senate for sober second thought and Deliberation.Here the roles seem to be reversed with the Senate working on an accelerated schedule and the House slowing down the process with deliberation

[gs1968]

A few pages ago we had a brief discussion on the Congressional Black Caucus concerns on the Immigration Bill provisions and the elimination of diversity visas.Here are a few disconcerting updates on the issue

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/29...iversity-visas

http://politic365.com/2013/04/24/cbc...nt-support-it/

I had analyzed the last Yearbook and the number of African/Caribbean GCs were roughly 45% although only 40000 diversity visas were issued last year.

This zero-sum calculations have to stop if this reform is to go through.The CBC usually walks in step and will follow through on its threat.They have nothing to lose as almost all of them represent minority dominated districts

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/24/af...igration-bill/

[vizcard]

I don't blame the CBC for their opinion particularly if they have 10K Irish visas. However, the solution needs to be in the merit-based system. Add additional points for being in low immigrant pool..there is already some point weightage but increase that. That being said, the CBC shouldnt have a knee jerk reaction to this. If they want black/carribbean immigrants, get the ones that can contribute rather than come, claim welfare and be a drain on resources.

[idiotic]

http://thinkprogress.org/immigration...ation-hearing/

Watch the video in the link in case you missed the fireworks

[rupen86]

A few pages ago we had a brief discussion on the Congressional Black Caucus concerns on the Immigration Bill provisions and the elimination of diversity visas.Here are a few disconcerting updates on the issue

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/29...iversity-visas

http://politic365.com/2013/04/24/cbc...nt-support-it/

I had analyzed the last Yearbook and the number of African/Caribbean GCs were roughly 45% although only 40000 diversity visas were issued last year.

This zero-sum calculations have to stop if this reform is to go through.The CBC usually walks in step and will follow through on its threat.They have nothing to lose as almost all of them represent minority dominated districts

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/24/af...igration-bill/

There is a merit in the argument that having 10k Irish visas and not having diversity visas is not fair. Although, I think both should be eliminated. As it was claimed that house will need Black Caucus votes, compromise could be to give more points in the merit based system to help those currently getting help from diversity visa. I do not think diversity program can be back as it is.

[immi2910]

From this sheet at http://ccis.ucsd.edu/2013/03/will-co...in-the-senate/ Via Trackitt

Summary:
Solid Yes 52
Lean Yes 19
Lean No 14
Solid No 15

lastname statename category
Alexander Tennessee Solid No
Ayotte New Hampshire Lean Yes
Baldwin Wisconsin Solid Yes
Barrasso Wyoming Lean No
Baucus Montana Lean Yes
Begich Alaska Solid Yes
Bennet Colorado Solid Yes
Blumenthal Connecticut Solid Yes
Blunt Missouri Lean No
Boozman Arkansas Solid No
Boxer California Solid Yes
Brown Ohio Solid Yes
Burr North Carolina Lean No
Cantwell Washington Solid Yes
Cardin Maryland Solid Yes
Carper Delaware Solid Yes
Casey Pennsylvania Solid Yes
Chambliss Georgia Lean No
Coats Indiana Lean No
Coburn Oklahoma Lean No
Cochran Mississippi Solid No
Collins Maine Lean Yes
Coons Delaware Solid Yes
Corker Tennessee Solid No
Cornyn Texas Solid No
Cowan Massachusetts Solid Yes
Crapo Idaho Solid No
Cruz Texas Lean Yes
Donnelly Indiana Solid Yes
Durbin Illinois Solid Yes
Enzi Wyoming Lean No
Feinstein California Solid Yes
Fischer Nebraska Lean No
Flake Arizona Solid Yes
Franken Minnesota Solid Yes
Gillibrand New York Solid Yes
Graham South Carolina Solid Yes
Grassley Iowa Solid No
Hagan North Carolina Solid Yes
Harkin Iowa Solid Yes
Hatch Utah Lean Yes
Heinrich New Mexico Lean Yes
Heitkamp North Dakota Lean Yes
Heller Nevada Solid Yes
Hirono Hawaii Lean Yes
Hoeven North Dakota Lean No
Inhofe Oklahoma Lean No
Isakson Georgia Lean No
Johanns Nebraska Lean Yes
Johnson South Dakota Lean Yes
Johnson Wisconsin Lean Yes
Kaine Virginia Solid Yes
King Maine Solid Yes
Kirk Illinois Solid Yes
Klobuchar Minnesota Solid Yes
Landrieu Louisiana Lean Yes
Lautenberg New Jersey Solid Yes
Leahy Vermont Solid Yes
Lee Utah Lean Yes
Levin Michigan Solid Yes
Manchin West Virginia Lean No
McCain Arizona Solid Yes
McCaskill Missouri Solid Yes
McConnell Kentucky Solid No
Menendez New Jersey Solid Yes
Merkley Oregon Solid Yes
Mikulski Maryland Solid Yes
Moran Kansas Lean Yes
Murkowski Alaska Solid Yes
Murphy Connecticut Solid Yes
Murray Washington Solid Yes
Nelson Florida Solid Yes
Paul Kentucky Solid No
Portman Ohio Lean Yes
Pryor Arkansas Lean Yes
Reed Rhode Island Solid Yes
Reid Nevada Solid Yes
Risch Idaho Lean No
Roberts Kansas Solid No
Rockefeller West Virginia Solid Yes
Rubio Florida Solid Yes
Sanders Vermont Solid Yes
Schatz Hawaii Lean Yes
Schumer New York Solid Yes
Scott South Carolina Solid No
Sessions Alabama Solid No
Shaheen New Hampshire Solid Yes
Shelby Alabama Solid No
Stabenow Michigan Solid Yes
Tester Montana Lean Yes
Thune South Dakota Lean No
Toomey Pennsylvania Solid Yes
Udall Colorado Solid Yes
Udall New Mexico Lean Yes
Vitter Louisiana Solid No
Warner Virginia Solid Yes
Warren Massachusetts Solid Yes
Whitehouse Rhode Island Solid Yes
Wicker Mississippi Solid No
Wyden Oregon Solid Yes

