Discussion of Bills that remove the Per Country Limits - H.R.3012, H,R. 213

[shaumack]

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.

I understand that but without spillover rule (if Sec202 (a) (5) governs it ) what if category (e.g. EB1) still have visas left. What will happen to them if there is no FA /FD rule. My only point is are we missing striking Section 202 (a) (5) part should this need to be amended? Nothing else.

[skpanda]

Yes... Please refer to spec's post above.

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...0640#post10640

So this will move the EB2 dates for China and India while rest of the country EB2 will get delayed.

[Pedro Gonzales]

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?

Of course, recapture would be awesome news for all immigrants, which is precisely why I think it is difficult for it to pass. I like the fact the two bills out there right now, Lofgren's including recapture, the W2 visa for spouses and minor children of GC holders, and AC21 to L & F visas, along with country cap removals and Chaffetz with just the country cap removals. I think we'll gauge how much appetite legislators have for recapture.

Is the 218,000 number right? Is that how many visa numbers would be recaptured?

[snathan]

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?

It may become current or move couple of years...based on the visa availability. But the bill will be implemented in a phased manner

[snathan]

I understand that but without spillover rule (if Sec202 (a) (5) governs it ) what if category (e.g. EB1) still have visas left. What will happen to them if there is no FA /FD rule. My only point is are we missing striking Section 202 (a) (5) part should this need to be amended? Nothing else.

Spill over rule will remain the same like EB1->Eb2->Eb3.

[Spectator]

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?

immitime,

None whatsoever IMO, although the dates might be quite late.

Let's be optimistic and say there are 300k visas max to recapture (I think the Ombudsman mentioned 218,000, Pedro, so that is probably a better figure), and the backlog to today is almost certainly far bigger than that (it is 100k for EB2-IC alone).

The text doesn't talk about how recaptured visas should be allocated.

In a fair world, they would go first to the most retrogressed applicants, especially since no visas have been wasted since 2007 and all EB2 Countries have reached Cut Off Dates in 2007 already.

[jackbrown_890]

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?

This bill is no-where close to becoming a law.
It is still Immigration subcommittee under house judiciary.
it has to go thru the subcommittees and thn to the house floor.
3012 has some chance of making it to the house floor for voting. because of the co-sponsor Smith who is chairman of judiciary committee and majority of the members are republicans and this bill also proposed by republican.
3119 or 2162 by Zoe has very little chance of moving out of subcommittee.

The passage of 3012 without any amendments is good for C/I but bad for ROW.
The best thing can happen for everyone is that: Zoe is also on that subcommittee and she proposes amendments to 3012 (Add recapture). If they do that, they will get some Democrates' support. If not chances are no democrat will support it. But republicans can still pass this bill in the house. But without any house democrat support, senate probably will not consider or pass this bill.

So the best scenario for everyone for now:
1: Bill 3012 (proposed by republican and supported by Judiciary chairman and its republican majority in the house)
2: with visa recapture amendment (by Zoe- a democrat)
3: effective date : Fiscal year 2012 (this would be great with recapture - lot of work for the agencies for next 2 years but good for all EB immigrants
4: Passed by House Judicial in 2 weeks
5: go for house vote by the end of this month
6: go to senate in November (if there is any democrat support since senate is controlled by democrats)
7: passed in senate by November end
8: become a law by December or early

[shaumack]

Spill over rule will remain the same like EB1->Eb2->Eb3.

Can you tell me what Section of INA Act guide spillover rule? If not then please let Spec clarify this. No offense to you.

[Pedro Gonzales]

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.

Looks like a good catch, schaumack. I only took a quick look just now but I'll put my contract review hat on this evening and look at it again after work. I'd be surprised if IV's lawyers missed something as big as this.

PS:- I guess my review is no longer required, as Spec true to form has provided the answer.

[Spectator]

Can you tell me what Section of INA Act guide spillover rule? If not then please let Spec clarify this. No offense to you.

I think that is a little unkind to snathan.

