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

[migo79]

I want also to add that if businesses sent their elite legal executive to present the president something that he cannot done using EO, then i don't know what to describe them.

also the Pres. will be in a bad situation, if he act nothing then this is something very bad since he said he would act by the summer end.
if he act too little for businesses then he will not have the support he wants.
if he only act for illegal i think a hell gate will be opened.

so the Pre. has to make his mind of what options he may have that truly improve the immigration system, anything other than helping to reduce the injustice backlog of legal immigrants would be considered as 0 IMHO.

one another takeaway from the current immoigration crisis is that GOP lost every single vote of future voters.

[migo79]

i'm very sorry Spec for being stubborn of the subject but i think many people interested,
can you comment in this paragraph from the Cyrus / Endelman article:

It is certainly true that family members are not exempted from being counted under INA § 201(b) as are immediate relatives of US citizens, special immigrants, or those fortunate enough to merit cancellation of their removal. Yet, we note that the title in INA § 201(b) refers to “Aliens Not Subject to Direct Numerical Limitations.” What does this curious phrase mean? Each of the listed exemptions in INA § 201(b) are outside the normal preference categories. That is why they are not subject to direct counting. By contrast, the INA § 203(d) derivatives are wholly within the preference system, bound fast by its stubborn limitations. They are not independent of all numerical constraints, only from direct ones. It is the principal alien through whom they derive their claim who is and has been counted. When viewed from this perspective, there is nothing inconsistent between saying in INA § 203(d) that derivatives should not be independently assessed against the EB or FB cap despite their omission from INA § 201(b) that lists only non-preference category exemptions.

We do not claim that derivative beneficiaries are exempt from numerical limits. As noted above, they are indeed subject in the sense that the principal alien is subject by virtue of being subsumed within the numerical limit that applies to this principal alien. Hence, if no EB or FB numbers were available to the principal alien, the derivatives would not be able to immigrate either. If they were exempt altogether, this would not matter. There is, then, a profound difference between not being counted at all, for which we do not contend, and being counted as an integral family unit rather than as individuals. For this reason, INA § 201(b) simply does not apply. We seek through the simple mechanism of an Executive Order not an exemption from numerical limits but a different way of counting them.

[Jonty Rhodes]

I think I have said everything I wish to on this subject. I wish good things were possible, but I fear they are not.

I have rarely (probably never) agreed with a certain organisation about anything before. I can no longer say never.

PS You never did answer the question.

Spec, I don't have as good knowledge about the law as you. But with my limited knowledge, I also don't see how President can remove dependents or get unused EB visas recaptured with EO. This is exactly being reported in media but I just don't see it happening. I sincerely wish that you and I are both proved wrong, especially with my PD in May, 2011.

[gs1968]

To Spec/Migo79

As Spec stated and we have discussed this at length in the past-the conference committee on the Senate Side especially Sen.Alan Simpson (WY) were not in favor of a floating number and wanted a solid number and the 140000 number was agreed upon so as to be able to sell the conference report to the senate. Also the EB-1 to EB-5 categories were created with this act and extensive discussions were held on this. Also in the event of a legal challenge,conference reports carry a lot of value for the justices as it clearly explains the rational background for these laws. I feel that what the business community provided is a wish list of what they would like to see enacted by EO but I think that the legal boundaries of what can be done by EO have not been visited or tested yet. As Spec explained the number of green cards and the manner of distribution is clearly defined by the INA 1990. Both EB and FB are under the "annually numerically limited" categories and I cannot see how the President can suddenly change that to a numerically unlimited category. Increasing EB at the expense of FB or otherwise is not going to fly either.
DACA was much easier as it does not involve the INA and is merely a framework to direct limited resources to higher value targets.The President also has the authority to grant Temporary Protected Status to individuals of certain countries at risk of war/natural calamity etc and again this is a form of reprieve from returning to their homeland till the status is revoked by the Federal Govt. DACA as well as TPS are given EADs if they can demonstrate economic hardship but not automatically although a vast majority managed to prove that.

[migo79]

it's just the enthusiasm that floated by the recent media news that made lots of people think positive finally.

it's just 2 to 3 weeks away to see what all this hype will end with

[Spectator]

i'm very sorry Spec for being stubborn of the subject but i think many people interested,
can you comment in this paragraph from the Cyrus / Endelman article:

migo,


I believe I have already addressed that.

Endelman & Mehta never discuss 245(b) and how that affects the reading of 203(d). When read in light of that, it makes no sense at all.

They propose counting as an integral family unit rather than as individuals. 245(b) does not allow that, since each member of the family has an individual application which must be approved or denied. Each approval, unless designated under 201(b), will reduce the number of relevant preference visas available by one visa number. One I-485 does not cover an entire family unit.

Even the article makes it clear that dependents are part of a preference category.

[migo79]

Thank you Spec

[qesehmk]

Spec - thanks. I agree about I-130. But I think that is not such a bad idea...

Anyway ... but to be honest I think the long term fix has to be to increase numbers and do away with country limit. Everything else is cosmetic.

The PD for charging to FB is the date the I-130 is received by USCIS. The PD from an EB category cannot be transferred to a FB category. With no increase in the FB allocation, FB2 would quickly become retrogressed by many years.

[migo79]

H4 EAD already in the baking so whether or not there is an EO this will definitely see the light, i don't see this as tremendous success at all.

I think all what we have to do now is wait and see, but after the discussion in the board not that optimistic.

The president promise an overhaul of the immigration so not sure if we can consider H4 EAD which as said already baking as an overhaul.
that will not help thousands of legals from countries like India which has to wait years for GC and in the meantime get the stress of maintaining a valid visa for re-entry and potential delay for Administrative processing and possible denial when they travel abroad to get a visa.

The Pres. has put himself in the corner though, not sure how the current promise can yield a win win situation.

as i was saying it's only 3 weeks and will see what will come up

[migo79]

Q:
That's the key, increasing the number in the only way anything else is cosmetic.
completely agreed.

i don't care about country limit now! why?
as CO was saying removing dependents will make all categories current, enough SOFAD to make every country happy, at least for the coming couple of years.

[migo79]

That's a different story, let me say
anything that is congress related is bound to stuck, H4 EAD chances of success is much higher as long as congress is not involved

and if they fix the broken GC stuff there won't be a need for H4 EAD, at least for many people.

[Spectator]

Taking the case where dependents were not included in numerical limitations, I was a bit surprised CO thought it would only make some EB Categories/Countries Current for a period of a few years.

I've thrown together some quick figures.

Using the dependent ratios for FY2013, here's how the figures would look (adjusted to the equivalent with dependents included).

Cat -- Current --- Adjusted
EB1 ----- 40,040 --- 96,096 (2.40)
EB2 ----- 40,040 --- 80,880 (2.02)
EB3 ----- 40,040 --- 85,686 (2.14)
EB4 ------ 9,940 --- 21,669 (2.18)
EB5 ------ 9,940 --- 27,236 (2.74)

Total -- 140,000 -- 311,567 (2.23)

I think we could assume that EB4 would still use no more than 10,000 and EB5 couldn't use more than 20,000 (double current use).

EB2-WW even though it is Current doesn't use more than the existing allocation of c. 34,500 in a normal year.

Let's assume that EB3-WW could similarly use the full present allocation of 34,500 and EB1 used 50,000 (to be generous).

That still only uses 149k of 312k, leaving a potential 163,000 for EB2/EB3 China and India per year.

That still leaves EB2-IC with 65k FD from EB1/EB4/EB5 plus 47k of allocation and FA in EB2 for a potential 112k visas a year for EB2-IC.

If no visas were wasted in EB3, then EB3-IC would have around 51k plus any FD from EB2 available.

Since there is no Fall Up from EB3, any visas that they could not use would fall to the FB calculation in the next FY.