[gcq]

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...5#.UXlVT8rt5dM

For a comprehensive immigration reform package to pass, it will likely have to go through the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte (Va.).

But Goodlatte wants to leave the door open to the possibility of passing a series of bills, instead of one complex, interrelated package.

"The House Judiciary Committee intends to examine immigration reform in a step-by-step approach," Goodlatte said at a press conference Thursday morning. "We welcome the ideas of all the members of House."

[rupen86]

From this sheet at http://ccis.ucsd.edu/2013/03/will-co...in-the-senate/ Via Trackitt

Summary:
Solid Yes 52
Lean Yes 19
Lean No 14
Solid No 15

lastname statename category
Alexander Tennessee Solid No
Ayotte New Hampshire Lean Yes
Baldwin Wisconsin Solid Yes
Barrasso Wyoming Lean No
Baucus Montana Lean Yes
Begich Alaska Solid Yes
Bennet Colorado Solid Yes
Blumenthal Connecticut Solid Yes
Blunt Missouri Lean No
Boozman Arkansas Solid No
Boxer California Solid Yes
Brown Ohio Solid Yes
Burr North Carolina Lean No
Cantwell Washington Solid Yes
Cardin Maryland Solid Yes
Carper Delaware Solid Yes
Casey Pennsylvania Solid Yes
Chambliss Georgia Lean No
Coats Indiana Lean No
Coburn Oklahoma Lean No
Cochran Mississippi Solid No
Collins Maine Lean Yes
Coons Delaware Solid Yes
Corker Tennessee Solid No
Cornyn Texas Solid No
Cowan Massachusetts Solid Yes
Crapo Idaho Solid No
Cruz Texas Lean Yes
Donnelly Indiana Solid Yes
Durbin Illinois Solid Yes
Enzi Wyoming Lean No
Feinstein California Solid Yes
Fischer Nebraska Lean No
Flake Arizona Solid Yes
Franken Minnesota Solid Yes
Gillibrand New York Solid Yes
Graham South Carolina Solid Yes
Grassley Iowa Solid No
Hagan North Carolina Solid Yes
Harkin Iowa Solid Yes
Hatch Utah Lean Yes
Heinrich New Mexico Lean Yes
Heitkamp North Dakota Lean Yes
Heller Nevada Solid Yes
Hirono Hawaii Lean Yes
Hoeven North Dakota Lean No
Inhofe Oklahoma Lean No
Isakson Georgia Lean No
Johanns Nebraska Lean Yes
Johnson South Dakota Lean Yes
Johnson Wisconsin Lean Yes
Kaine Virginia Solid Yes
King Maine Solid Yes
Kirk Illinois Solid Yes
Klobuchar Minnesota Solid Yes
Landrieu Louisiana Lean Yes
Lautenberg New Jersey Solid Yes
Leahy Vermont Solid Yes
Lee Utah Lean Yes
Levin Michigan Solid Yes
Manchin West Virginia Lean No
McCain Arizona Solid Yes
McCaskill Missouri Solid Yes
McConnell Kentucky Solid No
Menendez New Jersey Solid Yes
Merkley Oregon Solid Yes
Mikulski Maryland Solid Yes
Moran Kansas Lean Yes
Murkowski Alaska Solid Yes
Murphy Connecticut Solid Yes
Murray Washington Solid Yes
Nelson Florida Solid Yes
Paul Kentucky Solid No
Portman Ohio Lean Yes
Pryor Arkansas Lean Yes
Reed Rhode Island Solid Yes
Reid Nevada Solid Yes
Risch Idaho Lean No
Roberts Kansas Solid No
Rockefeller West Virginia Solid Yes
Rubio Florida Solid Yes
Sanders Vermont Solid Yes
Schatz Hawaii Lean Yes
Schumer New York Solid Yes
Scott South Carolina Solid No
Sessions Alabama Solid No
Shaheen New Hampshire Solid Yes
Shelby Alabama Solid No
Stabenow Michigan Solid Yes
Tester Montana Lean Yes
Thune South Dakota Lean No
Toomey Pennsylvania Solid Yes
Udall Colorado Solid Yes
Udall New Mexico Lean Yes
Vitter Louisiana Solid No
Warner Virginia Solid Yes
Warren Massachusetts Solid Yes
Whitehouse Rhode Island Solid Yes
Wicker Mississippi Solid No
Wyden Oregon Solid Yes

