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

[Ramsen]

http://www.speaker.gov/press-release...nt?Source=GovD

Boehner's statement.. Looks fishy to me..

" In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. "
- Roosevelt..

What you are seeing fishy? I am seeing this is usual statement from him. I am seeing that this time GOP will not take it easy if Obama is taking EO especially when they are gaining in house in Senate

[idiotic]

What you are seeing fishy? I am seeing this is usual statement from him. I am seeing that this time GOP will not take it easy if Obama is taking EO especially when they are gaining in house in Senate

To me moderate republicans are using the southern border crisis as a backdoor for bringing immigration debate to House..

Another press release by top house republican..
http://homeland.house.gov/press-rele...-crisis-border

[idiotic]

Good Article..

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/01/politi...n-immigration/

"2. And no, the President can't increase the number eligible for green cards because their spouses or parents are U.S. citizens. Such matters are set by law. Though some immigration advocates have argued spouses and children shouldn't count toward 140,000 limit on employment-based green cards, whether the President can make that kind of change unilaterally is murky territory."

[amulchandra]

Thought of sharing this

But with a sweeping overhaul out of reach, lobbyists are turning their attention to moves that Obama could make on his own that could benefit their Silicon Valley clients, including changes to green cards and rules about the way immigrant family members and relatives are counted.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/technology...#ixzz36oNf24jP

[migo79]

I think the least thing President can do to legal immigrants is to remove derivatives from from the quota, and many law experts said there is a potential for this.

this is the least thing but IMHO will have a great impact in providing some relief to both EB3 and EB2 category.
imagine how many visas can be saved giving the derivatives accounts for nearly 55%

[Immigo]

I think the least thing President can do to legal immigrants is to remove derivatives from from the quota, and many law experts said there is a potential for this.

this is the least thing but IMHO will have a great impact in providing some relief to both EB3 and EB2 category.
imagine how many visas can be saved giving the derivatives accounts for nearly 55%

Hi - Isn't the 140,000 employment based green card a minimum ? Can't an executive order be to actually issue (say) 200,000 employment based green cards for the next 5 years instead of 140,000 ?

[Spectator]

Hi - Isn't the 140,000 employment based green card a minimum ? Can't an executive order be to actually issue (say) 200,000 employment based green cards for the next 5 years instead of 140,000 ?

Not really.

The law sets the number at 140,000 plus the number of unused FB visas the previous FY. (INA 201 (d)). There is also a provision under INA 203(b)(6) where certain approvals in the previous FY under made under INA 101(a)(27)(K) are charged to the total allocation.

An EO cannot modify a preexisting law or make new law.

The FB calculation is more complex and does set a minimum of 226,000 if the calculation results in a figure that is less than that number (which it always does because of the number of IR approvals).

[qesehmk]

Not really.

The law sets the number at 140,000 plus the number of unused FB visas the previous FY. (INA 201 (d)). There is also a provision under INA 203(b)(6) where certain approvals in the previous FY under made under INA 101(a)(27)(K) are charged to the total allocation.

An EO cannot modify a preexisting law or make new law.

The FB calculation is more complex and does set a minimum of 226,000 if the calculation results in a figure that is less than that number (which it always does because of the number of IR approvals).

Spec - somehow I too think that 140K and 226K are minimum for EB and FB. So if DoS ends up issuing more visas they are not in violation of any law. Last year they indeed ended up more than 140K + FB Spillover.

On another note I think at least charging dependents of EB to FB will also effectively double the EB quota. But that strategy has a serious problem of allocation since primary and dependents will be tied to EB and FB country limits in EB and FB respectively. Which would make CO's life a lot more worse.

[Spectator]

Spec - somehow I too think that 140K and 226K are minimum for EB and FB. So if DoS ends up issuing more visas they are not in violation of any law. Last year they indeed ended up more than 140K + FB Spillover.

On another note I think at least charging depepends of EB2 to EB will also effectively double the EB quota. But that strategy has a serious problem of allocation since primary and dependents will be tied to EB and FB country limits in EB and FB respectively. Which would make CO's life a lot more worse.

Q,

Both FB and EB have calculations that set the MAXIMUM numbers available for the FY (INA 201 (c) and 201 (d)).

(c) Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants. -

(1) (A) The worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is, subject to subparagraph (B), equal to -


(d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants

(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to-

The FB calculation also sets a MINIMUM number that the MAXIMUM may be.

(ii) In no case shall the number computed under subparagraph (A) be less than 226,000.

The numbers can be more than 226,000 and 140,000 respectively, but only due to specific paragraphs in the calculation (basically unused visas by the other Category in the previous year).

Indeed, DOS did break the law last year regarding the EB allocation, but it was well within any margin that would result in Congressional censure.


I think, ultimately, removing the dependents from the numerical limitations count is the simplest way to increase the effective numbers. I don't believe it would cause DOS any problems they couldn't overcome. I don't believe that is within the scope of EO, despite what a couple of lawyers (Endelman and Mehta) may think (even they acknowledge it was not Congress's intent). If it is part of the EO's, it will give a fulcrum point for GOP to sue and overturn every thing that may be announced. For that reason, I do not see it being included.

[qesehmk]

What is EO by the way?

The numbers can be more than 226,000 and 140,000 respectively, but only due to specific paragraphs in the calculation (basically unused visas by the other Category in the previous year).

Not sure I understand. But I take your word for it.
Thanks!

[Spectator]

What is EO by the way?

Executive Order.

[amulchandra]

Q,
If it is part of the EO's, it will give a fulcrum point for GOP to sue and overturn every thing that may be announced. For that reason, I do not see it being included.

Traditionally GOP has been pro business and anti illegal immigration. I think they might not pick this up as an issue if it becomes a part of EO. Just my opinion. May be coincidence but I came across a number of other news articles mentioning elimination of dependents from numerical limit. I am guessing that something is definitely going on behind the scenes and I strongly believe there is a possibility for this to happen.

[Kanmani]

Here are some statutes governing how maximum is set. Dedicated to people who are sitting idle

Any unused employment-based visa numbers are incorporated into the formula for determining the limit on the number of family-based visa numbers in the following fiscal year. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(3)(C).

But there are situations in which these unused employment-based visa numbers are not actually used in the following fiscal year due to a Congressionally-created minimum on the number of family-based visa numbers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(1)(B)(ii).

This outcome is the result of the formula created by Congress. Specifically, the limit on family-based visa numbers is calculated by subtracting from 480,000 the number of certain categories of aliens processed in preceding years. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(1)(A).

These categories include immediate relatives issued visas in the preceding year, aliens born to an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence during a temporary visit abroad, and parolees processed in the second preceding year. See id.; see also, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2); 1151(c)(4).

The number of unused employment-based visas from the prior fiscal year is then added to this number to calculate the total number of family-based visa numbers available. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(3)(C).

But another provision establishes 226,000 as the minimum number of family-based visa numbers available in a given year. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1151(c)(1)(B)(ii).

Since in many years the number of family-based visa numbers that would have been available under the calculations set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1151(c)(1)(A) (which includes unused employment-based visa numbers from the prior fiscal year) was less than 226,000, these employment-based visa numbers remain essentially unused.

Page 19 - http://www.eb3chinese.org/resources/...DEFENDANTS.pdf

[qesehmk]

Kanmani Guru - even I couldn't follow this!! Dumb me

But unless you immortalize this into a picture my guess is 90% people reading this are not going to get this.

Here are some statutes governing how maximum is set. Dedicated to people who are sitting idle

Any unused employment-based visa numbers are incorporated into the formula for determining the limit on the number of family-based visa numbers in the following fiscal year. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(3)(C).

But there are situations in which these unused employment-based visa numbers are not actually used in the following fiscal year due to a Congressionally-created minimum on the number of family-based visa numbers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(1)(B)(ii).

This outcome is the result of the formula created by Congress. Specifically, the limit on family-based visa numbers is calculated by subtracting from 480,000 the number of certain categories of aliens processed in preceding years. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(1)(A).

These categories include immediate relatives issued visas in the preceding year, aliens born to an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence during a temporary visit abroad, and parolees processed in the second preceding year. See id.; see also, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2); 1151(c)(4).

The number of unused employment-based visas from the prior fiscal year is then added to this number to calculate the total number of family-based visa numbers available. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(3)(C).

But another provision establishes 226,000 as the minimum number of family-based visa numbers available in a given year. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1151(c)(1)(B)(ii).

Since in many years the number of family-based visa numbers that would have been available under the calculations set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1151(c)(1)(A) (which includes unused employment-based visa numbers from the prior fiscal year) was less than 226,000, these employment-based visa numbers remain essentially unused.

Page 19 - http://www.eb3chinese.org/resources/...DEFENDANTS.pdf

[GCSeekerIndia]

Here is one such article ...

http://blog.fosterquan.com/2014/07/0...role-in-place/

[Spectator]

Kanmani Guru - even I couldn't follow this!! Dumb me

But unless you immortalize this into a picture my guess is 90% people reading this are not going to get this.

What Kanmani is saying is, that due to the complexity of the FB calculation, in most years that they receive spare visas from EB, they cannot be used by FB.

The reason:- Even after adding them, the overall calculation results in a figure lower than 226,000, so the minimum 226,000 limit applies.

To illustrate, here is the FY2006 calculation:

Calculation of FY−2006 Family-Sponsored Preference Limitation:

Immediate relative visa issuances during FY−2005: -------------------------- 180,432
(minus net total of "recaptured" FY−2005 IR visas: ---------------------------- ( 13)
Immediate relative adjustments of status by USCIS: ------------------------- 266,851
Children admitted after birth to immediate relative visa holders: ---------------- 7
Children admitted after birth abroad to lawful permanent residents: ------------ 571

Immediate Relative etc. Total: --------------------------------------------- 447,848 <--- to second part of calculation

FY−2006 Worldwide Family-Sponsored Level figure: --------------------------- 480,000
minus IR etc. total calculated above: ------------------------------------- (447,848) <--- from previous calculation
minus aliens paroled into the United States under Section
212(d)(5) in the second preceding fiscal year (FY−2004): ------------------- (10,000)
plus unused FY−2005 employment pref. numbers: ------------------------------------ 0

Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 22,152

Since under the law the family-sponsored preference limitation for any fiscal year may not be less than 226,000, the limit for FY−2006 is fixed at: 226,000

You can see that unless spare visas from EB had been more than 203,848, then FB would only receive 226,000 as the allocation. Even then, only the number of EB visas above 203,848 would have added to the total.

