As our priority dates are destined to travel a long road, I am posting these legislative proceedings out of curiosity, may it will help somebody who has some hope as I am .
As our priority dates are destined to travel a long road, I am posting these legislative proceedings out of curiosity, may it will help somebody who has some hope as I am .
and to be honest, i haven't see so much rhetoric in support of skilled immigration past few years as we are seeing now. also, all bills in past were trying to be 'comprehensive' rather than piecemeal. so more positive that there could be relief. not going for a 100% chance but just more positive
http://lofgren.house.gov/index.php?o...653&Itemid=125
Last edited by vishnu; 10-07-2011 at 12:26 PM.
immitime,Originally Posted by immitime
I say again, just because we have gotten so used to this rut of nothing happening, doesn't mean we should give up all expectations. We aren't being unrealistic about a non-existent fantasy. These are real bills... and as Vishnu pointed some replies after yours, there IS more chatter... in particular about "LEGAL EMPLOYMENT BASED" immigration. Not the typical "comprehensive immigration reform" blah. To the extent that two dems and two republicans have now come out with their own versions, which are close to replicas of each other. Yes... they want votes... and the contributions from the tech firms... but that doesnt mean that they aren't serious enough about it.
As an aside, what will kill any hope for me is if they talk about "increasing" the over all numbers. Even something like the STEM bill, although more helpful, is more unlikely to be acceptable/discussed because it increases the total number of people coming in to "steal american jobs". These two bills, dont do that. And you'll agree that that's a pretty good start.
So hang in there brother... with expectations. As someone once said... stay hungry... stay foolish.
what is the difference between hr 3119 and hr 2161 ( idea act)? is hr2161 dead? instead of just introducing the same stuff again and again just get it done!
You are funny .....I would at least take some water or Juice :-) to survive!
Difference between the 3 proposed bills
HR 2161 proposes to increase/make quicker the immigration path for people with graduate degrees from US in the STEM fields. The inspiration behind the bill is that US is training people at the graduate level and then sending them back home to compete against US companies. The practical difficulty behind this bill is that requires politicians to support a bill that SUPPOSEDLY "steals American jobs and gives it to immigrants when the unemployment is so high". It gets too complicated to convince your voters that these aliens aren't coming in in the future... but that they are already here, educated, working professionals, earning good money, paying taxes and SS, etc., etc.
HR 3012 is very similar to HR 3119 and basically says that employment based immigration should have nothing do with which country the beneficiary is coming from. The guy who's process started first should get his green card first... regardless of whether he's from India or Belgium. The means to do this is proposed via removal of the 7% per country limit. The inspiration behind is that companies don't care about the person's nationality and that you are more likely to find engineers/techies/etc from India than from Belgium, so stop discriminating on a point that serves no benefit for the US economy. The positive is that these don't raise the number of people coming in as immigrants and is thus more palatable as point of discussion. The negative is that non-Indian/Chinese will oppose this vehemently at every opportunity they get, esp. stressing on how these bills will remove the "diversity" element from employment based immigration.
So why were they both introduced: I am not certain but I believe...
1. It is because of the status of these bills. The bills, when introduced by a representative, are introduced to a "committee". The committee can decide in closed rooms what to do with the bill and never give a reason for that decision to anybody. If you are congressman and are not on that committee, you have no say in whether that bill gets a positive nod from the committee or not. Your only option if you fully support the bill is to introduce your own version. (In short: The democrat just gave her official approval to the republican backed bill). Also note that now both these bills are with the House Judiciary Committee. It doesn't mean that it will, but having these two together makes the chances of this issue moving forward for a real vote in congress a LOT higher now.
2. The reps want to support the IT companies that may be funding them.
3. This is one of those pieces of the whole immigration mess that actually stands a chance of moving forward in the partisan congress. Every body wants to be able to say months/years down the line that "we actually did something" and "got that immigration law changed" whereas the opposing party only talks about it.
