Hatch Amendment Discussion

[gs1968]

I just read that Sen.Hatch has filed an amendment to the Senate Budget regarding H-1Bs.I am not sure if this is the entire I-squared Act or if this is just about H-1Bs.The reporter that tweeted this was not clear about this.Whether this will be one of the amendments discussed is open to question but something worth watching for.Standalone immigration legislation is unlikely this year but an add-on to a must-pass budget might work

PS-Sorry if I have posted on an inappropriate thread but I could not find the Discussions thread I was part of before

[amulchandra]

I just read that Sen.Hatch has filed an amendment to the Senate Budget regarding H-1Bs.I am not sure if this is the entire I-squared Act or if this is just about H-1Bs.The reporter that tweeted this was not clear about this.Whether this will be one of the amendments discussed is open to question but something worth watching for.Standalone immigration legislation is unlikely this year but an add-on to a must-pass budget might work

PS-Sorry if I have posted on an inappropriate thread but I could not find the Discussions thread I was part of before

Can you provide any link?

Thank you
Amul

[nathang]

I just read that Sen.Hatch has filed an amendment to the Senate Budget regarding H-1Bs.I am not sure if this is the entire I-squared Act or if this is just about H-1Bs.The reporter that tweeted this was not clear about this.Whether this will be one of the amendments discussed is open to question but something worth watching for.Standalone immigration legislation is unlikely this year but an add-on to a must-pass budget might work

PS-Sorry if I have posted on an inappropriate thread but I could not find the Discussions thread I was part of before

This is amendment #646 to budget resolution. This contains the h1b extract portion of I2 act. Essentially this bill increases h1b cap and also exempts advanced degree holders from cap. The problem is there is no corresponding increase in green cards. Hence this will create HUGE backlogs in the future due to high h1 numbers and very low green card numbers. This will be a nightmare if it passes. I believe it contains recapture as well, but that will help very less number of people and others in the near future will be stuck in huge backlogs.

All in all a bad deal. Call your senators to express your opposition.

[Spectator]

Here's the text of the amendment.

AMENDMENT NO______ Calendar No._____

Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to H–1B visas.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—114th Cong., 1st Sess.

S. Con. Res. 11

Setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025.

Referred to the Committee on _________ and ordered to be printed

Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

AMENDMENT intended to be proposed by Mr. HATCH

Viz:

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3 2. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO H–1B VISAS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to H–1B visas, which may include increasing the annual cap or exempting advanced STEM degree holders from the H–1B cap or recapturing unused green cards or allowing spouses of H–1B visa holders to work or increasing STEM funding in the United States by raising the H–1B fee paid by employers, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

[qesehmk]

This is amendment #646 to budget resolution. This contains the h1b extract portion of I2 act. Essentially this bill increases h1b cap and also exempts advanced degree holders from cap. The problem is there is no corresponding increase in green cards. Hence this will create HUGE backlogs in the future due to high h1 numbers and very low green card numbers. This will be a nightmare if it passes. I believe it contains recapture as well, but that will help very less number of people and others in the near future will be stuck in huge backlogs.

All in all a bad deal. Call your senators to express your opposition.

Well our friends at the other site have sent out an email asking people to do oppose this. I think this opposition is not well thought out.

Oppose on what basis? That it puts strain on GC backlog?

I think nowhere the state department or the labor dept or any other government agency has said that their goal is to create a system where backlogs vanish.

When we oppose something - we must understand the motivations of the other side before we spend our energy.

Here the motivation is simple. They are taking care of the industry demand for labor.

A better way for Indians to focus on the problem is to talk about how backlogs in EB area have solely become India's problem and how it is fundamentally a discrimination.

Once country quotas are abolished - and it becomes everybody's pain - then the next logical thing is to increase the overall quota.

To oppose this bill is illogical because this bill addresses a genuine problem that industry has. Yes it has some unintended consequences but they are minor to the interests of anybody other than those backlogged.

