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

[Pedro Gonzales]

My reason for disagreement is that if denying political victory was the reason, they did not have to do anything. Instead of putting this on calendar, Reid would have referred this to subcommittee where Grassley is a ranking member and it would have died there or Schumer would have not negotiated with Grassley at all for removing Irish E-3 from Hr 3012.

Zero Sum game argument does not apply to 3012 since it does not favor any one group in the long run. In the shorter term, it tends to benefit I/C but in the longer run, it creates level playing field for all. I do not think democrats would be opposed to this idea.

Give this, democrats do not have the will to pass standalone bill like this. Their agenda remains CIR (read illegal immigration) which could include some parts of legal immigration.

I agree with Rupen on this. I don't buy the argument that the Dems are to blame for this just because they control the senate. They do not have a filibuster proof majority and so they do not have 'complete' control.
Also, Schummer's emails and the messages sent out by his staffers has steadfastly been that there is at least one (and potentially more) GOP senator holding the bill. That said, the whole argument is pointless. Ron's actions over the last year have significantly dented his credibility, as does his second statement. I don't see how there wouldn't be a lame duck session.

[immitime]

I agree with Rupen on this. I don't buy the argument that the Dems are to blame for this just because they control the senate. They do not have a filibuster proof majority and so they do not have 'complete' control.
Also, Schummer's emails and the messages sent out by his staffers has steadfastly been that there is at least one (and potentially more) GOP senator holding the bill. That said, the whole argument is pointless. Ron's actions over the last year have significantly dented his credibility, as does his second statement. I don't see how there wouldn't be a lame duck session.

Discussing and debating ron's words are the greatest waste of time, most of the attorneys are against H.R.3012, after elections, H.R.3012 can be the only immigration bill to pass the Senate during lame duck session and become law. (ron is like, i have headache so cut my head... that is the meaning of "no lame duck session") Polticians will forget the politics after the elections, or not this much impact as of now, The reason that H.R.3012 was not taken on floor until September is, not to have a point for republicans during debate with BO.

Whoever wins this election, there is still a strong chance for H.R.3012, Q and others please don't believe the bluffer attorney(s)/ROW words and waste time on that.

[qesehmk]

Pedro - republicans wouldn't have filibustered their own bill. If dems wanted this to go through this would've. I am a firm dem supporter and still am saying this.

Schumer Reid or Grassley are only individuals. And I would trust their actions or statements -whether reps or dems. The bottomline for this bill is - it was a republican bill that passed the congress but couldn't get through democratic senate. My last 2 cents.

ps. - I do not track Ron. So can't comment on him. Just saying what i think happened.

I agree with Rupen on this. I don't buy the argument that the Dems are to blame for this just because they control the senate. They do not have a filibuster proof majority and so they do not have 'complete' control.
Also, Schummer's emails and the messages sent out by his staffers has steadfastly been that there is at least one (and potentially more) GOP senator holding the bill. That said, the whole argument is pointless. Ron's actions over the last year have significantly dented his credibility, as does his second statement. I don't see how there wouldn't be a lame duck session.

[justvisiting]

I agree with Rupen on this. I don't buy the argument that the Dems are to blame for this just because they control the senate. They do not have a filibuster proof majority and so they do not have 'complete' control.
Also, Schummer's emails and the messages sent out by his staffers has steadfastly been that there is at least one (and potentially more) GOP senator holding the bill. That said, the whole argument is pointless. Ron's actions over the last year have significantly dented his credibility, as does his second statement. I don't see how there wouldn't be a lame duck session.

I believe Schumer's staffers when they say they are addiitonal holds.
I think the current situation is: Schumer wants to be able to bring up the E-3 bill. He won't bring up 3012 unless the E-3 bill is brought up. There are holds on both bills. In order for 3012 to pass, there must be political will to file cloture on both.

About Ron Gotcher: He is good at giving advice on immigration matters, but not at prognosticating what will happen in Congress.

[rupen86]

Pedro - republicans wouldn't have filibustered their own bill. If dems wanted this to go through this would've. I am a firm dem supporter and still am saying this.

Schumer Reid or Grassley are only individuals. And I would trust their actions or statements -whether reps or dems. The bottomline for this bill is - it was a republican bill that passed the congress but couldn't get through democratic senate. My last 2 cents.

ps. - I do not track Ron. So can't comment on him. Just saying what i think happened.

If democrats wanted to pass the bill, they could have. I do not see how this bill would not get 60 votes needed to pass filibuster. If this bill was to voted, I do not see point of negotiating with Grassley. But the stand that is taken is that, this bill would be passed with unanimous consent and as long as all senators are not satisfied, this bill won't pass. That's why I am not optimistic about lame duck also. So, I am not saying that democrats are not to blame. They have to be blamed, but not because of election year reason. The way events have folded, they logically point to the conclusion that other senators have objections and as long as they are not addressed, it won't be passed. That being said, I would be happy to be proven wrong during lame duck.

[vizcard]

Or this is just not on their priority list.

[nilebib]

Or this is just not on their priority list.

true, lots of thing pending there..

[redsox2009]

Last STEM Bill, i.e 20000 additional H1B visas bill went during the lame duck session in 2004. Hoping this year also another STEM bill will pass during lame duck session in Nov.

[vizcard]

If a STEM bill were to be passed, how would it work logistically? Would one have to re-file a 140 under EBx category and give up the EB2/3 app? If EBx dates are not current (hence no 485), would you lose your current EAD?

All hypothetical questions at this point but will be key if it does pass.

[kd2008]

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/05/162297...migrant-exodus

NPR did a good interview.

[rupen86]

Looks like Irish E-3 is not dead.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Cha...172519691.html

[pakkpk]

http://www.kauffman.org//uploadedFil...repreneurs.pdf

A very good analysis on foreign born immigrants in USA. Thanks to kaufman foundation.

[rupen86]

for the first time in debates, immigration was discussed.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...8#.UH63Q67IbSc

[bvsamrat]

The way Romney talked, he will hand over GC to Immigrants who got US degrees Or accredited degrees from foreign univeristies. Only it were to so simple and easy

for the first time in debates, immigration was discussed.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...8#.UH63Q67IbSc

[GhostWriter]

I watched the debate and below is what President Obama said when talking about immigration. I do like him but i think what he said is not true. Can anyone tell me what did he do to reduce the backlog during his term.

"First thing we did was to streamline the legal immigration system to reduce the backlog, make it easier, simpler and cheaper for people who are waiting in line, obeying the law, to make sure that they can come here and contribute to our country. And that's good for our economic growth. They'll start new businesses. They'll make things happen to create jobs here in the United States."

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/163050...dential-debate

for the first time in debates, immigration was discussed.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...8#.UH63Q67IbSc

[kd2008]

I watched the debate and below is what President Obama said when talking about immigration. I do like him but i think what he said is not true. Can anyone tell me what did he do to reduce the backlog during his term.

"First thing we did was to streamline the legal immigration system to reduce the backlog, make it easier, simpler and cheaper for people who are waiting in line, obeying the law, to make sure that they can come here and contribute to our country. And that's good for our economic growth. They'll start new businesses. They'll make things happen to create jobs here in the United States."

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/163050...dential-debate

FBI name check issues were resolved, USCIS reduced the time needed to process many forms, quite a lot of data is now posted by USCIS, nobody thought USCIS could process as many I-485s as they processed so quickly with a turn around time of 60 day in last year's surge. So from administration point of view yes, he has done a lot.

The legislative relief is something Congress has to work on and they haven't done their part at all. Zilch.

What we call backlog is not what what USCIS calls backlog. According to USCIS, if they get an application and they do not process within the time duration expected for that form then they have a backlog. Which is what USCIS faced during July 2007 fiasco. Hence they were backlogged then and are not backlogged now.

[GhostWriter]

Fair points Kd, thanks. They did manage to preadjudicate bulk of applications filed in 2011-2012 within 6-7 months as well.

FBI name check issues were resolved, USCIS reduced the time needed to process many forms, quite a lot of data is now posted by USCIS, nobody thought USCIS could process as many I-485s as they processed so quickly with a turn around time of 60 day in last year's surge. So from administration point of view yes, he has done a lot.

The legislative relief is something Congress has to work on and they haven't done their part at all. Zilch.

What we call backlog is not what what USCIS calls backlog. According to USCIS, if they get an application and they do not process within the time duration expected for that form then they have a backlog. Which is what USCIS faced during July 2007 fiasco. Hence they were backlogged then and are not backlogged now.

[rupen86]

FBI name check issues were resolved, USCIS reduced the time needed to process many forms, quite a lot of data is now posted by USCIS, nobody thought USCIS could process as many I-485s as they processed so quickly with a turn around time of 60 day in last year's surge. So from administration point of view yes, he has done a lot.

The legislative relief is something Congress has to work on and they haven't done their part at all. Zilch.

What we call backlog is not what what USCIS calls backlog. According to USCIS, if they get an application and they do not process within the time duration expected for that form then they have a backlog. Which is what USCIS faced during July 2007 fiasco. Hence they were backlogged then and are not backlogged now.

This is called "Cherry-picking" of the facts. I do not think processing 485 speedily is that much of a advantage to people. People are more interested in reducing time it takes to process new H1b petition or that when they go to their home countries for stamping visa, they get that done. So many cases are happening now that visa stamping is denied even though those people were staying here for many years. There was article that published which argued whether State department had more jurisdiction than USCIS. There is no relief for green card backlog. There is no relief on giving EAD to H4 which he had announced earlier in the year which does not require new legislation. He said he could not put in DREAM act because republicans would not support it. I do not know from when he needs that support. Healthcare bill was passed without a single republican vote. Why can't he pass this bill that way then? He said he does not have legal authority to pass something which can give relief to illegal people and that congress has to do something and then he comes at the 11th hour and pass executive order.

[abcx13]

At a time when the economy as a whole is not adding any new jobs, it is very hard for the Congress to justify adding new employment based green cards in the system. To the average Joe, it looks like the government is importing new labor at the expense of American citizens. They just wouldn't understand all these folks are already working on temporary status. Look at the presidential debates and the amount of misinformation. It is very easy to attack the president if something like this were to pass. People like to hear catch phrases...no one can really think and analyze the situation rationally.

He could easily have passed immigration reform in the first couple of years of his presidency. Bush supported it and some of that support would likely have carried over. Instead he choose to pass a flawed healthcare 'reform' bill that does nothing except kicking the can down the road and ensuring that costs will spiral further out of control.

[rupen86]

At a time when the economy as a whole is not adding any new jobs, it is very hard for the Congress to justify adding new employment based green cards in the system. To the average Joe, it looks like the government is importing new labor at the expense of American citizens. They just wouldn't understand all these folks are already working on temporary status. Look at the presidential debates and the amount of misinformation. It is very easy to attack the president if something like this were to pass. People like to hear catch phrases...no one can really think and analyze the situation rationally.

The only real legislation relief is HR 3012. One other intelligent solution is to eliminate the dependents from the EB system and make them get their GCs through the FB system. Meanwhile, the dependents who previously used AOS would remain in the US on the temporary *W* visa along with the EAD/AP. I think this second solution would greatly reduce the stress on the EB system and distribute some of the overload from EB to FB.

If the argument is that economy is bad and new people should not be added to workforce, same argument can be applied to 1.6 M illegal also who are given EAD. Also, when we are talking about green card backlog, we are not talking about adding new people to the workforce. Those people are already working here on work visas.

[immitime]

I watched the debate and below is what President Obama said when talking about immigration. I do like him but i think what he said is not true. Can anyone tell me what did he do to reduce the backlog during his term.

"First thing we did was to streamline the legal immigration system to reduce the backlog, make it easier, simpler and cheaper for people who are waiting in line, obeying the law, to make sure that they can come here and contribute to our country. And that's good for our economic growth. They'll start new businesses. They'll make things happen to create jobs here in the United States."

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/163050...dential-debate

Exactly.. He is keeping his job by lying... no wonder someone called him in capitol Hill that "YOU LIE", the economy bad argument is not well taken, if he can issue Employment authorization to 1 million people. Why can't he take care of Legal immigrants First???

[abcx13]

One fundamental difference is that the illegal workforce would compete with the blue collar jobs, whereas the H1B workforce would compete with the white collar jobs. Secondly, adding the illegals to the actual workforce may be beneficial in the long term if you don't plan on deporting them. a) You can now tax them, b) it reduces the downward pressure on the wages, and c) once legalized, the newly legal American residents would be against bringing in more illegals in the future that would compete against the *legal American residents*. Thirdly, Hispanic vote is very significant.

There are no such pressures when H1Bs are taken into equation. We are already taxed. We even pay the social security taxes. Giving us more GCs would be unpopular with the average Joe, and we don't make enough numbers to swing the election either way. Hence, any solutions that includes the word *recapture* are just fantasies in my opinion.

Point b is also true of H1B slaves tied to jobs with below market wages. While H1Bs pose competition to white collar workers in the short term, in the long run they likely create thousands of more jobs. A few Sergey Brins and Vinod Khoslas every year will create way more growth and employment than they take away. Blue collar workers do none of this - not to say that they aren't vital to the construction and agricultural industry. So I disagree with you that the average American would rather legalize them over skilled STEM immigrants.

At the end of the day, this was simply vote bank politics. And yes, Obama does LIE about a great many things (so do Republicans for that matter) and not just immigration. This is coming from someone who considers themselves a dyed-in-the-wool liberal but hates what Obama has done to this country and around the world...