Links:
HR 2161 - Immigration Driving Entrepreneurship in America Act of 2011
HR 3012 - Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (Republican sponsored)
HR 3119 - To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove the per-country limitation on employment-based immigrant visas... (Democrat sponsored)
manubhai, from my read 3119 also permits recapture of lost visa numbers and provides a new 'W' visa that would be very relevant to Indian men in particular. Those of us who are single and looking to get married to women in India (old girlfriends or arranged marriages), often push out our GC applications until after we get married (or at least until we set the date - I did that myself, although I could have applied for my GC in 2006, I waited until 2008 until after I got married) because we can't apply for a visa for our wives if we already have our GC. Lofgren's bill introduces the W visa for spouses and minor children of green card holders. Very sensible issue.
As to the recapture of lost visas, while it is a very impactful move, it is effectively a one-time increase in the number of GCs given out, so it may be unpalatable to most politicians in this environment and may be seen as 'legislative creep' by the anti-immigrants when compared to Chafetz. I don't expect any of these bills to pass in this environment, but I think the Lofgren bill is the lesser likely of the two to pass, and may derail the Chaffetz bill too.
Does it make sense to move the legislative posts to another thread?
manubhai,
It is a lot more than that:
i) Exempts holders of STEM Advanced Degrees from designated US Universities AND ALL EB1B approvals from the numerical limits.
ii) Provides Dual Intent to F-1.
iii) Extension of stay to F-1 if a PERM or I-140 has been pending 365 days as well as giving Employment Authorization to F, H & L under these circumstances.
iv) There is a whole section about Entrepreneur visas.
v) Visas recature and fall over of unused EB visas to EB the next year.
vi) Dependents are not counted against numerical limitations.
vii) Eliminating Employment-Based Per Country Levels
viii) Investing in STEM education.
ix) Speeding up PERM processing and introducing a Premium Process, including for Appeals.
x) Allowing Premium Processing for I-140 appeals.
xi) Strengthening the Prevailing Wage system.
xii) Reforming the H1B system, including higher wages.
xiii) Introducing a grace period of 60 days for an H1B to find new work if laid off or terminated.
xiv) Allowing Promotions.
xv) Similar reforms for L1, including Requiring Prevailing Wage for Certain L-1B Nonimmigrants.
xvi) Some tweaks to the EB5 program to create an EB6 Category.
xvii) Allowing H4 to work.
I think that is a little more than you stated. There are some FB related parts, but not much.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Thanks Spec - Very Informative.
EB2I NSC | PD: 08/07/2009 | Forum Glossary
Spec, Pedro: You both are correct. Thanks for adding the remaining parts.
Apart from my ignorance with the details, my intent was not to be comprehensive. I was trying to answer the question on their main differences based on what we keep harping about on this thread.... priority dates, movements, how long GC takes, esp. in the India+China context.
Aside: Seeing the details from Spec, although these bills can change drastically by the time they reach the floor, I think HR 2161 is even more unlikely to get any traction. Its too big and wide. Though I'd love H4s being able to work... but in today's environment...seriously???? May be that's why she introduced a second bill... something smaller and a tad bit more realistic!!
Discussion of Bills that remove the Per Country Limits - H.R.2161, H.R.3012, H.R.3119
I am guessing, if Mr. CO came to know about possible passing of bill HR3012 (which seems to have bipartisan support) effective 1st Oct 2011. And Mr. CO is taking some proactive steps to meet the requirements of HR3012 (If HR3012 does not get approved, he may still be safe since there would be spill over).
Just a theory!
so now we have a bill for lifting the per country limit. My question to all the gurus is ... if the bill gets passed, were would EB2 stand.. would it be current immediately? Would EB3 cases take up all the visas and EB2 will be looking at everything helplessly?
After the HR3012 bill is passed:
EB2I will get around 40K+ green cards each year (Regular quota + Spillover). EB2 will get current in 2 to 3 years in real sense (no backlog). However EB2I may get current in 1 or 2 years to capture demand and then retrogess.
EB3I will get around 25K green cards for the next 3 years (Regular Quota). After that it will get 40K green cards untill EB3I is current in real sense (no backlog).
No and No. Category numbers still exist and limits exist on maximums.
It was discussed earlier in the thread.
