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

[rupen86]

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.

Not true. If H1bs are made green cards, they are going to make bigger investments here like buying homes etc.

[bvsamrat]

One can buy home with H1B very easily and infact most of them doing all the time.

Not true. If H1bs are made green cards, they are going to make bigger investments here like buying homes etc.

[rupen86]

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.

If vote bank politics is the reason, I agree with that. But argument about blue color vs white color does not hold. Blue color votes are more important than white color. But by irking blue color votes, he is not risking much in terms of votes from his base and stands to gain by more Hispanic support. This year, there is no talk about giving more green cards. There were issues like HR 3012, EAD for H4 which does not increase overall green cards. Even there, we have not see any leadership. If Hr 3012 was simply put up for vote invoking cloture, it would have been passed. But someone has to use his political clout at the upper level of leadership which is lagging here. EAD for H4 was simply executive order which did not need any bill.

[rupen86]

One can buy home with H1B very easily and infact most of them doing all the time.

The point here is that green card gives sense of stability. When people feel stable, that's when they buy homes and make other sizable investments. I am not suggesting that H1 people can not buy homes

[rupen86]

There are no data that prove that people on GCs buy houses any more than people on H1Bs. People with *more secure* jobs do buy houses, and it is independent of H1B/GC.

Also national interest != fairness. It is in national interest to legalize the illegals and it is not in the national interest to give 2X amount of Gcs to the legals. This is a very simple concept, as much as we all dislike it. I myself have gone through great troubles and pains to understand how in the world this is possible, but well, it is. It makes sense for America.

As I have stressed, we do serve an important purpose. However the thing is that H1B is already a pretty flexible and powerful visa and we already have all tie rights of citizens and residents. No one asks for our immigration documents before we can make any investments here. We have the carrot...just not the carrot cake, and America suddenly does not turn around by giving us the carrot cake. That's the truth.

EDIT: Actually, it's more about the EAD to the dependent than a GC. My wife is using her EAD well, and our household income has gone up, and we suddenly can think of affording our dream house. So, an EAD to my wife will turn us into homeowners next year. So I retract my first statement and agree that an EAD/GC can turn people on the sidelines into homeowners. So America can indeed benefit by minimizing temporary residents and increasing permanent residents.

I agree with your last Edit para that when people have EAD/GC, they feel more secure. Even though one has H1 and a stable job, one would not feel necessarily stable/secure as he is dependent on H1 employer to stay in this country. He would not have flexibility to change jobs as GC person would have. So, my point as you have agreed to in your edit para is that America does tend to benefit by converting temporary workers to permanent workers.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Perhaps, best to move most of this last page into the 'left vs. right' thread.

To those on the left attacking Obama for being too far to the right, i agree with your concerns. I don't understand how people in the center can simultaneously attack him for being too far to the left. I am not a 'dyed-in-the-wool-liberal'. I have always been a moderate, and I like where Obama has stood all through these last 4 years. I think Obama has ranged between slightly left of center to slightly right of center on pretty much everything. Slightly right of center on things like drone strikes, medical marijuana, record deportations, and infact, Health care reform. Slightly left of center with the stimulus, Lilly-Ledbetter, energy policy and financial sector regulations. With the exception of the financial sector regulations, which I think Congress fluffed (not just him, by going too far on some regulations and not far enough on others) I think he's got it right every time.

However, I support Obama because Obamacare benefits me personally, and it will benefit most of you too. When you become citizens, if you want your parents to get their GCs and spend considerable periods of time in the US, the travelers insurance they use now will be insufficient. Your parents will not qualify for free Medicare or Medicaid and there is a 5 year period (until they become citizens) when they will not be able to buy into Medicare. Currently, insurance options for them are a) expensive and b) don't cover pre-existing conditions (if your parents have either diabetese or high blood pressure, basically all it covers are broken bones and little else) and c) have limited coverage ($50K for folks like my dad who are over 73). Right now, my parents do not want to spend much time in the US because of this. They don't want a significant health event to end up bankrupting my brother and me. If Obama wins, that worry ends. With Obamacare, starting in 2014, they will have have insurance that will take care of b) and c). Republicans argue that the coverage will still be expensive, but Democrats and many independent studies argue that prices will trend down. Eitherway, even if i have to spend$2000 a month on insurance, I will save most of that through nanny-cost / day-care savings.

For me the choice is both simple and personal. If Obama wins, my parents move to the US in 2014 and live with us (they already have their GCs, btw since my brother is a citizen). If Romney wins, I will get to spend less time with them. I suspect, this will be true for most of you, at some point in the future. You're just not aware of it yet.

[rupen86]

Perhaps, best to move most of this last page into the 'left vs. right' thread.

To those on the left attacking Obama for being too far to the right, i agree with your concerns. I don't understand how people in the center can simultaneously attack him for being too far to the left. I am not a 'dyed-in-the-wool-liberal'. I have always been a moderate, and I like where Obama has stood all through these last 4 years. I think Obama has ranged between slightly left of center to slightly right of center on pretty much everything. Slightly right of center on things like drone strikes, medical marijuana, record deportations, and infact, Health care reform. Slightly left of center with the stimulus, Lilly-Ledbetter, energy policy and financial sector regulations. With the exception of the financial sector regulations, which I think Congress fluffed (not just him, by going too far on some regulations and not far enough on others) I think he's got it right every time.

However, I support Obama because Obamacare benefits me personally, and it will benefit most of you too. When you become citizens, if you want your parents to get their GCs and spend considerable periods of time in the US, the travelers insurance they use now will be insufficient. Your parents will not qualify for free Medicare or Medicaid and there is a 5 year period (until they become citizens) when they will not be able to buy into Medicare. Currently, insurance options for them are a) expensive and b) don't cover pre-existing conditions (if your parents have either diabetese or high blood pressure, basically all it covers are broken bones and little else) and c) have limited coverage ($50K for folks like my dad who are over 73). Right now, my parents do not want to spend much time in the US because of this. They don't want a significant health event to end up bankrupting my brother and me. If Obama wins, that worry ends. With Obamacare, starting in 2014, they will have have insurance that will take care of b) and c). Republicans argue that the coverage will still be expensive, but Democrats and many independent studies argue that prices will trend down. Eitherway, even if i have to spend$2000 a month on insurance, I will save most of that through nanny-cost / day-care savings.

For me the choice is both simple and personal. If Obama wins, my parents move to the US in 2014 and live with us (they already have their GCs, btw since my brother is a citizen). If Romney wins, I will get to spend less time with them. I suspect, this will be true for most of you, at some point in the future. You're just not aware of it yet.

Time will tell how beneficial it is going to be but that was not the discussion topic of this thread in last page. The point was his immigration policies.

[abcx13]

I am absolutely fine with Obama granting EADs to DREAM kids while the legal immigration is in limbo. I can understand it.

I am not. It is rank cowardice. For that matter, he could lean on the DOS (a branch of the Executive, mind you) to make all dates temporarily current for a month or two to get all legal immigrants EADs. It would be fair then...

[imdeng]

Thanks Pedro for the thoughtful post.

Despite all the criticism of Obama, if he wins and then when the dust settles on his 8 years as the President, I think he would be considered one of the great ones - surely on par with LBJ and FDR. Remember that Lincoln was not quite liked much either when he was running for his second term.

Perhaps, best to move most of this last page into the 'left vs. right' thread.

To those on the left attacking Obama for being too far to the right, i agree with your concerns. I don't understand how people in the center can simultaneously attack him for being too far to the left. I am not a 'dyed-in-the-wool-liberal'. I have always been a moderate, and I like where Obama has stood all through these last 4 years. I think Obama has ranged between slightly left of center to slightly right of center on pretty much everything. Slightly right of center on things like drone strikes, medical marijuana, record deportations, and infact, Health care reform. Slightly left of center with the stimulus, Lilly-Ledbetter, energy policy and financial sector regulations. With the exception of the financial sector regulations, which I think Congress fluffed (not just him, by going too far on some regulations and not far enough on others) I think he's got it right every time.

However, I support Obama because Obamacare benefits me personally, and it will benefit most of you too. When you become citizens, if you want your parents to get their GCs and spend considerable periods of time in the US, the travelers insurance they use now will be insufficient. Your parents will not qualify for free Medicare or Medicaid and there is a 5 year period (until they become citizens) when they will not be able to buy into Medicare. Currently, insurance options for them are a) expensive and b) don't cover pre-existing conditions (if your parents have either diabetese or high blood pressure, basically all it covers are broken bones and little else) and c) have limited coverage ($50K for folks like my dad who are over 73). Right now, my parents do not want to spend much time in the US because of this. They don't want a significant health event to end up bankrupting my brother and me. If Obama wins, that worry ends. With Obamacare, starting in 2014, they will have have insurance that will take care of b) and c). Republicans argue that the coverage will still be expensive, but Democrats and many independent studies argue that prices will trend down. Eitherway, even if i have to spend$2000 a month on insurance, I will save most of that through nanny-cost / day-care savings.

For me the choice is both simple and personal. If Obama wins, my parents move to the US in 2014 and live with us (they already have their GCs, btw since my brother is a citizen). If Romney wins, I will get to spend less time with them. I suspect, this will be true for most of you, at some point in the future. You're just not aware of it yet.

[rupen86]

I think we could keep talking about this from our point of view, but we need to consider the administration point of view and the national interest.

I have already explained that by granting the EADs to the DREAMers, the government can collect taxes. Also, in a free and open society, we should not have a large segment of disenfranchised population in the long term as well. EADs to the DREAMers is a first step in that direction.

By contrast, H1Bs are already taxed and they already have all the rights and get all the benefits (sans the voting rights) that American citizens get. Making the dates current for us simply creates more overhead for the USCIS and they get nothing in the long run (not even the EAD renewal revenue). If I were working in the USCIS and if I had the visibility into the DOS policies, I would be extremely pissed if the dates were made current because it means more work and headaches for me.

I agree that dependent EADs can make a huge difference, and I do sympathize with those who don't have it. However, having gone through great troubles (by temporarily breaking our family apart while my wife moved and worked in India with our daughter while I stayed back) to make other options available to ourselves, I feel those options are available to everyone. In the end, those who *want and can* *will and do*.

To say that H1bs have all the rights of American citizens except voting can not be further from the truth. H1b is dependent on his employer to stay in this country. The day he goes out of job, he can no longer stay here or for some reason USCIS or Dos decides that they are not going to approve h1b extension or transfer, that person can not stay. So his existence is dependent on various factors. That is not true for American citizen. When you are talking about revenue in the form of tax, you are only looking at the revenue from the salary tax. When temporary worker becomes permanent citizen, he is surely going to make more investments and revenue is going to increase in different for of taxes. I absolutely do not believe that giving EAD to illegal was because of national interest. If that was the case, there was no need to wait till election. It could have been done much in advance.

[abcx13]

With due respect, I am talking of civil rights and liberties.

You and I normally agree on things, but with all due respect you have no idea what you are talking about. Non-US citizens no longer have customary due process rights or habeaus corpus which is a pretty big deal and goes right to the heart of civil rights and liberties, if not fundamental rights. In theory you are also required to carry your papers at all times - I don't think it can get more draconian than that.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol...dead037877.php

That completely eviscerates your argument, which was weak as it is since, as already mentioned, H1Bs have employer mobility as most USCs do.

[abcx13]

Let me understand this clearly. Has any one of us have carried all our papers in the US ever? Let us say in a hypothetical situation, you are arrested for failure to carry your papers. Do you really think they can lock you away?

