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

[ROCK72]

Maybe just some reason for a little bit of optimism....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

[immitime]

Politicians always sound optimistic to raise money and to appease base. The speaker and committee both will try their best to kill the bill by dragging it and putting poison amendments which democrats find unacceptable., its far easy to kill a bill rather than to pass

I will ask another counter question for this.. Why this so called democrats want same sex marriage and Illegal immigration and a big comprehensive bill. If at all the bill fails in congress it would be the above two reasons.. They can very well fix the Legal immigration the political climate is always good for that.. Democrats made Legal immigration hostage for their selfishness and vice versa about republicans...

So moral of the story is Politicians do not want to solve the issue. They want the issue always lingering.. so that they can make advantage for their benefits.. (Lobby money.. or Farmhouse in Texas)

[indiani]

Are you being pessimist based on your recent meetings or the ones you had in the past ?

met our congressman along with few other guys from the lobbying group, he isn't interested in anything that has citizenship for illegals, he is OK for everything else and u know that obama will veto anything that doesn't have pathway to citizenship and harry reid won't bring to voting anything wihtout citizenship clause but that just one congressman from Red district

[indiani]

I will ask another counter question for this.. Why this so called democrats want same sex marriage and Illegal immigration and a big comprehensive bill. If at all the bill fails in congress it would be the above two reasons.. They can very well fix the Legal immigration the political climate is always good for that.. Democrats made Legal immigration hostage for their selfishness and vice versa about republicans...

So moral of the story is Politicians do not want to solve the issue. They want the issue always lingering.. so that they can make advantage for their benefits.. (Lobby money.. or Farmhouse in Texas)

Illegal immigrants belong to lower socio economic status so when they become citizens vast majority will vote Dem, also the latinos will like to have significant portion of the voting block so they like people of their ethnic group become citizens.

I am from india but personally i do not like people who belong to my race or anyother race who came here get citizenship in 13 yrs when I MAY get in 20 years if I am lucky

[vizcard]

Illegal immigrants belong to lower socio economic status so when they become citizens vast majority will vote Dem, also the latinos will like to have significant portion of the voting block so they like people of their ethnic group become citizens.

I am from india but personally i do not like people who belong to my race or anyother race who came here get citizenship in 13 yrs when I MAY get in 20 years if I am lucky

i generally agree with what you said. I will add one thing though. If you give someone a RPI status without a path to citizenship, that is wrong. It would be like being on a permanent H1B. I don't really care about the timeline to become citizens. Senate said 13, House says 15 yrs...to me it doesn't matter as long as all legals get there first.

Purely based on the logic of the bill, no illegal will get permanent residency before a legal. Ergo no illegal will get citizenship before a legal. Plus the Senate bill makes it 3 yrs rather than 5 yrs post GC to apply for citizenship (assuming you've been in the US for 10 yrs).

[immitime]

Illegal immigrants belong to lower socio economic status so when they become citizens vast majority will vote Dem, also the latinos will like to have significant portion of the voting block so they like people of their ethnic group become citizens.

I am from india but personally i do not like people who belong to my race or anyother race who came here get citizenship in 13 yrs when I MAY get in 20 years if I am lucky

If The President really wants this bill to be passed. He should now take leadership and have compromise between the two parties, as bipartisan. He will never do that because his party cannot blame the other party if the bill passes. So intention is visible as DAYLIGHT! Just for votes and selfishness lot of families suffers.

When people are getting citizenship within 6 yeras what to talk about 13 years... Immigration should be only FIFO... otherthings can be considered later, and they should not tie immigration with employers. This is only one view point which I favour. Opinions can be different for different people.

[qesehmk]

The last I checked - that's how politics is supposed to work - groups of people exacting their influence on political parties.

Instead of blaming latinos or any other immigrant groups - EB immigrants should unite and exercise their power. If we get into the mentality of blaming XYZ for their luck then its a slippery slope that then pits EB1 against EB2 vs EB3 & Indians vs ROW vs Chinese... and US graduates vs non-US graduates. And physicians vs IT folks. And then within IT infosys vs qualcomm vs google --- debate.

Folks there is no end to it. Be happy for others and work towards your own happiness without blaming others.

Illegal immigrants belong to lower socio economic status so when they become citizens vast majority will vote Dem, also the latinos will like to have significant portion of the voting block so they like people of their ethnic group become citizens.

I am from india but personally i do not like people who belong to my race or anyother race who came here get citizenship in 13 yrs when I MAY get in 20 years if I am lucky

[indiani]

If The President really wants this bill to be passed. He should now take leadership and have compromise between the two parties, as bipartisan. He will never do that because his party cannot blame the other party if the bill passes. So intention is visible as DAYLIGHT! Just for votes and selfishness lot of families suffers.