[bvsamrat]

Yes. Giving GC to H1B does not improve anything to the economy. All h1Bs do pay same taxes irrespective of their GC status or not.

The only way immigration can bring benfit to the economy is either by bringing in invesetments or talent/skills by bringing new ideas/research etc in so called STEM fields.

One fundamental difference is that the illegal workforce would compete with the blue collar jobs, whereas the H1B workforce would compete with the white collar jobs. Secondly, adding the illegals to the actual workforce may be beneficial in the long term if you don't plan on deporting them. a) You can now tax them, b) it reduces the downward pressure on the wages, and c) once legalized, the newly legal American residents would be against bringing in more illegals in the future that would compete against the *legal American residents*. Thirdly, Hispanic vote is very significant.

There are no such pressures when H1Bs are taken into equation. We are already taxed. We even pay the social security taxes. Giving us more GCs would be unpopular with the average Joe, and we don't make enough numbers to swing the election either way. Hence, any solutions that includes the word *recapture* are just fantasies in my opinion.

[abcx13]

I am normally a Republican leaning person on many things, but there are some things about Obama that intrigue me. It looks like he panders to the Hispanics, but at the same time, his administration deported a record number of illegals (close to 400K per year, which is at least 40% higher than GWB). It looks like Obama is too soft on foreign policy, but during his time, the drone attacks actually increased to a record level in various parts of the world. It looks like Obama is very ineffective, but thinking back to 2008 and all the talk of gloom and doom, I cannot help thinking that in many little ways, he has gotten some things done. It also looked like he was beaten to death in debate #1 only to come out strong in debate #2 and in hindsight, he might have deliberately sucked in debate #1! It also looks like his healthcare bill is a disaster, but if you think deeper, he is just making all the uninsured people pay (either the insurance or a fine) that should eventually help *everyone*.

Yes, Obama will lie - they all do. And he will indulge in vote bank politics. But there are elements of national interest in his policies and giving EADs to undocumented is a good example. If legal immigration backlog is not being fixed, then I am inclined to believe it is also in the national interest, and we need to find alternative ways to make our situation better. If HR 3012 was too steep a hill to climb, I wonder why no proposal came to shift the dependents to FB and eliminate them from EB altogether.

Apart from drone attacks, Obama has also been worse on civil liberties (warrantless wiretapping and giving telcos retroactive immunity) despite being a Constitutional lawyer. He has invoked the State Secrets defense in such cases more than Bush ever did. Oh, and he went to war in Libya by doing an end-run around Congress.

I think the healthcare thing is a bandaid. People are forced to get insurance, HMOs make a boatload of money, costs keep spiraling out of control. We already spend 2x what some European countries do and have less to show for it. Driving more people into the arms of private insurers by government fiat will only make this problem worse.

He also lied about being easy on medical marijuana dispensaries in California. His DoJ is now actively going after them.

Yet liberals seem blind to their Messiah's MANY flaws. There are more similarities between the two parties than differences...

[rupen86]

I am normally a Republican leaning person on many things, but there are some things about Obama that intrigue me. It looks like he panders to the Hispanics, but at the same time, his administration deported a record number of illegals (close to 400K per year, which is at least 40% higher than GWB). It looks like Obama is too soft on foreign policy, but during his time, the drone attacks actually increased to a record level in various parts of the world. It looks like Obama is very ineffective, but thinking back to 2008 and all the talk of gloom and doom, I cannot help thinking that in many little ways, he has gotten some things done. It also looked like he was beaten to death in debate #1 only to come out strong in debate #2 and in hindsight, he might have deliberately sucked in debate #1! It also looks like his healthcare bill is a disaster, but if you think deeper, he is just making all the uninsured people pay (either the insurance or a fine) that should eventually help *everyone*.

Yes, Obama will lie - they all do. And he will indulge in vote bank politics. But there are elements of national interest in his policies and giving EADs to undocumented is a good example. If legal immigration backlog is not being fixed, then I am inclined to believe it is also in the national interest, and we need to find alternative ways to make our situation better. If HR 3012 was too steep a hill to climb, I wonder why no proposal came to shift the dependents to FB and eliminate them from EB altogether.

I agree with your first para especially to the point that he deliberately underperformed in the first debate. I was wondering how no one was talking about it.

However, I do not agree with the seconds para. How giving EAD to illegal is in national interest and keeping legal people to wait longer is in national interest is beyond my imagination. If legal people get green cards, they are going to start investing more here like buying homes etc. If HR 3012 is steep hill, everything else is steeper than that. When you talk about shifting dependents to FB, democrats will never support that. For them, FB is more important than EB.