I have read the famous *1984* and have been greatly influenced by it at one time. I am however wised up and I believe such a draconian government will not arise. Human beings are not machines, and the *lines of reason* are not breached in a functioning society. Hence, I leave the Habues Corpus issue at the door. You are technically right (as the president was technically right on the *Libya terror* issue), but it's not the whole truth.

My point was only this: An illegal lives in fear of deportation every day. An illegal is breaking law every day by accruing illegal presence and getting paid illegally. The government can practically seize all his/her assets and send him/her out. That cannot happen with us. Hence, I find it far fetched to compare our predicaments to the illegals. Yes, we have problems, but a little context please?

Civil rights exist precisely for such 'hypotheticals'. If civil rights didn't exist, such hypotheticals would be routine occurrences. In fact some already are despite laws to the contrary.

If you had actually wised up after reading 1984 you would realize that civil liberties are rapidly eroding around right before your eyes - the right to privacy, the right to a free and fair trial, the right to just and reasonable punishment, existence of probable cause for searches, etc. Go read about the NDAA and Hedges vs. Obama and other violations of civil liberties and then come back and tell me that the government won't persecute (or prosecute) you for what is essentially thoughtcrime.

How would you feel about attending an Occupy Wall St. protest as a H1B? What if they arrest you and charge you with something just for being in a park and supporting those kids? Does it reduce your motivation to participate? That's direct suppression of your 1st Amendment (which thankfully is still guaranteed to everyone on US soil regardless of their citizenship) right there. Good luck trying to fight the system on that. Civil rights are eroded in small pernicious ways that in aggregate result in a large scale impact to what the populace can and cannot do.

Anyway, it's hard to argue with someone who simply wants to ignore the facts.

And re illegals, it is a choice they make. I am not asking them to make that choice. They made it and they can live with the consequences of their actions. It's really not my problem. That is the brutal reality. (I'm not talking about DREAMers here, I mean the original illegal that migrated.)

[rupen86]

With due respect, I am talking of civil rights and liberties. OF COURSE an H1B is stuck to the employer because the EMPLOYER PETITIONS FOR HIM/HER. If I was your employer and you ran after the first green field after I petitioned for you, I would be pissed (and somehow I have a feeling I am not alone in this rational judgment). Think about your H1B job as an apprenticeship if it helps.

Have you ever heard that there are self petitions that are independent of the employers? They are called EB2-NIW and EB1A.

If you don't buy a house today, you will pay rent or buy a house tomorrow. You will buy your groceries. You will send your kids to day cares/pre schools. You will take vacations. You pay taxes. So my friend, you are *already investing* and just because a few thousand legal immigrants in the US are not going to buy houses today is not going to budge the administration into granting us additional green cards.

I have already explained many times giving EADs to illegals is beneficial to the nation. Can you refute the specific points? Will the administration not gain additional tax revenue? As for its timing, sure, it is politically motivated. So what?

I guess summary here is: fixing legal immigration is not in national interest and fixing illegal immigration is in national interest.

[qesehmk]

Ironically - that is actually true for a variety of reasons: some rational some irrational:

1. The power of numbers. Legal backlogs runs into a few hundred thousands max. Illegal one is in millions.
2. The political expediency - Legal ones don't influence politics. Illegal ones do.
3. The job situation - illegal ones already have illegal jobs and are not pereceived to be taking jobs away. While legal immigration is attacked for jobs going to India or China or whatever.
4. Value / or Loss due to legal immigration backlog hasn't been demonstrated anywhere by anybody. Its anecdotal at best e.g. Bill gates talking about it. But how do you value 60K EB2 and EB3 bright people rotting in immigration pipeline? So unless somebody demonstrates that and makes a case for it is not going to make anybody believe that it is more important than the big numbered illegal alien backlog.

I guess summary here is: fixing legal immigration is not in national interest and fixing illegal immigration is in national interest.

[rupen86]

You have got it absolutely right. That is the gist of my argument, and however all of us do not like it, it is the truth.

