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

[qesehmk]

I know what you are talking about may be you do not want to understand it.

There is no need to pass HR 2131 in order to start conference. Any other bill like border security will start the process. This is not me saying it. This is what senators like Mccain and others have said.

What part of "theoretical vs practice" is difficult to understand. What you say is theory. In practice it aint happening. GOP strategy is to kill CIR without mention. They don't want to deal with immigration at all.

I am not saying 2131 is necessary to start conference. Conference is neither a one time grand event. Conference is an ongoing process and is just a logical name for where in its life a bill is.

[Spectator]

Spec - there are no losses here. I am surprised you call it a loss when the net EB immigration is going up. If there is any loss here - it is in terms of FB numbers.

Everything is a gain here. What is increasing here is possible future backlog. I am actually surprised that you are willing to sacrifice gain today for "perceived" future increase in backlog.

Secondly the increase you mention below is the max that can happen (plus any dependents.). But in reality the PHDs are already applying under either EB1 or 2 . So the US is not losing a whle lot of them. And whatever are being lost won't all be retained through EB6 or 7 visas. So net net the increase will be beneficial to EB categories as a whole.

Q,

I can only say I am flabbergasted at your attitude!!

The Bill trades an annual increase in EB visas of less than half the new Immigrants it probably introduces. +85,000 minus 200,000 equals minus 115,000. I always thought a negative number was a loss.

Yes there is a lag, which will probably clear the existing backlog, but at what cost to future EB immigrants. I'm reminded of Marie Antoinette.

EB2-I is currently worried about a backlog that is likely not much more than 100k by the end of this year. How hypocritical not to worry about an increasing backlog of a mere extra 115k per year.


I'll leave it at that. It will be my last on the subject.

[qesehmk]

Good, now we are on the same page that HR 2131 does not need to pass to start conference. So, what is the point in supporting HR 2131 when senate is much better bill ? If conference is the goal, it is best that it happens without HR 2131.

I am not so sure we are. I don't want to be rude - so excuse my persistence. But I think you are using the word conference as if it is an event. As I said - conference is a stage of the bill. A bill goes into its own conference. If there is no bill .... there is no conference. Theoretically people can discuss immigration under industrial security bill and environmental bills.... but that's just theory. Immigration has to be the topic of some bill that goes into conference and then people will borrow good ideas from all over including senate bill. But for any conference on immigration - there needs to be an immigration bill and senate bill is not going to be that bill UNLESS congressional democrats force it using discharge petition.

Now it doesn't look like that's going to happen either - which is why 2131 doesn't seem as bad option at all as the bill on its own merit is good for EB + it gives a good excuse for republicans to start negotiating.

My last one on this.

[qesehmk]

Spec - 2131 improves status quo. It is not perfect solution - neither is CIR for that matter. We live in an imperfect world and one has to put a peg somewhere.

Q,

I can only say I am flabbergasted at your attitude!!

The Bill trades an annual increase in EB visas of less than half the new Immigrants it probably introduces. +85,000 minus 200,000 equals minus 115,000. I always thought a negative number was a loss.

Yes there is a lag, which will probably clear the existing backlog, but at what cost to future EB immigrants. I'm reminded of Marie Antoinette.

EB2-I is currently worried about a backlog that is likely not much more than 100k by the end of this year. How hypocritical not to worry about an increasing backlog of a mere extra 115k per year.


I'll leave it at that. It will be my last on the subject.

[rupen86]

Spec - 2131 improves status quo. It is not perfect solution - neither is CIR for that matter. We live in an imperfect world and one has to put a peg somewhere.

That is where we disagree. By we, I have taken liberty to include Spec also here. Status quo is better than HR 2131.

[qesehmk]

That is where we disagree. By we, I have taken liberty to include Spec also here. Status quo is better than HR 2131.

I haven't heard him say so yet - although I know spec is not very enthusiastic about removing per country caps.