[imdeng]

Wait - I see that this is not the answer to our problems - but why should we be opposing it? As far as I am concerned, more H1Bs are good thing. Removing STEM graduates from quota is a good thing. Yes - it will create more backlog in the GC process - but the answer to that is not to throttle H1B numbers but to expand the GC numbers. There is a bit about recapture as well and that will help a bunch of people right away.

Its not like this is the only immigration action that is possible. This is one of many (hopefully). As a first step - its not bad. Let this happen and then move to the next step - that being removing country caps, not counting dependents and finally increasing employment based GC quota.

Well our friends at the other site have sent out an email asking people to do oppose this. I think this opposition is not well thought out.

Oppose on what basis? That it puts strain on GC backlog?

I think nowhere the state department or the labor dept or any other government agency has said that their goal is to create a system where backlogs vanish.

When we oppose something - we must understand the motivations of the other side before we spend our energy.

Here the motivation is simple. They are taking care of the industry demand for labor.

A better way for Indians to focus on the problem is to talk about how backlogs in EB area have solely become India's problem and how it is fundamentally a discrimination.

Once country quotas are abolished - and it becomes everybody's pain - then the next logical thing is to increase the overall quota.

To oppose this bill is illogical because this bill addresses a genuine problem that industry has. Yes it has some unintended consequences but they are minor to the interests of anybody other than those backlogged.

[kd2008]

I have it on good word that WH will not sign any bill that does not fix things for undocumented first. So this may be an amendment that is just a waste of time. The amendment itself is a shameless ploy by the H-1B lobby. The opposition is to let Hatch know he can't call himself pro legal immigrant if he falls for such cheap shots. He has to work with all stakeholders. Whether amendment is good or bad is a pointless discussion. The fact that amendment exists is enough to worry advocates of hidden motives to factionalize the pro legal immigrant front.

[gcq]

Here there are 2 sides employee and employer. All an employer needs is more workforce. They don't care about our quality of life or GC for us. Unfortunately they have millions set apart for lobbying. Once their H1B demand is met, they are not going to spend any effort to remove EB backlogs. By opposing this kind of H1B only reform, we force them to support our GC provisions. Otherwise we will be losing a massive force to get our GC backlog fixed. Once they realize they cannot get their H1B without supporting us the employees, they will have to support us. That is what ** has been trying to do all these years, getting Industry support us and in turn we support them,

It is about smart politics. I support IVs call for opposing this amendment.

[gcq]

This is what our "friends" Grassley and Sessions view about this.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology...ration-changes

[nathang]

Well our friends at the other site have sent out an email asking people to do oppose this. I think this opposition is not well thought out.

Oppose on what basis? That it puts strain on GC backlog?

I think nowhere the state department or the labor dept or any other government agency has said that their goal is to create a system where backlogs vanish.

When we oppose something - we must understand the motivations of the other side before we spend our energy.

Here the motivation is simple. They are taking care of the industry demand for labor.

A better way for Indians to focus on the problem is to talk about how backlogs in EB area have solely become India's problem and how it is fundamentally a discrimination.

Once country quotas are abolished - and it becomes everybody's pain - then the next logical thing is to increase the overall quota.

To oppose this bill is illogical because this bill addresses a genuine problem that industry has. Yes it has some unintended consequences but they are minor to the interests of anybody other than those backlogged.

Thanks for the thoughtful response Q and imdeng. A few years ago I would have been fully on board with this position. Heck if this bill passes in its current form, I might personally benefit as well. With or without this bill my wait time is hopefully 2 or 3 years.

With that said, I know better now. I went to many advocacy events in DC and saw first hand how things worked. It belies common sense and I am sure most would be surprised beyond reason on how things worked in DC and uncommon common sense is. In a way it is a strange bubble with distorted reality.

You need to think why a provision such as removal of per country caps that has a huge bipartisan support was not included as part of this amendment. Heck most of the gc fixes in the I2 act has bipartisan support. Most of the opposition was related to H1 provisons. Then why do you think the common sense provisions were removed and the h1 provisions alone made into this amendment.

I think it would not be too much to ask to realize that we, the employees, are not well represented in DC. Our interests are represented only by a single group. The companies are interested only in more h1, the lawyers only in more money for their members and the so called immigration lobby is focussed only on undocumented. So it is no surprise that things that might benefit us take a back seat To all he other well funded orgs.

So why should we oppose this bill? Increase in h1 without corresponding increase in GC numbers or fixes to GC system will satisfy 2 groups, companies and lawyers. What about us and native workers? I am all for competition and believe in the free market economy. But this leads to an unfair playing field. Increase in h1 without increase in GC leads to huge supply of labor tied to the employer with less rights. That is an unfair competition and playing field for both past immigrants and native workers and even the folks on h1. This is what will lead to depressed wages.

H1 don't create jobs for the most part, people with GCs do. Now I am not trying to generalize here, that is just the nature of the game due to h1 restrictions. Increase in GC will lead to restriction free labor movement, which h1 does not confer. I am all for h1 increase as long as there is a corresponding increase in GC numbers and fixes to go with it.

As I said personally I might benefit from this now, but long term everyone except the employers and lawyers will be impacted with this amendment as it currently stands. As is usually the case, follow the money and you will get your truth. Who stands to benefit from increased supply of workers with less rights and heavy restrictions?

The other thing is when was the last time an immigration fix was done? Why is there such a huge gap? Make no mistake, this is considered an immigration fix if it passes.

There are other reasons to oppose this as well, which if you think through you will be able to arrive at yourself as well. People with GCs and those near it may think it may not affect them, but you are just setting yourself up for a horrible future and rendering a great disservice to future h1 and back long applicants as well. When we have a chance to fix an issue, we need to take it. There are times when we have to compromise, but this is not a compromise as the people who will be adversely affected, namely, the employees get nothing with this. What are we compromising for?

Anyway feel free to think through this and pm me if you want to discuss in private. As I said earlier, I personally will probably benefit by this for now, as a whole in the long term this will lead to larger issues. The increase in h1 for 3 years in 2000 without GC increase or fixes has lead to the existing mess of backlogs. Imagine the same increase to a higher level without any fixed end date.

The choice is yours.

[gcq]

.............................
H1 don't create jobs for the most part, people with GCs do. Now I am not trying to generalize here, that is just the nature of the game due to h1 restrictions. Increase in GC will lead to restriction free labor movement, which h1 does not confer. I am all for h1 increase as long as there is a corresponding increase in GC numbers and fixes to go with it............

I agree with your comments except the part in bold which ** also has in its message. This is not necessarily true. Also it goes against **'s own previous message about best and the brightest. IMO ** should be more mature in framing messages.

[nathang]

I agree with your comments except the part in bold which ** also has in its message. This is not necessarily true. Also it goes against **'s own previous message about best and the brightest. IMO ** should be more mature in framing messages.

Thanks for the comment. I see where you are coming from and would agree with you just reading the bold part alone. Please read the sentences following that as well and you will see what I was trying to communicate.

As mentioned, the nature of h1 as it stands now prevents job creation through starting companies. Again not trying to make an absolute statement, but this is mostly true due to nature of h1 restrictions.
while technically possible, the hassle of starting companies along with the uncertainty of maintaining h1 status if one actually went ahead are pretty clear I hope.

I agree with you and still support the argument that h1 does bring the best and brightest for the most part regardless of some cases of abuse by a few unscrupulous employers and applicants. But their creation potential is wasted through h1 restrictions. Also by preventing free labor movement, the unintended consequence is the creation of environment leading to exploitation of these very same workers which leads to an unfair playing field leading to depressed wages and stagnant career for almost all employees, native born, past immigrants and future immigrants in the h1 pool.

I hope I conveyed my thoughts on this clearly. In a nutshell, direct job creation is stimulated through unrestricted GCs far more than h1 as it stands now. The distinction is between GC and h1 as it stands now and not whether h1s are bringing in best and the brightest or not. That was not my intention if it came across that way.