When people are getting citizenship within 6 yeras what to talk about 13 years... Immigration should be only FIFO... otherthings can be considered later, and they should not tie immigration with employers. This is only one view point which I favour. Opinions can be different for different people.

Visa recapture bill died few yrs ago even though it would have granted GC to many EB esp from India, all of them highly educated non-criminal tax paying people. not many people or politicians in this country cared.
But suddenly 11 million people some of whom have questionable jobs and whatever federal taxes they pay is extremely low compared with the resources they consume by having dozen kids all of whom will be on medicaid, food stamps and go to public schools, all 11 million getting ciitzenship with burden of paying EXORBIANT 2000$ fine is human rights issue and they dont want to get anything less than citizenship.

Lot of us waiting for GC 13+ yrs will be happy with just GC..

[gcq]

met our congressman along with few other guys from the lobbying group, he isn't interested in anything that has citizenship for illegals, he is OK for everything else and u know that obama will veto anything that doesn't have pathway to citizenship and harry reid won't bring to voting anything wihtout citizenship clause but that just one congressman from Red district

One congressman doesn't decide the issue. It is the majority that matters. I have been a constituent of an anti-immigrant congressman who is against all kind of immigration who also voted against HR 3012. I have also been a constituent of pro-legal immigration congressman who has pretty much co-sponsored all our bills. IMO your congressman's opinion alone doesn't count. If you were a constituent of Steve King, you will see no chance of immigration reform for the next 1000 years. Fortunately democracy works on majority. So there is hope.

[indiani]

The last I checked - that's how politics is supposed to work - groups of people exacting their influence on political parties.

Instead of blaming latinos or any other immigrant groups - EB immigrants should unite and exercise their power. If we get into the mentality of blaming XYZ for their luck then its a slippery slope that then pits EB1 against EB2 vs EB3 & Indians vs ROW vs Chinese... and US graduates vs non-US graduates. And physicians vs IT folks. And then within IT infosys vs qualcomm vs google --- debate.

Folks there is no end to it. Be happy for others and work towards your own happiness without blaming others.

Q, i have donated several hundrerds of my after tax money for lobbying and have spent several hours personally and also requesting all my relatives and friends to lobby for CIR many of whom already have GC.
I was expressing my opinion, however I have spend so many pain staking hrs lobbying even though CIR might not impact me personally with 2007 PD in EB2I

[indiani]

One congressman doesn't decide the issue. It is the majority that matters. I have been a constituent of an anti-immigrant congressman who is against all kind of immigration who also voted against HR 3012. I have also been a constituent of pro-legal immigration congressman who has pretty much co-sponsored all our bills. IMO your congressman's opinion alone doesn't count. If you were a constituent of Steve King, you will see no chance of immigration reform for the next 1000 years. Fortunately democracy works on majority. So there is hope.

you are right if Boehner and house committee wants CIR they will have enough Dems and handful of Reps, i did not imply that the chances depend upon my district congresman, in fact as long as they get 50 votes from republicans mostly dems they still can pass but I am not so sure Boehner will do it in timely fasion.

if u look at my previous post I am diligently working for CIR and I realy hope it passes but I am giving my perspective, i spoke to folks who went to WH and met lot of senators who share my level of optimism but they work very hard to get this thing done

[indiani]

i generally agree with what you said. I will add one thing though. If you give someone a RPI status without a path to citizenship, that is wrong. It would be like being on a permanent H1B. I don't really care about the timeline to become citizens. Senate said 13, House says 15 yrs...to me it doesn't matter as long as all legals get there first.

Purely based on the logic of the bill, no illegal will get permanent residency before a legal. Ergo no illegal will get citizenship before a legal. Plus the Senate bill makes it 3 yrs rather than 5 yrs post GC to apply for citizenship (assuming you've been in the US for 10 yrs).

I was taking into account folks on EB3 and some EB2 (including education) who are currently in the system, if CIR passes for future legal immigrants what u said is true. But total time it took for someone who have been here already for 13+ yrs waiting for GC , they sure would have spent total time more compared to lets say someone came in 2011 on visitor visa and never left to become citizens

[qesehmk]

indiani, I admire and respect what you have done.

I also understand the frustration because I have gone through similar pain before I got my own GC. Good luck with your GC. I am sure this is your year.

Q, i have donated several hundrerds of my after tax money for lobbying and have spent several hours personally and also requesting all my relatives and friends to lobby for CIR many of whom already have GC.
I was expressing my opinion, however I have spend so many pain staking hrs lobbying even though CIR might not impact me personally with 2007 PD in EB2I

[vizcard]

If The President really wants this bill to be passed. He should now take leadership and have compromise between the two parties, as bipartisan. He will never do that because his party cannot blame the other party if the bill passes. So intention is visible as DAYLIGHT! Just for votes and selfishness lot of families suffers.