As per 2131 - I or anybody can easily put numbers in a table and prove this philosophy wrong that status quo is better than 2131. It is really very very easy to do. I just think that anybody who spends enough time to read it can grasp it in a second. It's me who is flabbergasted that anybody would think preceived future demand supply balance is a more pressing needs than volume of immigration and net reduction in average wait times.

It is like saying - I would be ok to stay at 30% margin at $2B revenue than go for $10B revenue at 20% margin. To me its a no brainer to go for $10B at 20%. people will argue about ROI and ROA but that's theoretical discussion. In real world marginal ROI is never same as current ROI. Anyway ..... I digress.

[Spectator]

I haven't heard him say so yet

Q,

I don't know how I could have said it any more clearly.

It would be a mistake for HR 2131 SKILLS Bill to be one side of a potential compromise. It is so unbalanced it is dangerous.

If it comes down to "take it or leave it", I'd rather leave it thank you very much.

[gcq]

The risk of two not-so-identical bills going into conference is that it will be a deal cut between democrats (who are primary pro-illegal) and GOP (who is either against immigration/favors H1B increase only) is that our GC provisions will be shot down as part of the compromise( labor & anti-immigrants cut the deal) or GC provisions will be ignored.

So the best case is to go with bills that are very identical or democrats filing a discharge petition.

[idiotic]

Status quo is better than HR 2131.

Nope.. It will also differ from which prism you are viewing it from.. for example, if you ask an H4 visa holder, they might think otherwise because they will be benefited immediately.

Overall..
=> HR 2131 is just a starting point for negotiation and it is not a poison pill just you are making it out to be. It's not fair to predetermine as if it already made it into the final bill and just kill the bigger bill itself affecting everyone's cause without even trying to let house and senate negotiate. You have time to kill or oppose the conferenced bill if you do not like it then but not now.. I am sure cosponsors and lobbying organizations may change their stance depending on what the outcome of the conferenced bill is..

=> Even if it makes it into final bill it will make future backlog times worse for all countries not just India and China unlike now. It will mean the problem will be corrected much sooner. Future problems will be corrected on a need basis at that time. It's too early to worry about it and law will change based on need and market will correct itself. US will not lose its pursuit of young bright minds. It is not an contentious issue like illegal immigrants where the parties are going to hold up legislative change for 20-30 years.

[idiotic]

You are saying that it is better than status quo because you are stuck on the short term gain it provides and refuse to look beyond that.

No one knows what will happen in longer term.. The key is making progress now.. Also, it is not the last immigration bill congress is ever going to pass.. it will be milestone bill for sure since it solves existing problems for many many categories.. minor problems will continue to exist and market and laws will correct itself.. That should not be an excuse for not making progress

[rupen86]

Nope.. It will also differ from which prism you are viewing it from.. for example, if you ask an H4 visa holder, they might think otherwise because they will be benefited immediately.

Overall..
=> HR 2131 is just a starting point for negotiation and it is not a poison pill just you are making it out to be. It's not fair to predetermine as if it already made it into the final bill and just kill the bigger bill itself affecting everyone's cause without even trying to let house and senate negotiate. You have time to kill or oppose the conferenced bill if you do not like it then but not now.. I am sure cosponsors and lobbying organizations may change their stance depending on what the outcome of the conferenced bill is..

I just do not understand why this bill has to be starting point for starting negotiations. For starting negotiation, house does not need to pass this bill.

=> Even if it makes it into final bill it will make future backlog times worse for all countries not just India and China unlike now. It will mean the problem will be corrected much sooner. Future problems will be corrected on a need basis at that time. It's too early to worry about it and law will change based on need and market will correct itself. US will not lose its pursuit of young bright minds. It is not an contentious issue like illegal immigrants where the parties are going to hold up legislative change for 20-30 years.

If it was so easy problem to fix, it would have been done much earlier. EB community do not have powerful to lobby to lobby for green cards now and I do not know how it will have in future. At one end we are seeing that republicans in general do not like increase in green card and other hand we are seeing that democrats are interested in undocumented. So, I do not understand how that attitude will suddenly change once CIR passes and both parties will change their attitude towards EB community to allow more green cards and it won't remain contentious issue any more.