Now this whole argument will be moot if h1 allowed free labor movement and enabled starting companies easily, in which case this would a fantastic bill. Unfortunately the h1 as it stands now does not allow for either and hence this is a bad deal for the employees and a great one for the companies first and lawyers to a large extent.

[qesehmk]

Here there are 2 sides employee and employer. All an employer needs is more workforce. They don't care about our quality of life or GC for us. Unfortunately they have millions set apart for lobbying. Once their H1B demand is met, they are not going to spend any effort to remove EB backlogs. By opposing this kind of H1B only reform, we force them to support our GC provisions. Otherwise we will be losing a massive force to get our GC backlog fixed. Once they realize they cannot get their H1B without supporting us the employees, they will have to support us. That is what ** has been trying to do all these years, getting Industry support us and in turn we support them,

It is about smart politics. I support IVs call for opposing this amendment.

Once somebody gets a GC - that person comes at parity with a normal american worker. So the employers will not be motivated to support immigration reform for backlogged GC folks anyway. In fact if anything the employers are disincentivized for supporting reduction in GC backlog anyway.

[qesehmk]

This will be my last on this topic.

The argument about potential increase in H1s leading to potentially larger backlogs and larger exploitation is true. But it still doesn't address the question that why ease the pain of a few who are in the pipeline today at the cost of hundreds of thousands who will come later.

What about the need of the market and need of the H1 worker? Why sacrifice their needs for the needs of a much smaller group of backlogged candidates.

United States more than any other country is run more by economics. The economics is on the side of the employers. It is in the interest of the US to have more techies. Period. You can not oppose their legitimate needs with your narrow interests. If you want to achieve your interest then you have to make a case for your interest in terms of their interest. This is business 101.

Frankly speaking a better approach for advocacy is talking about innovation that can be unleashed when a person obtains GC. Second approach for advocacy should be about how current system is fundamentally discriminatory as well as one of economic slavery and hence totally against the fundamental principles of equal opportunity as well as freedom. Trust me - you will find ample lawyers in this country who are passionate about "principles". There is a very very strong case for those two points to be made.

Not all lawyers are scumbags or exploit immigrants.

[gcq]

Once somebody gets a GC - that person comes at parity with a normal american worker. So the employers will not be motivated to support immigration reform for backlogged GC folks anyway. In fact if anything the employers are disincentivized for supporting reduction in GC backlog anyway.

Yes Q, that is the exact reason we should force employers support our GC dream. Employers file GC for us not because they want us to live free, it is given as an incentive so that we stay with them. When we ask them to support GC legislations, they cannot say NO because it is a bad PR for them. They have been supporting GC legislation so for as they were forced to do that by employees organizations like **. If we let this amendment pass by, there won't be any GC legislation in foreseeable future, because republicans are in charge both in house and senate and all they care is businesses. Yes it is a selfish move. Unfortunately that is what it does to make our goals met. In US almost nobody lives for principles, it is all about money and opportunism.

By defeating this amendment

1. They wont get their "H1B only" legislation
2. They will realize the power of us employees and will be forced to support GC legislation.

[qesehmk]

Yes Q, that is the exact reason we should force employers support our GC dream. Employers file GC for us not because they want us to live free, it is given as an incentive so that we stay with them. When we ask them to support GC legislations, they cannot say NO because it is a bad PR for them. They have been supporting GC legislation so for as they were forced to do that by employees organizations like **. If we let this amendment pass by, there won't be any GC legislation in foreseeable future, because republicans are in charge both in house and senate and all they care is businesses. Yes it is a selfish move. Unfortunately that is what it does to make our goals met. In US almost nobody lives for principles, it is all about money and opportunism.

By defeating this amendment

1. They wont get their "H1B only" legislation
2. They will realize the power of us employees and will be forced to support GC legislation.

Sorry that was my last. So I am not going to respond other than say I do not think that is the right approach for advocacy.

[nathang]

Your viewpoint is quite interesting Q. I know you have made your last point, still I would like to reflect on that a bit.