I guess you will at least have Grassley as one taker of this argument

[rupen86]

I guess you will at least have Grassley as one taker of this argument . Correction here, he won't agree about illegal part. But at least you got 50% vote for legal immigration from him.

[rupen86]

What does Grassley have to do with anything? You seem to be a big fan of captain Irrelevant Random.

Grassley opposes legal immigration just like you who says it is not in national interest. Btw, do you support or oppose HR 3012? HR 3012 makes it easier for people to get green card. So, according to your logic, you should oppose it since it is not in national interest. And going further by that logic, there should not be any green card number available. That way, people will stay on H1, EAD which will be good for national interest.

[rupen86]

Let me clarify for your benefit:

I have taken a Devil's advocate position and I have put out a thought by *PRETENDING* to be an AMERICAN LAWMAKER. Now, I have 2 problems: Legal immigration and illegal immigration. By being a Devil's advocate, I contend that the lawmaker will first attempt to fix the illegal immigration problem. Read Q's post above to understand the points he has made.

Now, I am no longer a Devil's advocate. I am a legal immigrant and I support legal immigration 100%. I have posted so many times IN FAVOR of HR 3012 on all possible forums, did my rounds of phone calls, went to the senators offices last year and early this year, and my stance here is nothing short of well known.

If you haven't followed my posts, I ask you try to do this and get a little bit of context. Once you have the context, you will realize your first statement is utterly false and you had no idea what you were talking about.

Legal immigration is not in national interest is devil's advocate opinion or your opinion ?

[qesehmk]

Pl keep the discussion objective rather than personal.

[bvsamrat]

You can count me as supporter of Grassley on strict control of H1B.

We are forgetting that by H1B, we are getting very many special privilages than any other country in the world.

Only the issue is that with H1B, you have to have a job all the times. But that is the aspect of H1B-temperory worker in a special skills category and and nothing more.

Or else, you can come with extraordinary special catogory skills without any job ! No objection!

Frankly, once the H1B skills are avaiable locally, they are no longer needed and hence the 6 years limit rightly put.

Due to the dual intent nature, H1Bs can also apply for GC and that should be considered as an advantage as against other counries for eg. Middle East where people would stay only temperorily even for 10-15 years with the intent of going back to the home country.

As per the waiting times/Visa number increase etc. for EB2 and EB3, it is to be decided and guided by US economy,growth factors and local people.

If one thinks 10 years tax paying H1B with without GC is very hard.
But if so- why so many applicants for H1B in 2007/2008 even resulting in lottery.

it shows that despite all this, people still prefer this route of H1B to GC.
With recent 2007 and 2010 alloting EAD's you can not complain as it gave us a very good opportunity to stay on AOS even without job.

What more one would expect? dole and food stamps? like they do it in NZ and AUS but no jobs even for doctors who have to resort to driving cabs?

I guess you will at least have Grassley as one taker of this argument . Correction here, he won't agree about illegal part. But at least you got 50% vote for legal immigration from him.

[rupen86]

You can count me as supporter of Grassley on strict control of H1B.

We are forgetting that by H1B, we are getting very many special privilages than any other country in the world.

Only the issue is that with H1B, you have to have a job all the times. But that is the aspect of H1B-temperory worker in a special skills category and and nothing more.

Or else, you can come with extraordinary special catogory skills without any job ! No objection!

Frankly, once the H1B skills are avaiable locally, they are no longer needed and hence the 6 years limit rightly put.

Due to the dual intent nature, H1Bs can also apply for GC and that should be considered as an advantage as against other counries for eg. Middle East where people would stay only temperorily even for 10-15 years with the intent of going back to the home country.

As per the waiting times/Visa number increase etc. for EB2 and EB3, it is to be decided and guided by US economy,growth factors and local people.