[rupen86]

No one knows what will happen in longer term.. The key is making progress now.. Also, it is not the last immigration bill congress is ever going to pass.. it will be milestone bill for sure since it solves existing problems for many many categories.. minor problems will continue to exist and market and laws will correct itself.. That should not be an excuse for not making progress

It is not like predicting future. It is Maths. We are not trying to predict future based on some unknown events. We are seeing numbers and based on that making prediction. What you are saying minor problem is the major and fundamental problem which is green card backlog. If not having enough H1 number is the major problem you are considering then yes, this bill solves that.

[idiotic]

I just do not understand why this bill has to be starting point for starting negotiations. For starting negotiation, house does not need to pass this bill.

Because it is the plan of House confirmed by Cecilia Munoz and this bill already passed out of committee and ready to make it to the floor just like other piecemeal bills..

If it was so easy problem to fix, it would have been done much earlier. EB community do not have powerful to lobby to lobby for green cards now and I do not know how it will have in future. At one end we are seeing that republicans in general do not like increase in green card and other hand we are seeing that democrats are interested in undocumented. So, I do not understand how that attitude will suddenly change once CIR passes and both parties will change their attitude towards EB community to allow more green cards and it won't remain contentious issue any more.

Because dynamics will change with new rules like E-Verify, etc.. Market and laws will correct themselves..

[idiotic]

It is not like predicting future. It is Maths. We are not trying to predict future based on some unknown events. We are seeing numbers and based on that making prediction. What you are saying minor problem is the major and fundamental problem which is green card backlog. If not having enough H1 number is the major problem you are considering then yes, this bill solves that.

You are trying to predict the future assuming there will be no more immigration bills once this one is passed.. It cannot be simple maths because you do not know even if the demand for green cards will be there in future considering the backlog it is going to generate.. people will go elsewhere if existing backlog and wait times are huge.. Future problems will be corrected in future.. Future problem for one category is not an excuse for not solving current problems of many categories..

What is a problem will differ from which prism you are looking at .. wheather it is existing backlogs or H1 both of them will be solved now along with lot more things like illegal immgiration, E-Verify, H4 work auth etc.. future backlogs will be corrected at a later time depending on need at that time..

the best public policy approach is to do what is correct now and see how the market reacts and adapt in future based on need..

[qesehmk]

Q,

I don't know how I could have said it any more clearly.

It would be a mistake for HR 2131 SKILLS Bill to be one side of a potential compromise. It is so unbalanced it is dangerous.

If it comes down to "take it or leave it", I'd rather leave it thank you very much.

Spec - I hope you opposition is more philosophical than factual. Because based on facts your are utterly wrong that status quo is better than 2131.

[qesehmk]

You are saying that it is better than status quo because you are stuck on the short term gain it provides and refuse to look beyond that.

I am sorry but you are consistently misreading me.

I am saying 2131 as Spec wrote above:
1) Increases net EB immigration (applause!! great thing to do)
2) Removes country capts (even bigger applause!! terrific thing to do)
3) Increases H1 quota (mild applause!! because although that becomes a contributor to industry's needs .... it potentially creates future demand supply balance and contributes to backlog creation.).
4) It does 1&2 in visa neutral manner which for FB is not a great news nor it is a great news for diversity visa beneficiary. (That's a big -ve from their point of view).
5) It brings ROW folks to the same level playing fields as ICMP folks ... (from their POV it's a mild -ve because now instead of waiting 4 months - they will be waiting 18-24 months like other EB GC applicants.)

So what you say about short term gain vs long term pain; there is this permanent gain but there is no long term pain. Long term pain is a bogey. The bill is +ve.

Here is another request if you will - look at the bill on its own merit to EB folks. Do not bring in any organizational politics into it. Clearly there are many groups trying to be the leaders .... not just FWD.org who is the sponsor of this bill. So obviously those groups wouldn't be happy if another group's bill gets ahead.