Based on what I know from going to DC multiple times to advocate for issues related to immigration, I would like to assure you that our talking points definitely include what you mentioned. In fact we use these in addition to various other points to make our case for different issues and never get mired in politics of issues even when baited on it.

Personally just for the per country cap removal issue alone, I have made 3 or 4 trips iirc. In fact go to ANY Rep or senators office in DC and mention per country caps and they know what you are talking about immediately. In fact in of the advocacy events this year, even the receptionist in one of the offices mentioned she hopes we get our provisions soon. This is all due to the right advocacy by the org and a whole bunch of folks who are just volunteers like me.

After having been there and seen it in person, I can honestly say that NO one other than the ** is advocating for us. In fact some orgs that say they support legal immigration tried to sabotage the process. They do this many ways some of which is mind boggling.

For many years the lawmakers offices knew only about h1 issues and there was very little about gc issues. In fact many of the ideas that are actively being pursued now like removal of per country limits, ead for h4, ead for 140, filing 485 when dates are not current, recapture and a whole host of issues were outright dismissed and laughed off by many orgs including lawyers organizations. When we got 3012 passed in the house many were greatly surprised.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that your thoughts in addition to others are what have been used for more than 6 years and will be used going forward as well.

But what is happening now is pure politics and let us agree to disagree on how we see this amendment. I see this as a very bad deal while you do not.

I wish you could come to advocacy events to see for yourself what goes on in DC. But then again since you already have your GC, this is probably not a big priority for you :-)

I just wish more folks going through various immigration issues and backlogs would start participating in the advocacy events. That is a sure fire way to get our fixes implemented.

[qesehmk]

Your viewpoint is quite interesting Q. I know you have made your last point, still I would like to reflect on that a bit.

Based on what I know from going to DC multiple times to advocate for issues related to immigration, I would like to assure you that our talking points definitely include what you mentioned. In fact we use these in addition to various other points to make our case for different issues and never get mired in politics of issues even when baited on it.

Personally just for the per country cap removal issue alone, I have made 3 or 4 trips iirc. In fact go to ANY Rep or senators office in DC and mention per country caps and they know what you are talking about immediately. In fact in of the advocacy events this year, even the receptionist in one of the offices mentioned she hopes we get our provisions soon. This is all due to the right advocacy by the org and a whole bunch of folks who are just volunteers like me.

After having been there and seen it in person, I can honestly say that NO one other than the ** is advocating for us. In fact some orgs that say they support legal immigration tried to sabotage the process. They do this many ways some of which is mind boggling.

For many years the lawmakers offices knew only about h1 issues and there was very little about gc issues. In fact many of the ideas that are actively being pursued now like removal of per country limits, ead for h4, ead for 140, filing 485 when dates are not current, recapture and a whole host of issues were outright dismissed and laughed off by many orgs including lawyers organizations. When we got 3012 passed in the house many were greatly surprised.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that your thoughts in addition to others are what have been used for more than 6 years and will be used going forward as well.

But what is happening now is pure politics and let us agree to disagree on how we see this amendment. I see this as a very bad deal while you do not.

I wish you could come to advocacy events to see for yourself what goes on in DC. But then again since you already have your GC, this is probably not a big priority for you :-)

I just wish more folks going through various immigration issues and backlogs would start participating in the advocacy events. That is a sure fire way to get our fixes implemented.

Rest assured nathan - my best wishes are with anybody who is working to alleviate the pain that immigrants go through (legal or illegal doesn't matter to me).

Take what I said as feedback to the extent it helps. Otherwise of course discard. You are a committed guy and I like that. You guessed it right though. My personal priorities are quite different now! But feel free to reach out if u guys ever need to brainstorm anything. I will help - what I can.

[gcq]

From **:
"Seems like all the phone calls did have the intended effect. Hatch amendment doesn't seem to have enough votes and it appears that Sen. Hatch may not press for vote on his amendments to increase H1 visas.
Thanks to everyone who participated in this extremely important action item.

We WILL Win!"