The same is not true for Employment Based. EB always receives the full benefit of any spare FB visas.

[Kanmani]

Q,

Thats why I dedicated my post with a caution message. I have ditto ditto to what Spec said, and wanted to establish that it is much complicated adding numbers to EB, FB minimum, and it is not that easy. They are governed by Formulas spread over those laws.

Without touching the law, how could he sign an EO? Boom!

These statutes in my post may help us while we discuss in a situation if there is unused EB, then it might not be used by FB the following year.

[idiotic]

Traditionally GOP has been pro business and anti illegal immigration.

and also for population control.. Any republican solution for immigration is "always" net green card neutral.. They will say USA is already the most generous country which welcomes more than 1 million new immigrants every year.. so there is no need to increase that number..

[Spectator]

Q,

Thats why I dedicated my post with a caution message. I have ditto ditto to what Spec said, and wanted to establish that it is much complicated adding numbers to EB, FB minimum, and it is not that easy. They are governed by Formulas spread over those laws.

Without touching the law, how could he sign an EO? Boom!

These statutes in my post may help us while we discuss in a situation if there is unused EB, then it might not be used by FB the following year.

I don't see how this would be helpful to EB anyway.

There is perhaps a good argument that the EB visas that FB could not use due to the calculation could be recaptured for use by FB. It would have been better if the FB calculation had added the EB spare visas to the minimum 226k figure.

Since FY1992, EB has received all but 20k of any EB wasted visas back, either through the 180k already "recaptured", or from under use by FB increasing the EB allocation. There are only 20k visas to be recaptured for EB.

Recapture provision are double dipping the number of visas, since they flow back to EB through the existing law.

[amulchandra]

and also for population control.. Any republican solution for immigration is "always" net green card neutral.. They will say USA is already the most generous country which welcomes more than 1 million new immigrants every year.. so there is no need to increase that number..

Again my opinion -

The EO 'IF AT ALL' happens, the public/GOP attention will be on 11 million illegal aliens who got amnesty than on the legal immigrants who are a drop in the ocean.
If Obama passes EO, the GOP will cry foul and issue a number of statements against it, but they will not dare to really challenge it in a court of law.
If they take it court they will loose the support if any left from the Latino minority which is a major factor in 2016 presidential elections.
I believe even GOP secretly wants to get over with immigration this year, long before presidential elections.
It will not impact their midterms either as they already catered to their own districts by not touching the reform.

[Kanmani]

I don't see how this would be helpful to EB anyway.

There is perhaps a good argument that the EB visas that FB could not use due to the calculation could be recaptured for use by FB. It would have been better if the FB calculation had added the EB spare visas to the minimum 226k figure.

Since FY1992, EB has received all but 20k of any EB wasted visas back, either through the 180k already "recaptured", or from under use by FB increasing the EB allocation. There are only 20k visas to be recaptured for EB.

Recapture provision are double dipping the number of visas, since they flow back to EB through the existing law.

You are correct. EB has no impact.

[qesehmk]

Ok Spec / Kanmani!! So let me bring this down to us mortals level and please tell me if I am correct.

Basically the intention of the law is to set FB numbers as 480K - X where X is mostly usage in numerically unlimited categories such as spouse, unmarried children and parents of a US citizen and if that numbers turns out lower than 226K then bump it up to 226K.

Given the backlogs in EB there is zero chance of EB->FB spillover. Thus the only way FB numerical limits can be higher is for immediate relatives to somehow stop coming to US - which pretty much is not going to happen.

What Kanmani is saying is, that due to the complexity of the FB calculation, in most years that they receive spare visas from EB, they cannot be used by FB.

[Kanmani]

Ok Spec / Kanmani!! So let me bring this down to us mortals level and please tell me if I am correct.

Basically the intention of the law is to set FB numbers as 480K - X where X is mostly usage in numerically unlimited categories such as spouse, unmarried children and parents of a US citizen and if that numbers turns out lower than 226K then bump it up to 226K.

Given the backlogs in EB there is zero chance of EB->FB spillover. Thus the only way FB numerical limits can be higher is for immediate relatives to somehow stop coming to US - which pretty much is not going to happen.

Correct Q.

[migo79]

good one
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic..._?pageNumber=1

question is can it happen ))

[imdeng]

There is some reporting out there that Obama's coming Executive Order on Immigration may include Visa Recapture. See the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-deportations/

It would be huge if it does happen. EB backlogs will get wiped out in an instant. EOs can be made to take effect in a short amount of time too - so no delay in implementation as well (which could have happened with a regular CIR or HR-3012).

Update: EAD for H4 is apparently discussed as part of the package as well. Along with less restrictions on F1s working.