My request is -- look at it purely from EB benefit perspective. Perhaps that will help you too.

[GhostWriter]

Q, Spec, rupen and idiotic

Here is an idea. You all have made good arguments in favor and opposition of the bill. How about we create a poll on this forum. Basically put a link to the last couple of pages and let people read that and decide if they favor or oppose it. We (EB community) don't get any vote in the matters that concern us but this would be a good way to find out if in aggregate we think it is a good bill for us or not. If it is 60-40 in one direction then we can say it is quite balanced (and inconclusive), if however it comes out to be 90-10 in either direction then we know what we (at least a sample of us) think in aggregate.

What do you say ?

[Spectator]

GhostWriter,

Trouble maker!!

[GhostWriter]

Life would be quite boring otherwise

GhostWriter,

Trouble maker!!

[rupen86]

I am sorry but you are consistently misreading me.

I am saying 2131 as Spec wrote above:
1) Increases net EB immigration (applause!! great thing to do)
2) Removes country capts (even bigger applause!! terrific thing to do)
3) Increases H1 quota (mild applause!! because although that becomes a contributor to industry's needs .... it potentially creates future demand supply balance and contributes to backlog creation.).
4) It does 1&2 in visa neutral manner which for FB is not a great news nor it is a great news for diversity visa beneficiary. (That's a big -ve from their point of view).
5) It brings ROW folks to the same level playing fields as ICMP folks ... (from their POV it's a mild -ve because now instead of waiting 4 months - they will be waiting 18-24 months like other EB GC applicants.)

So what you say about short term gain vs long term pain; there is this permanent gain but there is no long term pain. Long term pain is a bogey. The bill is +ve.

Here is another request if you will - look at the bill on its own merit to EB folks. Do not bring in any organizational politics into it. Clearly there are many groups trying to be the leaders .... not just FWD.org who is the sponsor of this bill. So obviously those groups wouldn't be happy if another group's bill gets ahead.

My request is -- look at it purely from EB benefit perspective. Perhaps that will help you too.

Sure, we are trying to see merit of the bill. Now about that

Point 1, net EB immigration will increase. Do you mean non-immigrant community will increase? surely, it will based on increase in H1. There will be some increase in green cards. So that will increase. Just because it is increasing, it is a good thing? I do not think so. Increasing or decreasing immigrant community is not the point here. The main point is it creates significant imbalance between demand and supply which is a bad thing. If you are trying to say that future immigrants getting stuck in green card backlog is a good thing because overall immigrant community is increasing, I strongly disagree.

Point 2, good thing.

Other points circle around mainly point 1.

[rupen86]

You are trying to predict the future assuming there will be no more immigration bills once this one is passed.. It cannot be simple maths because you do not know even if the demand for green cards will be there in future considering the backlog it is going to generate.. people will go elsewhere if existing backlog and wait times are huge.. Future problems will be corrected in future.. Future problem for one category is not an excuse for not solving current problems of many categories..

When policies are designed, they are designed for long term not short term. This is not me saying but all politicians who are taking part in this process are saying. That they want to solve problem for long term in a way that they would not have to look again in next 20 years. So, they do not want to look at this problem even after 20 years. Forget about 20 years, this bill will create problems much before that.

What is a problem will differ from which prism you are looking at .. wheather it is existing backlogs or H1 both of them will be solved now along with lot more things like illegal immgiration, E-Verify, H4 work auth etc.. future backlogs will be corrected at a later time depending on need at that time..

the best public policy approach is to do what is correct now and see how the market reacts and adapt in future based on need..

Same point as above. Your suggestion is to do exactly opposite of what policy decisions are designed to solve. The bills designed to solve policy problems try to solve them for long term rather than short term.

[rupen86]

Q, Spec, rupen and idiotic

Here is an idea. You all have made good arguments in favor and opposition of the bill. How about we create a poll on this forum. Basically put a link to the last couple of pages and let people read that and decide if they favor or oppose it. We (EB community) don't get any vote in the matters that concern us but this would be a good way to find out if in aggregate we think it is a good bill for us or not. If it is 60-40 in one direction then we can say it is quite balanced (and inconclusive), if however it comes out to be 90-10 in either direction then we know what we (at least a sample of us) think in aggregate.

What do you say ?

It is a good idea.

[Jagan01]

I am sorry but you are consistently misreading me.

I am saying 2131 as Spec wrote above:
1) Increases net EB immigration (applause!! great thing to do)
2) Removes country capts (even bigger applause!! terrific thing to do)
3) Increases H1 quota (mild applause!! because although that becomes a contributor to industry's needs .... it potentially creates future demand supply balance and contributes to backlog creation.).
4) It does 1&2 in visa neutral manner which for FB is not a great news nor it is a great news for diversity visa beneficiary. (That's a big -ve from their point of view).
5) It brings ROW folks to the same level playing fields as ICMP folks ... (from their POV it's a mild -ve because now instead of waiting 4 months - they will be waiting 18-24 months like other EB GC applicants.)

So what you say about short term gain vs long term pain; there is this permanent gain but there is no long term pain. Long term pain is a bogey. The bill is +ve.

Here is another request if you will - look at the bill on its own merit to EB folks. Do not bring in any organizational politics into it. Clearly there are many groups trying to be the leaders .... not just FWD.org who is the sponsor of this bill. So obviously those groups wouldn't be happy if another group's bill gets ahead.

My request is -- look at it purely from EB benefit perspective. Perhaps that will help you too.

I concur with Q.

I think most of the questions are revolving around point 1 and some think that the demand supply imbalance is the reason that the bill is not good.

Let me give you an example. Lets say a bill is passed saying, annual H1 limit = 0, and annual green card limit = 0 . Now supply== demand. I think according to the people who are solely proposing the demand supply viewpoint this is a perfect bill ? Isnt it ?

Please try and understand the basic issue. You are making an assumption that everyone who is here on H1 needs a GC. That is not true. H1 is designed for a different purpose and GC for a different purpose.

I think the bill is doing its bit. Short term as well as long term.
1. Well they are increasing the number of people that can get in a year and that itself is positive.
2. They are increasing the number of people who can come to US every year and get a job and learn skills.
3. Now if everyone who comes here for a project wants to spend the entire life in US then we cannot hold the US govt responsible for it. Can we ?

Of course, it would be ideal to have many more GC. In fact have no limit. Make it unlimited. Where you stop is subjective. The objective answer is this:
"(n + x) is and will always be greater than (n)" provided x is positive.

[qesehmk]

Q, Spec, rupen and idiotic

Here is an idea. You all have made good arguments in favor and opposition of the bill. How about we create a poll on this forum. Basically put a link to the last couple of pages and let people read that and decide if they favor or oppose it. We (EB community) don't get any vote in the matters that concern us but this would be a good way to find out if in aggregate we think it is a good bill for us or not. If it is 60-40 in one direction then we can say it is quite balanced (and inconclusive), if however it comes out to be 90-10 in either direction then we know what we (at least a sample of us) think in aggregate.

What do you say ?

Ghost - great idea. No good deed goes unpunished - so please go ahead and create this poll !!

(n + x) is and will always be greater than (n)" provided x is positive.

Amazing how you distilled it to such a simple logic. Good one.

[idiotic]

It is never a plan which includes HR 2131 to be passed in order to go to conference. Cecilia Munoz said house will work on series of bills passed out of judiciary committee. This does not mean it has to pass all of those bills in order to go to conference.

“It looks like the House will bring [for a vote] some portion of five bills that have been ready since July,” she said.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...#ixzz2e1NfkWGH

Watch between 6:00 and 7:00 minutes for the exact wording.. very clearly she told that "different pieces each of them corresponding to portions of senate bill..."
http://video.foxnews.com/v/258454715...juan-williams/