When people are getting citizenship within 6 yeras what to talk about 13 years... Immigration should be only FIFO... otherthings can be considered later, and they should not tie immigration with employers. This is only one view point which I favour. Opinions can be different for different people.

I dont think you can blame the president about wanting to pass it. Bush wanted it done too and failed then. There are politics involved but its not limited to Barack Obama or W. Besides for one reason or another, Obama generates vitriol among Republicans. So any major involvement from him will absolutely kill the bill.

[ROCK72]

S.744 placed on Senate Calender no.80.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-11...2013-06-03.pdf

[indiani]

I dont think you can blame the president about wanting to pass it. Bush wanted it done too and failed then. There are politics involved but its not limited to Barack Obama or W. Besides for one reason or another, Obama generates vitriol among Republicans. So any major involvement from him will absolutely kill the bill.

I wish he should have introduced the bill in 2009 instead of obamacare which did not turn out to be very great accomplishment. I think at this point I think he is doing whatever he can abt this. If Rubio/mccain can talk to Boehner/ Goodlatte and cantor and let them bring CIR to the floor, this might become law in fall/winter

[vizcard]

I wish he should have introduced the bill in 2009 instead of obamacare which did not turn out to be very great accomplishment. I think at this point I think he is doing whatever he can abt this. If Rubio/mccain can talk to Boehner/ Goodlatte and cantor and let them bring CIR to the floor, this might become law in fall/winter

CIR will come to the House floor in some shape or form. I honestly hope its the House version of the Bill coz the Senate version has not shot of passing in the House. Ofcourse the issue just like last time will be the Conference at the end of it all. In 2007, the Senate and House both passed their individual bills but couldnt come to a compromise in Conference. Hopefully that doesn't happen this time around. IMO, if the "path to citizenship" issue can be resolved, the Bill will 100% pass.

[immitime]

I dont think you can blame the president about wanting to pass it. Bush wanted it done too and failed then. There are politics involved but its not limited to Barack Obama or W. Besides for one reason or another, Obama generates vitriol among Republicans. So any major involvement from him will absolutely kill the bill.

I agree with you on this.. The President alone cannot do anything.. but he can take the leadership and move the bill further as a catalyst.

As per your other post.. you missed one point SSmarriage.

Path to Citizenship and Same sex marriage are the two major hindrances if at all bill is failing.

[indiani]

CIR will come to the House floor in some shape or form. I honestly hope its the House version of the Bill coz the Senate version has not shot of passing in the House. Ofcourse the issue just like last time will be the Conference at the end of it all. In 2007, the Senate and House both passed their individual bills but couldnt come to a compromise in Conference. Hopefully that doesn't happen this time around. IMO, if the "path to citizenship" issue can be resolved, the Bill will 100% pass.

The chances of bill dying are higher than passing. This is true for most bills introduced esp. in divided congress

There just wont be a law in which there is no "pathway to citizenship" as president will veto it.

[qesehmk]

indiani - I also think that the way gun legislation died is indicative of how immigration is going to go. IMHO gun legislation had a higher chance of passing given how much sandy hook shook american society.

On another note - sometimes I think we lose perspective that CIR is primarily not about EB. It is about FB. It is something that dems have proposed and they have thrown in EB to entice republicans. However if you look at republicans - the cost of passing this will be higher for them than not passing it. Whereas for republicans the incremental benefits of passing EB are not going to offset the costs of passing FB.

Only focusing on FB - republicans are doomed with FB immigrant community one way or other. They had their shot and they lost it under Bush McCain. Now if they support CIR - Obama and his party will permanently seal the deal with latinos. If I were a republican and wanted to play politics with it - I would wait until a republican administration and then do it. That's the best way to minimize damage with existing constituency and gain new ground with new constituency.

Now this is all unfortunate. But I think that's exactly where this all is headed.

The chances of bill dying are higher than passing. This is true for most bills introduced esp. in divided congress

There just wont be a law in which there is no "pathway to citizenship" as president will veto it.

[vizcard]

indiani - I also think that the way gun legislation died is indicative of how immigration is going to go. IMHO gun legislation had a higher chance of passing given how much sandy hook shook american society.

On another note - sometimes I think we lose perspective that CIR is primarily not about EB. It is about FB. It is something that dems have proposed and they have thrown in EB to entice republicans. However if you look at republicans - the cost of passing this will be higher for them than not passing it. Whereas for republicans the incremental benefits of passing EB are not going to offset the costs of passing FB.

Only focusing on FB - republicans are doomed with FB immigrant community one way or other. They had their shot and they lost it under Bush McCain. Now if they support CIR - Obama and his party will permanently seal the deal with latinos. If I were a republican and wanted to play politics with it - I would wait until a republican administration and then do it. That's the best way to minimize damage with existing constituency and gain new ground with new constituency.