[gcq]

A post from ** forum user:

This was an important effort because it sends a very strong message to all the senators and house representatives that the companies cannot influence increase in H1Bs without support from grassroots organizations which support increase in green cards - ie Immigration Voice and AFL-CIO.

Any legal immigration reform bill which comes under consideration going forward WILL have language which increases the green cards because standalone H1B increase bill would never pass senate as demonstrated yesterday.

AILA's position on this :

http://www.aila.org/advo-media/tools...dations-senate

[qesehmk]

From **:
"Seems like all the phone calls did have the intended effect. Hatch amendment doesn't seem to have enough votes and it appears that Sen. Hatch may not press for vote on his amendments to increase H1 visas.
Thanks to everyone who participated in this extremely important action item.

We WILL Win!"

A post from ** forum user:



AILA's position on this :

http://www.aila.org/advo-media/tools...dations-senate

Working with AFL-CIO to oppose increase in H1B is equivalent to sleeping with the devil.

These people have no broader view of immigration or reform. All they care is their own narrow interests.

[Ramsen]

Working with AFL-CIO to oppose increase in H1B is equivalent to sleeping with the devil.

These people have no broader view of immigration or reform. All they care is their own narrow interests.

Even though if you are pro immigrant you should have some clear policy. Need to support AFL CIO if that is benefit for us. I am sure preventing H1b increase is useful prevent backlog from becoming worse. Are you supporting unlimited immigration without check? Supporting H1b increase to 300k is similar to that. Most of us will become gc holders or US citizens. We have a responsibility to support right policy for welfare of US. Reckless increase of H1b may sound like business friendly immigration but will be bad for everyone including current H1b holders and future H1b holders. Even for green card some are asking exemption of STEM from cap but most do not aware that will kill the reform and we will get nothing. In fact unlimited green card is not needed to remove the backlog. Moderate increase or dependent removal will be enough to make all the categories current

[qesehmk]

Are you supporting unlimited immigration without check? Supporting H1b increase to 300k is similar to that.

That is a loaded question. 300K increase is not unlimited nor without check nor it is immigration - given H1B is dual intent.

However working with AFL CIO to nip the future immigrants in the bud is anti-immigrant action.

Those 300K are future immigrants. If you don't like them because they might compete with your visa claim then that's a narrow mindset.

Even though if you are pro immigrant you should have some clear policy. Need to support AFL CIO if that is benefit for us.

Ramsen - I also would like to add that yes it might benefit YOU and a few other backlogged people but it will be at the cost of future immigrants.

I do like your point about being flexible. But being flexible at the cost of principles is not a good idea.

[gcq]

Working with AFL-CIO to oppose increase in H1B is equivalent to sleeping with the devil.

These people have no broader view of immigration or reform. All they care is their own narrow interests.

I agree, AFL-CIO and high skilled immigrants are naturally opposing groups. Probably ** got into this relationship when Democrats were a majority in the Senate. When democrats are a majority, AFL-CIO has a big say in democrat's policies especially on immigration. So that was a smart move. It is still ok to have such a relation as long as they support our quest for green cards. When it comes to H1B it is the republicans and businesses who are going to drive that advocacy. AFL-CIO and businesses don't see eye to eye. Since ** is advocating for GC only, that relationship won't hurt from what I see.

[Ramsen]

That is a loaded question. 300K increase is not unlimited nor without check nor it is immigration - given H1B is dual intent.

However working with AFL CIO to nip the future immigrants in the bud is anti-immigrant action.

Those 300K are future immigrants. If you don't like them because they might compete with your visa claim then that's a narrow mindset.


Ramsen - I also would like to add that yes it might benefit YOU and a few other backlogged people but it will be at the cost of future immigrants.

I do like your point about being flexible. But being flexible at the cost of principles is not a good idea.

In any of the forums or among Indians in USA no one mentioned H1b cap is an issue at the same time all agree that backlog is main issue. So agreeing for increasing backlog(H1b increase) does not make sense whatever so called principle. Just you want to remove the backlog but you agree for increasing backlog. I was not convinced by the term principle.