INA 202 (a) (5) dealt with otherwise unused visas and Countries who had reached the 7% per Country limit.

If there is no per Country limit, it is not required and must be removed.

A by-product of this is that it removes reference to Quarterly spillover, but that wouldn't be an issue.

Spillover is dealt with by INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS, specifically 203(b)(1), 203(b)(A) and 203(b)(3)(A).

There has always been a certain ambiguity to it, but the current interpretation is EB4/5 --> EB1 --> EB2 --> EB3 and that is how it must operate if per Country limits were removed. I can envisage a very limited scenario where spillover to EB3 was possible before EB2 became Current, but practically, that will never happen.

[shaumack]

I think that is a little unkind to snathan.

INA 202 (a) (5) dealt with otherwise unused visas and Countries who had reached the 7% per Country limit.

If there is no per Country limit, it is not required and must be removed.

A by-product of this is that it removes reference to Quarterly spillover, but that wouldn't be an issue.

Spillover is dealt with by INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS, specifically 203(b)(1), 203(b)(A) and 203(b)(3)(A).

There has always been a certain ambiguity to it, but the current interpretation is EB4/5 --> EB1 --> EB2 --> EB3 and that is how it must operate if per Country limits were removed.

I did not meant to offend him but was irked by his reply. Apologies to him.

Anyways, ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS, specifically 203(b)(1), 203(b)(A) and 203(b)(3)(A) - I do not see anything that covers spillover there. Only thing I see about this is in Section 202. Can you please point the excerpts if you do not mind?

Excerpt from May 2011 VB "As mentioned in the May Visa Bulletin, Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prescribes rules for the use of potentially “otherwise unused” Employment numbers. During May the India Employment Second preference cut-off date is governing the use of such numbers, because India had reached its Employment Second annual limit. "

I think we should be careful that bill is passed keeping everyone's interest and something like this important is not lost, although I have nothing to lose with this. I will close my argument over here.

[qesehmk]

shaumack,

What piqued my interest in that statement is the word "potentially".I really don't know what that means. I believe INA doesn't have that word. They simply say "Otherwise unused".

Excerpt from May 2011 VB "As mentioned in the May Visa Bulletin, Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prescribes rules for the use of potentially “otherwise unused” Employment numbers. During May the India Employment Second preference cut-off date is governing the use of such numbers, because India had reached its Employment Second annual limit. "

[Pedro Gonzales]

I did not meant to offend him but was irked by his reply. Apologies to him.

Anyways, ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS, specifically 203(b)(1), 203(b)(A) and 203(b)(3)(A) - I do not see anything that covers spillover there. Only thing I see about this is in Section 202. Can you please point the excerpts if you do not mind?

On your link, look at paragraph 203(b)(2)(A), which address FD from EB1 to EB2.

It reads,
"Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees ... "

Similarly, 203(b)(1)(A) address Fall Up from EB4 & EB5 to EB1.

[shaumack]

shaumack,

What piqued my interest in that statement is the word "potentially". I really don't know what that means. I believe INA doesn't have that word. They simply say "Otherwise unused".

I would think 'potentially' may mean 'prorated' or so. I really do not know how extensively they would calculate spillover although they did some advance movements in 2011 on pro-rated basis.

[Spectator]

I did not meant to offend him but was irked by his reply. Apologies to him.

Anyways, ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS, specifically 203(b)(1), 203(b)(A) and 203(b)(3)(A) - I do not see anything that covers spillover there. Only thing I see about this is in Section 202. Can you please point the excerpts if you do not mind?

Excerpt from May 2011 VB "As mentioned in the May Visa Bulletin, Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prescribes rules for the use of potentially “otherwise unused” Employment numbers. During May the India Employment Second preference cut-off date is governing the use of such numbers, because India had reached its Employment Second annual limit. "

I think we should be careful that bill is passed keeping everyone's interest and something like this important is not lost, although I have nothing to lose with this. I will close my argument over here.

Pedro has covered it really.

Here are all the relevant extracts from the law I quoted:

203(b)(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C):

That covers Fall Up from EB4/5 to EB1.

203(b)(2)(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), .....

That covers Fall Down from EB1 to EB2.

203((b)(3)(A) (A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), .....

That covers Fall Down from EB1 and EB2 to EB3

[qesehmk]

Q Please check your PM

Thanks immitime, appreciate it. Reproducing for everybody's benefit. Red emphasis mine.

This is what Pappu posted on IV as their great acheivement to be....sharing with you

After 6 years of hard work, patience & persistence, we are at the doorstep of success

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Members,

We are excited and pleased to announce that after 6 years of our hard work, your hard work, we finally have a bill that has a very good chance of actually passing in the Congress in next 6-8 weeks.

For over 6 months, members of Immigration Voice have been working behind the scenes to bridge the gap between various sides, coordinating between different groups, our employers and petitioning the Members of Congress. On the 4th anniversary of Immigration Voice rally, members from across the country organized over 160 meetings with the key decision makers in the Congress. To prevent any unnecessary attention we coordinated and organized these meetings with energetic and highly motivated group of Immigration Voice members and leaders.

On 22nd September, Congressman Chaffetz and Smith sponsored H.R. 3012 in the US House of Representatives. We applaud Congressman Chaffetz and Judiciary committee Chairman Lamar Smith for leading the effort for removing per country limits. Here is the press release from Congressman Chaffetz website. H.R. 3012 is scheduled for mark-up in the House Judiciary Committee for this Thursday and Friday. See details here on Judiciary committee website. Here is the bill summary. This is a big deal given the fact that not one bill for high skills immigration has passed Congress since AC21 Act in Oct 2000. This will be the first one in 11 years.

The proposed bill H.R. 3012 removes per-country limits in employment based green card category. If enacted, this bill will drastically reduce the wait times of everyone in the current backlogs. A similar bill was sponsored by Congresswoman Lofgren in August, 2008. So the idea of this bill has bi-partisan support in the Congress. Immigration Voice applauds Congresswoman Lofgren's leadership on fixing high skilled immigration system.

The most important thing now is to give this effort a final and consequential push. Although this bill has wide support, it is not a done deal yet. We all need to actively get involved in making phone calls and sending emails/faxes to the Congress in order to give this bill a grassroots voice and also to out-number, outlast and out-weigh any push from either people opposed to immigration in general or opposed to removal of per-country limits. Now is not a time to take a break and risk 6 years of effort that went into reaching this phase.

We all agree that high skills immigration should allocate and distribute green cards to the skilled immigrant workforce based on principle of first-come-first-serve-basis. Members of Congress have listened and now they agree with this principle. Our employers whom we wrote letters and petitions internally in large high-tech companies also agreed with us. And even when our case has lots of merit, merits alone do not drive the legislative activity in Congress. There are many bills in Congress that have a lot of merits and can do a lot of good but are never voted in Congress because a small faction holds it up. We cannot let that happen to us, not this time.

You are successful in your job and in your career trajectory. You either like your job, or, you like where your career is headed. However, in order to protect our accomplishments and our position in life and career, working really hard at our jobs is not enough. We have to protect what we have and what we aspire by making sure that we will be around in this country for the foreseeable future. If you have contributed time, money or effort so far to Immigration Voice, that’s great. But that is needed again for next 6-8 weeks. If you have never done this, now is the time to do this. If this bill fails, there will not be another bill in 2012 because that’s an election year where legislation do not happen easily. In 2013, the chances are slim again and depend on election outcomes. So this is it.

If you recently received your green card then you can easily relate to the problems your friends continue to go through. If you are only 1-2 years away from being current in your case, a lot can happen in next 1-2 years. You may face a worse economy, be laid off, be in a company that gets acquired by another company or merges with another company. All this is not good for green card process. So let us do all we can to protect our accomplishments, our future and our families’ future.

We will be shortly announcing concrete action items for making phone calls, emails and faxes, both on forums and via newsletters. So please stay tuned, pay attention to this bill and do your part. Because if this bill fails this year, it will be a failure that likely sticks with all of us for next 2-3 years.

Thank you!

Team IV

So here is some big news with a good disclaimer at the bottom and a pathetic attempt to take credit for. Yes their secrecy does help themselves because they can make any tall claims.

Nathan why don't you educate us on who the core team is - which companies they met - which senators etc. If you are concerned about secrecy - obviously - then here is a simple thing to do. Just have one fortune 500 tech company or one senator/representative make a public statement before or after passing of this bill that they worked with IV and it provided them valuable insights. Just try raising this as a topic internal to the IV masters and see the reaction.

My best wishes for this bill though. I refuse to believe IV had any substantial part in formulating it though.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Thanks Q,

there are two bills in congress one Rep. Jason Chaffetz from Utah and Rep. Lamar Smith introduced H.R.3012 and one Rep Zoe Lofgrens H.R. 2161.. if both of them passes the house and senate and becomes law, which is a dream and lot of pulling and pushing may occur if at all those comes for the floor votes. but Hypothetically what you have posted are there in those bills. Even though it is a political game by two parties but as election year any thing can happen.

These are the only scope for Eb-3 India who filed before Year 2006.

If anyone have any ohter way for EB-3 India people who are terribly backlogged Please spill some light. and I am sure with the existing laws, EB-3 India will never ever move more than a week or a month each VB!

If the Chaffetz bill passes, EB3I will move to Sep 2004 by FY2012 and EB3ROW will stagnate there. If the Lofgren bill passes, the 218,000 recaptured visas will come to bear. I would hope that it was applied on a pure PD basis (so EB3I first, EB3 ROW next, EB2 I next etc), but realistically, they'll probably apply the spillover order here too (first to EB2 and then to EB3). This would mean, EB2 would become current (using up ~ 100,000 visa numbers) and EB3 (I, C, M, P, ROW) would move to early 2007. There will be some minor differences in EB3 since the country caps are not completely lifted right away (also in Lofgren's bill, they only get lifted starting in FY2013), so ROW could move ahead of I by a few months, but this is probably accurate at a high level.

[Spectator]

I've moved the very interesting discussion about Bills that remove the Per Country Limits to their own thread http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth....3012-H.R.3119

I think it deserves that, since it is an important topic in its own right.

Please continue to post about the subject there.

[manubhai]

...
So the best scenario for everyone for now:
1: Bill 3012 (proposed by republican and supported by Judiciary chairman and its republican majority in the house)
2: with visa recapture amendment (by Zoe- a democrat)
3: effective date : Fiscal year 2012 (this would be great with recapture - lot of work for the agencies for next 2 years but good for all EB immigrants
4: Passed by House Judicial in 2 weeks
5: go for house vote by the end of this month
6: go to senate in November (if there is any democrat support since senate is controlled by democrats)
7: passed in senate by November end
8: become a law by December or early

Jackbrown - You rock! I thought I was the optimist here... but you beat me hands down.

May be this is a waste of time but I thought I'll ask anyways... Does any one (including jackbrown) know any typical time frames for these bills in the subcommittees? Or is there nothing as a "typical" time frame?

In other words, why is the above jackbrown's "best case scenario"? Is that a typical best-case timeline?

"become a law by December"... woooow... I never looked at it that way!

Thanks!

[Pedro Gonzales]

Here is a link to IV's grassroot recommendations. xxxxxx

[jackbrown_890]

Jackbrown - You rock! I thought I was the optimist here... but you beat me hands down.

May be this is a waste of time but I thought I'll ask anyways... Does any one (including jackbrown) know any typical time frames for these bills in the subcommittees? Or is there nothing as a "typical" time frame?

In other words, why is the above jackbrown's "best case scenario"? Is that a typical best-case timeline?

"become a law by December"... woooow... I never looked at it that way!

Thanks!

You are right, this is the most optimistic (dream) scenario. In my understanding, it happens usually when the bills are rushed thru congress. Plus there is no typical best-case timeline in congress. Some bills takes days to pass and some bills takes years to pass and some never make it out of subcommittee. It is all political power game. in reality in recent history around only 4% of the total bills introduced in congress (senate or house) have become a law.I am definitely being optimistic here.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Alright, there are just two things you need to do:

Step 1: Write to your representatives supporting the bill through either of these sites
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3012/show
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3012

Feel free to use my letter, which read as follows:

I support H.R. 3012: Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act.

This bill tackles a very small portion of the immigration debate, but a significant one for over a 100,000 people like me who are affected by it. It tackles unfair country caps that allow me to apply for my green card 5 years after colleagues of mine who have the same qualifications as I do just because I was born in India and they were not.

It does not increase the number of green cards given out each year and it does not affect American jobs (people that are affected by this are already in the US legally working at jobs that there are currently not enough qualified Americans to fill). This bill just eliminates a source of unfairness in the current immigration system.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Step 2: A call to the members of the judiciary committee asking them to support the bill. Numbers are on the next post.

I have 'borrowed' heavily from another organization. However, to my knowledge they have no copyright on this material, so I will lose no sleep on it. I have myself made 4 phone calls so far, with moderate success (3 went to voice mails, and the 4th staffer already had received several calls today and knew exactly what I was talking about and couldn't wait to be done).

a) Call each office number listed in the next post below. Say that – “I am calling to request support for H.R 3012 and would like to speak with the staffer who handles Immigration.”

b) Talk to the staffer or leave a Voice Mail using the specific text below.

Use the following text for all offices EXCEPT Rep.Lamar Smith,Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Rep. Zoe Lofgren

"My name is ___ and I am a legal immigrant to the U.S.

I would like Representative "Representative Name" to support H.R - 3012 - Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. As you may know, this bill already has wide bipartisan support.

H.R. 3012 will boost job creation and innovation in the U.S. through a technical fix that will remove per-country limits for high-skilled applicants in the employment-based green card system.

At the same time, this fix will also drastically reduce the wait times for highly skilled applicants like me who are currently looking at wait times of anywhere between 6 to 15 years to get my green card. I am counting on Congressman’s/Congresswoman’s support for H.R 3012."

For Congressman Lamar Smith and Congressman Chaffetz Office, say the following

“My name is ___ and I am a legal immigrant to the U.S.

I am calling to thank Representative Smith / Representative Chaffetz for introducing H.R-3012 which will bring fairness to the employment-based green card system by removing per-country limitations. I thank Rep.Smith/Rep.Chaffetz for his outstanding leadership on this issue and for being a champion of legal, high-skilled immigrants like me. I am also calling offices of other House Judiciary Committee members to request support for H.R 3012.”


For Rep.Lofgren’s office, say the following

“My name is ___ and I am a legal immigrant to the U.S.

I am calling to thank Rep. Lofgren for being a champion of legal, high-skilled immigrants and for her long-standing leadership on the issue of reducing green card backlogs. I am aware that Rep. Lofgren has introduced several bills in the past to reduce the backlogs including the recent H.R-3119 - Protecting American Families and Businesses Act of 2011.

I am calling to request the Congresswoman to co-sponsor H.R-3012, which is a similar bill and is a great first step to reducing green card backlogs. H.R 3012 will remove per-country limits in allotment of high-skilled green cards and will help up to a million applicants like me who are stuck in queue for close to a decade. I will deeply appreciate Rep. Lofgren’s support and look forward to her co-sponsorship of this bill.”

Additional Notes to keep in mind:

Note 1 - If asked that do you represent any organization? Tell to the aide that you do not.

Note 2 - To Democratic offices only, please make sure you add this line in the end
"The bill also increases the per-country limits in the family-based system in order to reduce wait times for family-based green card applicants who have also been facing huge application backlogs"

Note 3 - Please speak slowly and clearly and focus only on the above message. DO NOT mention CIR, undocumented immigrants or H1B/I-485/EAD/AP/PD etc since those are completely separate topics or the lawmakers offices are not familiar with these acronyms. If the aide is confused with any of those topics, be sure to clarify that you are calling to seek support for HR-3012 dealing with green cards for the highly skilled legal immigrants.

Note 4 - IF the aide asks whether you belong to the district or not, tell them NO if you don't. Add the following -
"I have already spoken with my representative but, in addition, would like the support of the Congressman/Congresswoman. The Congressman/Congresswoman is a prominent member of House Judiciary Committee which makes him/her a national figure of great importance. The Congressman's/Congresswoman’s decision and support for H.R 3012 is therefore very important for high-skilled immigrants across the U.S "

Note 5 - In case you are asked any other questions, if you are not sure how to answer a particular question, mention that you will be happy to circle back with that office with the answer asap.

Congressmen's contact details follow:

[Pedro Gonzales]

Here are the Phone numbers of the Members of Congress in House Judiciary Committee. I am working my way down the list of democrats.

Republican
Rep.Lamar Smith [TX, 21st District] - 202-225-4236
Rep.Jason Chaffetz [UT, 3rd District] - 202-225-7751
Rep.Bob Goodlatte [VA, 6th District] - 202-225-5431
Rep. Elton Gallegly [CA – 24th District] - 202-225-5811
Rep.Steve Chabot [OH, 1st District]- 202-225-2216
Rep.Darrell Issa [CA, 49th District] - 202-225-3906
Rep.James Sensenbrenner [WI, 5th District] - 202-225-5101
Rep. Howard Coble [NC, 6th District] - 202-225-3065
Rep.Daniel Lungren [CA, 3rd District] - 202-225-5716
Rep.Mike Pence [IN, 6th District] - 202-225-3021
Rep.Randy Forbes [VA, 4th District]- 202-225-6365
Rep.Steve King [IA, 5th District] - 202-225-4426
Rep.Trent Franks [AZ-2nd District] - 202-225-4576
Rep.Louie Gohmert [TX, 1st District] - 202-225-3035
Rep.Jim Jordan [OH, 4th District] - 202-225-2676
Rep.Ted Poe [TX, 2nd District] - 202-225-6565
Rep.Tim Griffin [AR, 2nd District] - 202-225-2506
Rep.Tom Marino [PA, 10th District] - 202-225-3731
Rep.Trey Gowdy [SC, 4th District] - 202-225-6030
Rep.Dennis Ross [FL, 12th District] - 202-225-1252
Rep.Sandy Adams [FL, 24th District] - 202-225-2706
Rep.Ben Quayle [AZ, 3rd District] - 202-225-3361
Rep. Mark Amodei [NV, 2nd District] - 202-225-6155

Democrat
Rep.Zoe Lofgren [CA, 16th District] - 202-225-3072
Rep.Pedro Pierluisi [Puerto Rico] - 202-225-2615
Rep.John Conyers [MI, 14th District] - 202-225-5126
Rep.Howard Berman [CA, 28th District] - 202-225-4695
Rep.Jerold Nadler [NY, 8th District] - 202-225-5635
Rep.Robert Scott [VA, 3rd District] - 202-225-8351
Rep.Mel Watt [NC, 12th District] - 202-225-1510
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee [TX, 18th District] - 202-225-3816
Rep.Maxine Waters [CA, 25th District] - 202-225-2201
Rep.Steve Cohen [TN, 9th District] - 202-225-3265
Rep.Henry Johnson [GA, 4th District] - 202-225-1605
Rep.Mike Quigley [IL, 5th District] - 202-225-4061
Rep. Judy Chu [CA, 32nd District] - 202-225-5464
Rep.Ted Deutch [FL, 19th District] - 202-225-3001
Rep.Linda Sanchez [CA, 39th District] - 202-225-6676

[anukris]

Guys... there is a huge grass roots effort going on on this bill in *********** ***** (**)..

Please visit immigration voice .org (you can see the link on the home page h.r. 3012) and see the activities that you can do to support this bill. this is of utmost importance to all the people who want to get out of this green card mess.. Please spread this word as soon as you can to your friends and family. We should get as much support as we can to push this through..