I'm not sure how that would translate to any EB Category or Country needing a COD in the foreseeable future. Even than, only EB5-C appears to have any danger.

Sure, the numbers might increase over time, but that has limits, especially those applying who are already present in the USA.

It's late, so I might have made a mistake in the calculation.

I suspect getting Current would be the quick part of the process - waiting to be adjudicated might end up being the rate limiting step.

[migo79]

Super Spec!

[Jonty Rhodes]

Already in the baking?!?!

With the immigration matters, my motto is this: Never count your eggs before you purchase chickens. Never count your eggs before the chicken lays the eggs. And then again, never count those eggs unless you really really really are sure about how to count.

To give you one specific example, here on this very board, you will find several people (including me) whose dates have been current for a while, and there is no guarantee to receive the GC despite all formalities being completed - some folks have done this some 2 months in the past. There was a time when the USCIS was giving away GCs in 2 months after applying, now they can't seem to digest the new medical reports in that much time.

Moral of the story: Some things change, but what doesn't change is the suffering. Immigration Gods have made sure we get our quota.

Until the H4-EAD rule becomes reality, never ever say it is in the baking. HR3012 was an already baked cake by this measure and what happened to it? And when I say it will be a tremendous success, I mean it. Most of the families I know are so hopelessly backlogged that they have accepted the GC is a distant dream and all that matters for them is an EAD for the spouse. For them, even getting that EAD will be a huge victory.

So, let them bake this cake first.

Agree with you sports. Over the period of years, one thing I have learned is to never trust the media reports until the actual thing happens when it comes to immigration. I don't have any hope from this President to do anything significant for legal immigrants because, a) we are not a sizable vote bank for him and b) there is nothing much he can do even if he wants to due to law being very specific. So I have absolutely zero hope on any relief for legals from this administration. The reason we are being shown these moon and starts could just be the strategy of floating a trial balloon in media on this potential EO and gauge the response of GOP, media and American people.

[qesehmk]

removing dependents - if they achieve it - either EO or legislation (doesn't matter how) - that will still mathematically NOT address all backlog (immediately) because the total backlog of those who filed 485 and have not filed 485 is significantly larger.
e.g. EB3I alone has people from 2005-2014 i.e. 9 years X avg of 12K per year ... EB2I is worse because now EB2I has heavier concentration. Then there is EB3ROW.

However CO is right when he says all categories will be current because at that kind of level of visa availability - he is not going to see that much visa demand and has to make all categories current in order to generate demand.

p.s. - As per country limits - I have always believed they are discriminatory against India and China i.e. almost 1/3rd of world population. Besides they don't make much economic sense. However they do serve political purpose for DoS just like diversity visa does (or used to).

Q:
That's the key, increasing the number in the only way anything else is cosmetic.
completely agreed.

i don't care about country limit now! why?
as CO was saying removing dependents will make all categories current, enough SOFAD to make every country happy, at least for the coming couple of years.

[Pundit Arjun]

Kd2008, Spec and Others,

I read about Obama's plan for executive action in the Monday or Tuesday's edition of Wall Street Journal. Correlates with the fact mentioned in the Oh Law Firm site.
The link to the article is : http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama...ons-1408405057

Check-in with DOS’s Charlie Oppenheim: August 12, 2014 (Updated 8/20/14) http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=49304
DOS Liaison Committee series of monthly “check-ins” with Charlie Oppenheim, designed to keep members informed of Visa Bulletin progress and to obtain his analysis of current trends and future projections, beyond the basic visa availability updates provided in the monthly Visa Bulletin.
AILA Doc. No. 14071401.

Folks of these forum should check whether they can get access to this document and if they get it then post at least the summary here.



Stupid as usual since Spec's fabulous analysis at http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...8775#post48775 has clearly shown it is not possible.