If one thinks 10 years tax paying H1B with without GC is very hard.
But if so- why so many applicants for H1B in 2007/2008 even resulting in lottery.

it shows that despite all this, people still prefer this route of H1B to GC.
With recent 2007 and 2010 alloting EAD's you can not complain as it gave us a very good opportunity to stay on AOS even without job.

What more one would expect? dole and food stamps? like they do it in NZ and AUS but no jobs even for doctors who have to resort to driving cabs?

Summary from your post is: H1b is very good visa and if one is asking for faster GC, he is asking too much.

[rupen86]

My wish: Legal immigration should be the prime focus over all immigration related issues in the US.

The reality: Legal immigration is the last thing (and hence it is the least priority issue) on the lawmakers agenda.

My opinion: Fixing the legal immigration is NOT in the national interest. Fixing the illegal immigration IS in the national interest.

My devil's advocate position: I am a US lawmaker. If I belong to the tea party, I want to send all illegals home. If I am a moderate, I want to get the illegals in the mainstream. If I am a bleeding heart liberal, I want to pass the DREAM. Legal immigration? What the hell is that? Don't these people have enough privileges already? OK, let's think about this illegal problem more.

My position on immigration issues:
a. Support HR 3012 unquestioningly. Hates the fact of the large spread between waiting times of the ROWers and Indians.
b. Support EADs for H4 spouses (whose primaries have i140 clear) and think this should be one of the top priority items should HR 3012 fail.
c. Do not have enough information on Grassley's H1B proposal to form judgment. On surface, I support tightening the screws to stop the H1B abuse.
d. Support the STEM bill very strongly.
e. Eager to learn and educate others seeking information.

Ok, so your opinion is solving legal immigration problem is not in national interest but your wish is it should be solved. Did I get it right ?

[GhostWriter]

So what will Ron Gotcher do now . Did you use EAD or H1-B. I didn't realize there was a shortage in this category.

I have taken a Devil's advocate position

[vizcard]

Stopping illegal immigration is like trying to hold a paper cup under a faucet. The focus needs to be on slowing down influx through border protection and legalizing the DREAMers. Without illegal immigration, a lot of the menial jobs will not be done in a cheap manner. So the cosy of your lawn care goes up, your nanny or housekeeper gets too expensive, etc etc.

I'm not in favor of solving illegal before legal but the reality is that it is a bigger problem in terms of sheet numbers. Plus it's a political play.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Not directly related to the topic at hand, but the Wadhwa report released by the Kaufmann foundation (summarized in this Murthy memo here: http://www.murthy.com/2012/10/23/kau...among-indians/) has some interesting points.

Indian entrepreneurs rank first among immigrants that have founded companies since 2006, in high-tech industries like bioscience, computers and communications, innovation and manufacturing, semiconductors, software, defense / aerospace, and environmental products and services.

Several other findings underscore the pivotal role played by Indian entrepreneurs in the engineering and technology sectors, during the 2006-2012 period studied by the Kauffman team:

Indians continue to be at the forefront of immigrant-led entrepreneurship.
Of the total of immigrant-founded [engineering and technology] companies, 33.2% had Indian founders, up about 7% from 2005. Indians have founded more such companies than immigrants born in the next top seven immigrant-founder-sending countries combined.
The top ten sending countries of immigrant entrepreneurs in descending order were India (33.2%), China (8.1%), the United Kingdom (6.3%), Canada (4.2%), Germany (3.9%), Israel (3.5%), Russia (2.4%), Korea (2.2%), Australia (2.0%) and the Netherlands (2.0%).

I don't endorse anyone engaging in the time consuming India vs. ROW debates, but to those of you who do, this may help combat the "Indians are all frauds" argument. To be clear, the numbers above probably mirror the % of EB visas given to each of these countries, so it would not support an "Indians are the best" argument either. It would however support an argument that, as a group, Indians pull their weight in terms of job creation, so a switch to a FIFO distribution of visa numbers and the resulting increase in Indians getting GCs at the expense of ROWers will not result in a change in numbers of jobs created in the US economy.