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...626.html?hp=f1

[gs1968]

To Pedro/rupen and immi2910

Thanks for the link and the list.I had attempted a similar effort on this thread last week where I had got a tally of at least 59 votes in favor.It is very difficult to assess when likely yes or no is added to the picture as the picture becomes very murky.I had tried to put them in yes or no buckets only. Also in the above list Ted Cruz is mentioned as a likely yes although nothing that he has said or done in the last few weeks seems to suggest this. Sen.Pryor with a tough re-election is also a tough call. Another Senator in point is Sen.Baldwin who has for obvious reasons deep concern for LGBT issues and may drive a hard bargain before saying yes. 70 votes is possible although I am still skeptical that a majority of Republicans will vote for this. Senator Graham had mentioned 48 democratic votes and 22 republican votes for a total of 70 votes

[gs1968]

An interesting exchange at the Business Meeting yesterday of the Senate Judiciary Committee

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...-read-it-later

I know our immediate reaction is going to be to dismiss Sen.Sessions and the hardliners as a minority and unable to stop progress of the legislation but the talking points they generate are going to be fodder for the conservatives at large especially in the House. I am sure NumbersUSA and Mark Krikorian etc are preparing their dossiers for circulation during the current recess.I only hope that they take a a balanced view and as Sen.Schumer said not to delay the Bill for delay's sake

[gs1968]

Another interesting piece

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...igration-.html

Years ago another senator who had been promised of Sen.Hatch's support on a certain Bill but ended up voting against it said-

"Don't count your Hatches before they chicken!"

[gs1968]

It didn't take them too long to come up with these numbers.I am disappointed that the Bill sponsors are not forthcoming with their own assessments on immigrant inflow to refute these allegations.If they do not move fast these high numbers will be played up repeatedly by the media

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/26/an...illion-people/

[Ramsen]

I think cap exemption for STEM and EB1 and also huge number of green cards in illegal and family based immigration will create obstacles for passage. If Senate attempts to pass with same form then I am sure house will kill it. In the bill most people got whatever they wanted except a few. They tried to give more than expected for EB and H1b. It tends me to think that all the lobbyists succeeded in getting whatever they want. Senators will not have problem in getting campaign donation if the bill passes or fails. If the bill is made conservative in numbers for every category then there is a possibility to pass in house. There is no opposition for removing diversity gc and some family based. That surprise me and tend to think that the bill may go similar to 2007 but without anyone taking blame. Finally house republicans may take the blame but should not impact election results in house. And Rubio may have chance to become president if bill fails or passes. Infact if the bill fails Rubio could try next term president(If he becomes) by supporting CIR on 2017

[gcq]

It didn't take them too long to come up with these numbers.I am disappointed that the Bill sponsors are not forthcoming with their own assessments on immigrant inflow to refute these allegations.If they do not move fast these high numbers will be played up repeatedly by the media

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/26/an...illion-people/

This campaign by numbers USA is expected. They will definitely following up with phone calls and faxes to congressional/senate offices when bill comes up for voting. NUSA claims that they overloaded DC phone lines last time. During HR 3012, we did that too ! Proponents of the bill should anticipate this and prepare a counter strategy.

This time it is different from 2007. Generally america is very receptive to immigration bill this time around. Hispanics and Asians are a significant voting block. There are more youngsters among voters.

By careful planning and organized effort, NUSA and their allies can be defeated this time.

• Prepare a grass root campaigning by Hispanics and other immigrant groups. Hispanics have considerable population now.

• Obama has a grassroots organisation now. His campaign volunteers converted to an organisation to help Obama with his legislative efforts. Organize them to campaign for the bill.

• Last but not least, our legal immigrant community should campaign the way we did for HR 3012.

[gs1968]

To gcq

It is not that straightforward. We have to remember that the pace and fate of the process is still controlled by the republicans in the House. The average percentage of the non-Hispanic white population in a Republican held congressional district is 75% and they stand to gain very little from passing this legislation and everything to lose. Rep.Trey Gowdy said this week that his congressional district has a 2% Hispanic population and thus he is not doing this to gain votes. He would like to see some form of solution to this problem but he feels no pressure to rush things

This is an article today from the NRO which is a conservative publication but nevertheless illustrates the problem of CIR passage

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...%99s-slow-burn

[gcq]

gs1968,
This is a comment from the same article. I think house may go this route after a while. Otherwise CIR is almost guaranteed to fail.

Goodlatte won't matter, Boehner will cave. The bill will likely get 70-72 votes in the Senate and the political pressure from his colleagues in the leadership as well as the special interests will get to him. He will likely put up small bills like strong enforcement which will pass and then the Path that will fail. He will then either bring up the comprehensive bill from the house (which is similar to the Senate's) for passage. Or he might just bring up the Senate package as he may not want 2 votes after they reconcile the house/senate package.