[kd2008]

Kd2008, Spec and Others,

I read about Obama's plan for executive action in the Monday or Tuesday's edition of Wall Street Journal. Correlates with the fact mentioned in the Oh Law Firm site.
The link to the article is : http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama...ons-1408405057

Not to sound all "dadaji" on you ...but I have seen multiple immigration efforts over the last 12 years including 3 CIR bills in 2006, 2008 & 2013 with nothing substantial to show for it.

Businesses know they should ask for the moon to start the negotiations ..that's what they are doing. Does not mean they are going to get it. Their real aim is to get EAD's for all foreign graduates from US universities that renews for many years... so that they do not have to pay the current extortion rates for H-1B visa or worry about caps. After all, if nearly 5.5 million people will get EADs with literally no restrictions then why should high tech folks be punished in they way they currently are being subjected by visa caps and fees.

[moon80]

I am in this country 10+ years and still waiting for my number. Still I really beilive in below quotes:

"The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty"
"It always seems impossible until it's done"

[qesehmk]

easy sport ... he is just stating his belief!

Is there something YOU can do to fix the immigration system?

Go ahead and try. Start rallies. Get 100K people to attend. Get on CNN. Lobby with the lawmakers. If you have that much willingness, sure.

Quoting some pretty slogans is just that...quoting slogans. I am sure none of us is a pessimist; if we were, none of us would be here. That doesn't mean though that we should fall for fairy tales.

[migo79]

Q:
the country cap is definitely something needs to be changed in any furture CIR there is no doubt about that.
i was just stating the current situation.

and for the backlog, removing dependents should make all EB current (quoting CO)
of course there are huge number of people who yet to file from EB2/3I, but even though this wouldn't affect the EB being 'current'
this is because simply USCIS will run out of resources to adjudicate all applications on time, by the time the new guys will be adjudicated there will be spare visas available
plus removing country cap yet will yield the same situation you are describing because Visa availability won't be the bottleneck, it will USCIS time take is the bottleneck.

[migo79]

sports:
i didn't count the eggs yet, it's just so sad if the expectation of EO dwindle the point that the goal of it would be just EAD for H4.

[qesehmk]

agree and that's why CO will be forced to make everything current.

Q:
the country cap is definitely something needs to be changed in any furture CIR there is no doubt about that.
i was just stating the current situation.

and for the backlog, removing dependents should make all EB current (quoting CO)
of course there are huge number of people who yet to file from EB2/3I, but even though this wouldn't affect the EB being 'current'
this is because simply USCIS will run out of resources to adjudicate all applications on time, by the time the new guys will be adjudicated there will be spare visas available
plus removing country cap yet will yield the same situation you are describing because Visa availability won't be the bottleneck, it will USCIS time take is the bottleneck.

[moon80]

Is there something YOU can do to fix the immigration system?

Go ahead and try. Start rallies. Get 100K people to attend. Get on CNN. Lobby with the lawmakers. If you have that much willingness, sure.

Quoting some pretty slogans is just that...quoting slogans. I am sure none of us is a pessimist; if we were, none of us would be here. That doesn't mean though that we should fall for fairy tales.

Quoting slogans and beilive in them r 2 diffrent things.

I am doing my bit; just meet with my company's chief immigration officer and she promised to draft a letter to White house for support of Executive orders.

on different note,
looks like unused visa recapture is not impossible
http://watsonimmigration.wordpress.com/

[bluelabel]

As per the link below, the law already allows reusing the unused visas. Can President interpret this law to issue an EO to re capture unused visas?

Attachment 670

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE...E-79-Pg911.pdf

[Spectator]

on different note, looks like unused visa recapture is not impossible
http://watsonimmigration.wordpress.com/

I've rarely seen a worse researched article than that one.

It doesn't even look at the relevant law for how unused visas are already dealt with in the INA.

Instead, it quotes a section of law dealing with specific instances where a visa has actually been issued and the person is either found ineligible or chooses not to exercise it within the 6 month period allowed, rather than never having been issued at all.

I'm pretty speechless that it should purportedly come from a lawyer.

I won't comment further on it.