Now this is all unfortunate. But I think that's exactly where this all is headed.

I get what you are saying and that's definitely a likely scenario. There is an internal struggle in the GOP itself. The ultra conservative, younger tea party members (anti-immigration) vs right-center, old school folks (pro-immigration for the time being). If they don't resolve that internally, the Dems are going to rule the White House. GOP leadership knows that but the "brats" don't get it. Paul Ryan might be the exception because he's been up close and personal to national elections. Every young GOP guy is either against immigration or indifferent. Ryan and Rubio are the exceptions but even Rubio is backtracking some.

[bieber]

indiani - I also think that the way gun legislation died is indicative of how immigration is going to go. IMHO gun legislation had a higher chance of passing given how much sandy hook shook american society.

On another note - sometimes I think we lose perspective that CIR is primarily not about EB. It is about FB. It is something that dems have proposed and they have thrown in EB to entice republicans. However if you look at republicans - the cost of passing this will be higher for them than not passing it. Whereas for republicans the incremental benefits of passing EB are not going to offset the costs of passing FB.

Only focusing on FB - republicans are doomed with FB immigrant community one way or other. They had their shot and they lost it under Bush McCain. Now if they support CIR - Obama and his party will permanently seal the deal with latinos. If I were a republican and wanted to play politics with it - I would wait until a republican administration and then do it. That's the best way to minimize damage with existing constituency and gain new ground with new constituency.

Now this is all unfortunate. But I think that's exactly where this all is headed.

Q

If Dems really want this to pass, the easiest way is to ensure border control. Why is that pushed back in senate committee knowing House will not accept that condition. Is there a chance they gain politically even if this won't pass by blaming reps? End of the day it's all about votes. Greencard/legalization is not enough, citizenship is must for Dems becuase they want those 70% of new votes to get permanent power.

[rupen86]

I get what you are saying and that's definitely a likely scenario. There is an internal struggle in the GOP itself. The ultra conservative, younger tea party members (anti-immigration) vs right-center, old school folks (pro-immigration for the time being). If they don't resolve that internally, the Dems are going to rule the White House. GOP leadership knows that but the "brats" don't get it. Paul Ryan might be the exception because he's been up close and personal to national elections. Every young GOP guy is either against immigration or indifferent. Ryan and Rubio are the exceptions but even Rubio is backtracking some.

I think that failure of gun bill has helped immigration bill. There was a good article discussing this. Supporting immigration and gun bill at the same time would be too much change for GOP in short time. Immigration bill has fairly good shot than last few years if not decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rm-has-a-shot/

Also, passing immigration bill without path to citizenship won't happen. Democrats will never agree to that. They would not have access to new vote bank if this were to happen. If it was to fail because of that, they can blame on GOP which would not hurt their current standing. While most people would be more than happy to just have some kind of legal status, that does not matter to politicians.

It is not time to get pessimistic before the fight even begins and may I add that I am generally not an optimistic guy.

[qesehmk]

bieber - I don't disagree that issues are good politics for political parties. Otherwise what would they do if they solve everything? !!! So agree that dems also don't want it too badly. They are happy to just keep this issue alive. As per border control - I would disagree w you because the issue is elusive. Border control actually is better under Obama than under bush. Statistics prove that. There is no such thing as 100% control. So that I would say is a perma-topic for republicans to beat a democratic administration.

Q

If Dems really want this to pass, the easiest way is to ensure border control. Why is that pushed back in senate committee knowing House will not accept that condition. Is there a chance they gain politically even if this won't pass by blaming reps? End of the day it's all about votes. Greencard/legalization is not enough, citizenship is must for Dems becuase they want those 70% of new votes to get permanent power.

[kkruna]

My two cents:

1. No one is looking at undocumented for votes; it's rather the votes of existing citizens by way of brethren affiliation.
2. It's mostly staged media in US - and there is money behind pro-immigration this time. If you remember, there was a PAC formed in the aftermath of Presidential elections just for this purpose; the operators know what works. NumberUSA and others were first ones to be painted as ones who espouse minority.
3. The feel that I get from what influential Repubs have been talking in media: they want this done yet retain their conservative base with them. (I dont think they need to worry too much about conservative base. Where would they go? At most some of them would not vote in next elections.)
4. It is not an option for Repubs to try do it under their own regime later. They drop this ball and they wold not get another chance in near future.
5. The irony is that whatever mileage Repubs should get out of supporting it getting destroyed by hatemongerers from NumberUSA and their ilk (check the comments on articles - any immigration news is pounced on by these people using very similar hateful language against hispanics. In India I would feel this is paid effort; I do not know much about US yet).