Read the bill http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h112-3012
EB2 would eventually settle around 2-3 years retrogressed for everybody as long as spillover remains at current (or slightly reduced) levels, while retrogression in EB3 would be 8-9 years for everybody and slowly getting worse.
Last edited by Spectator; 10-10-2011 at 10:59 AM.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Isn't that already happening... we received a spillover this year and that's how the dates have moved to Nov 07. Am I missing something here?
Not at all. The bill would permit EB2IC to get 34,000 visa numbers + EB1 & EB5 spill over, while EB3 I would get 28,000 visa numbers for FY2012. Both would move forward tremendously, while EB2ROW would retrogress several years, and EB3 ROW M & P would stand still. EB3 C would stall at early 2006 along with EB3 ROW M & P.
NSC (originally TSC, transferred to NSC on 02/13/13) |-| PD - 04/25/08 |-| MD - 01/19/12 |-| RD - 01/27/12 |-| ND - 01/31/12 |-| Check Encashed - 02/02/12 |-| NRD - 02/04/12 |-| FPND - 02/09/12 |-| FPNRD - 02/17/12 |-| FP Early Walk-In - 02/24/12 |-| EAD/AP Approval & card production notice - 03/07/12 |-| EAD/AP RD - 03/12/12 |-| EAD/AP renewal RD - 12/11/12 |-| EAD/AP renewal approval - 01/22/13 |-| 485 Approval notice - 09/04/13 |-| GC RD - 09/11/13|
Spillover is not taken for granted. out of the 36K available for India and China (next 3 years), a single country cannot take more than 70%. So around 28K Regular quota and add 12K+ spillover. If spillover is more then even better.
So the number will between 40K to 50K.
Last edited by skpanda; 10-10-2011 at 11:00 AM.
They have been working on so many activites and I lost track.
I think it's very difficult to pass new bills and they have been talking about reform since 2007 and nothing happened.
For EB2, the only hope is to get more spillover in this FY and move PD faster.
I hope CO can move PD into 2008 in the next VB.
Spillover is a transient phenomenon. You may not get any once the economy improves (or if EB3ROW to EB2ROW porting increases). This would set it in stone, so to speak. Also the numbers available through this bill would exceed the spillover received from EB2ROW.
NSC (originally TSC, transferred to NSC on 02/13/13) |-| PD - 04/25/08 |-| MD - 01/19/12 |-| RD - 01/27/12 |-| ND - 01/31/12 |-| Check Encashed - 02/02/12 |-| NRD - 02/04/12 |-| FPND - 02/09/12 |-| FPNRD - 02/17/12 |-| FP Early Walk-In - 02/24/12 |-| EAD/AP Approval & card production notice - 03/07/12 |-| EAD/AP RD - 03/12/12 |-| EAD/AP renewal RD - 12/11/12 |-| EAD/AP renewal approval - 01/22/13 |-| 485 Approval notice - 09/04/13 |-| GC RD - 09/11/13|
Please read this post for your answers:
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...=9544#post9544
Pedro,
If they recapture the Visas as per Zoe Lofgrens bill, at least there is chances of all the categories becoming current is that right?
I know we are excited about HR 3012 bill that will eliminate per country cap, but there is some ambiguity in the proposition which still needs to be corrected. Bill proposes to strike out Section 202 (a) (5) which I believe governs the use of spillover visas. For e.g if there are any unused visa numbers left in EB1 then it cannot flow to EB2 without existence of such rule. So what will happen to such visas? I understand that there is 70% per country cap on reserved visas but it is also unclear to me if this will override the maximum a category-country can get after spillover in case Section 202 (a) (5) is covered in any other way.
Bill will help EB2 in some way with guaranteed 70% visas but how will fall across and fall down can happen is unclear. In such case 40k+ visas may not be possible for EB2. Bill will help EB3 for sure. I might be missing something here, and may be Spec or others can correct me.
The bill will just remove the country cap...and gives the visa based only PD FIFO for that category. So there will be only EB1/2/3 and PD. Nothing else.
So this will move the EB2 dates for China and India while rest of the country EB2 will get delayed.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote