S386 GOP Politics and Sen. Durbin

[Zenzone]

This is not going to work with the Trump Administration. This is Ds way to ensuring that the FB visas do not go unused and roll over. The concomitant effect is that the EB dates do not progress and we stay cursed!

I do not think the bill in its current form will pass. For now, we are OK but we have to keep a watch on the immigration provisions that may get added in the stimulus bill accepted by the Rs. Keeping fingers crossed.

Agree. This is posturing by Dems. There are other provisions in this bill where they are giving deferred action from pretty much all essential industry visa workers. These are far left proposals, dead on arrival. Stimulus 2.0 of sorts will pass sans immigration in my view.

[qesehmk]

Dems are pursuing an agenda which in my opinion has strong economic merit overall but certainly has no hope of passing the senate.

Immigration is relatively minor piece of the whole bill and has excellent provisions except the fallacross rule change for 2021/22.

The fall across rule change proposal is without a compelling argument for it. I sense a hint of animosity over Durbin name calling by IV.

In my judgement dems are generally more pro all kinds of immigration. And while this bill has almost zero chance of passing, it at least highlighted how much EB-I has alienated democrats. But in politics it is never too late to start building goodwill. For what is is worth, it is a good idea to write to whoever is writing this bill and try to influence them to drop fall across change.

[Zenzone]

Dems are pursuing an agenda which in my opinion has strong economic merit overall but certainly has no hope of passing the senate.

Immigration is relatively minor piece of the whole bill and has excellent provisions except the fallacross rule change for 2021/22.

The fall across rule change proposal is without a compelling argument for it. I sense a hint of animosity over Durbin name calling by IV.

In my judgement dems are generally more pro all kinds of immigration. And while this bill has almost zero chance of passing, it at least highlighted how much EB-I has alienated democrats. But in politics it is never too late to start building goodwill. For what is is worth, it is a good idea to write to whoever is writing this bill and try to influence them to drop fall across change.

Agree with you 100%. I also think its possible that Dems want a hook into GOP from further trying to curtail family immigration which is D's target rich pool for base expansion. Nevertheless, since immigration is not a prime focus of this bill, these provisions could be completely left out in the compromise for being addressed in a later bill just focused on immigration. For example, remember DACA ruling by Supreme Court could be out anytime this summer. There are simply more immigration chips to fall in near term that make it ripe for a full carve out from this bill.

[Zenzone]

Dems are pursuing an agenda which in my opinion has strong economic merit overall but certainly has no hope of passing the senate.

Immigration is relatively minor piece of the whole bill and has excellent provisions except the fallacross rule change for 2021/22.

The fall across rule change proposal is without a compelling argument for it. I sense a hint of animosity over Durbin name calling by IV.

In my judgement dems are generally more pro all kinds of immigration. And while this bill has almost zero chance of passing, it at least highlighted how much EB-I has alienated democrats. But in politics it is never too late to start building goodwill. For what is is worth, it is a good idea to write to whoever is writing this bill and try to influence them to drop fall across change.

Wait...One question here. This is not the Senate bill so hows your Durbin angle playing out on the house bill?

[qesehmk]

Wait...One question here. This is not the Senate bill so hows your Durbin angle playing out on the house bill?

Party loyalty. The lesson is - partisan advocacy will not work.

[alpha0]

My thinking is last year tech lobby was definitely involved in pushing country quota removal. The way Lee was interested in pushing the bill and the way they were able to get Paul and Purdue holds resolved, it was way beyond IV. My thinking is Durbin is just the dem front on holding the bill because he has the safest seat. If court decision on DACA went for administration, dems would have tried to show some push for DACA and would have likely includded 386/1044 in that bundle.

I agree with other poster that indian community who votes does not care about EB backlogs. I see IV tried to create this as Durbin vs Indian community but it did not get traction. In many areas of Illinois, desi community has strong presence and if they were involved, I am sure there would be lot more pressure on Durbin. I also think Covid helped Durbin hide behind facebook wall on this issue, otherwise if 100s of people showed up on every townhall / fund raisign events, it would have created more pressure on him.

I also feel that if the bill was freeing only 50% of the numbers from quota, it would have reduced the opposition and would have killed arguments of Durbin and likes that no oher country will get GC for a decade. For desis, it will be better to get 20k in a category than 3k. Hindsight is 20/20.

[smuggymba]

I see IV tried to create this as Durbin vs Indian community but it did not get traction. In many areas of Illinois, desi community has strong presence and if they were involved, I am sure there would be lot more pressure on Durbin. I also think Covid helped Durbin hide behind facebook wall on this issue, otherwise if 100s of people showed up on every townhall / fund raisign events, it would have created more pressure on him.

Indians in general are very coy and barely show their "alpha" and "aggressive" side especially here in the US and that too related to policy making even after being subjected to decades long backlog. I'm actually very happy to see IV/Desis going on overdrive against Durbin even though it might negatively affect us. Sometimes it's better to be aggressive rather than taking BS lying down.

[jackbrown_890]

Indians in general are very coy and barely show their "alpha" and "aggressive" side especially here in the US and that too related to policy making even after being subjected to decades long backlog. I'm actually very happy to see IV/Desis going on overdrive against Durbin even though it might negatively affect us. Sometimes it's better to be aggressive rather than taking BS lying down.

I still think it was stupid to go aggressively against Durbin. I agree Durbin didn't play fair but at the same time this was not a smart move by IV. and not only that they called a democrat racist which his constituents have hard time believing. His worst election win was 11% win. It has been over a year house passed the bill. let's say even with IV's aggressiveness somehow makes him loose this election.(which i doubt). but in that case also we still loose. I am not saying we should have kept quite against him when he opposed the unanimous consent; but I definitely don't think it was a smart move by IV the way they handled it. I still hope I am wrong and IV somehow gets a win here.

[qesehmk]

I still think it was stupid to go aggressively against Durbin. I agree Durbin didn't play fair but at the same time this was not a smart move by IV. and not only that they called a democrat racist which his constituents have hard time believing. His worst election win was 11% win. It has been over a year house passed the bill. let's say even with IV's aggressiveness somehow makes him loose this election.(which i doubt). but in that case also we still loose. I am not saying we should have kept quite against him when he opposed the unanimous consent; but I definitely don't think it was a smart move by IV the way they handled it. I still hope I am wrong and IV somehow gets a win here.

IV got played. UC is never used for serious legislation. It is used to clear non-important business in congress. By requiring UC for serious legislation, the GOP succeeded in pinning the blame on democrats and IV is doing their bidding without understanding this.

[alpha0]

I still think it was stupid to go aggressively against Durbin. I agree Durbin didn't play fair but at the same time this was not a smart move by IV. and not only that they called a democrat racist which his constituents have hard time believing. His worst election win was 11% win. It has been over a year house passed the bill. let's say even with IV's aggressiveness somehow makes him loose this election.(which i doubt). but in that case also we still loose. I am not saying we should have kept quite against him when he opposed the unanimous consent; but I definitely don't think it was a smart move by IV the way they handled it. I still hope I am wrong and IV somehow gets a win here.

At this point in time, i think S386 is a gone deal. If Covid did not happen, people definitely could have put more pressure on Durbin (just like what they did in last oct/nov). Even if Durbin has a safe seat, people could have made embarrasing situation for him if regular townhalls were going on. No politician likes hundreds of people opposing him and calling him racist outside his townhalls and fundraisers.

[qesehmk]

Every time people say Durbin I am seriously going to ask to show me one single important legislation that ever went through UC. EVER.

UC was a trap that IV got trapped in. Politicized an issue, made it personal, and hurt EB India. Got played at the hands of GOP.

[alpha0]

Every time people say Durbin I am seriously going to ask to show me one single important legislation that ever went through UC. EVER.

UC was a trap that IV got trapped in. Politicized an issue, made it personal, and hurt EB India. Got played at the hands of GOP.

I agree that UC is difficult for controversial bill where there is some opposition. IV may be trying to just keep the bill alive till there is a "vehicle" bill where this can be included. If we look at this decade, apart from S744 passed by senate in 2013, there has been no serious immigration effort. Country quota removal on its own will never pass seante thru regular process, period. No leader will keep it on floor for 5 days.

[eaglenow]

As IV volunteer who has advocated for various versions of the bill since 2008, I am amused by the comments of arm chair critics who talk policy, strategy and approach when they have zero idea about advocacy or experience working on the hill for anything. This is akin to a first grader criticizing the approach of a quantum physics Nobel prize winner in their area of speciality. Unless you have seen up close how to advocate for a bill, you have no idea what the strategy should be or approach. I mean that in the nicest possible way and not to offend anyone.

BTW look at the support Sen. Durbin has from within his own party. Why do you think he is the only one holding the bill. In politics, it is easy to let go of the bill and have someone else hold it for another reason. Being the whip, he can easily get it done if he had the support of any other democrat. So no, regardless of the approach, he is doing what he is doing because of his agenda. He feigns concern for others ho are not in the system yet and is blocking the bill he negotiated with Sen. Lee.

His reasoning is it is not the same bill he negotiated. Here is the summary. Removal of Do no harm provision. This was due to the concern from agencies implementing it in a concrete way. So the same concept was achieved by increasing the reserved numbers during initial years of transition. This is a more concrete way and achieves the same effect as Do no harm provision.

The other reasons are the addition of EAD through early filing when dates are not current. Again this was updated to take effect after 2 years. This is to prevent overwhelming the agencies and so they can hire required resources to process the deluge of applications. The third item of implementing 50:50 rule was delayed by 3 years, again so as to not disrupt existing structure abruptly. Note that the core of the bill or the negotiated items were not changed. The implementation was updated to prevent confusion, ambiguity and disruption.

But the great senator is opposing this and holding the bill. No one is asking him to just support it, just to negotiate in good faith to get this bill done. He is even refusing to negotiate. It’s his way or highway. In the meantime Indian backlog applicants are impacted. He is fine if Indians bear the brunt of a broken system and never get GC for 150 years, but is not ready to treat them equally if it means everyone will share the burden of a broken system and will wait approximately 8 to 9 years. So you can keep buttering him and enabling the bad behavior, it’s not going to change his mind. It’s time to call a spade a spade.

As for strategy, approach, falling into trap etc, are comments with no base. The core team has been at this since 2006 and has made every mistake there is and the strategy, approach are decided after consulting with the pros, lobbyists, strategists etc who do this for a living, not arm chair critics like many of us.

You can negotiate with yourself and say asking for 50% is easier, 10% is easier etc..but if the most powerful ideology of equality does not get you something done, you can rest assured nothing else will. Also all these easy, difficult, reasonable, controversial, substantial etc are in your mind and is not the reality of the hill. I suggest you take up advocacy and volunteer through IV and see for yourself what it takes. That is your only way out of you have PD beyond 2009.

[jackbrown_890]

As IV volunteer who has advocated for various versions of the bill since 2008, I am amused by the comments of arm chair critics who talk policy, strategy and approach when they have zero idea about advocacy or experience working on the hill for anything. This is akin to a first grader criticizing the approach of a quantum physics Nobel prize winner in their area of speciality. Unless you have seen up close how to advocate for a bill, you have no idea what the strategy should be or approach. I mean that in the nicest possible way and not to offend anyone.

BTW look at the support Sen. Durbin has from within his own party. Why do you think he is the only one holding the bill. In politics, it is easy to let go of the bill and have someone else hold it for another reason. Being the whip, he can easily get it done if he had the support of any other democrat. So no, regardless of the approach, he is doing what he is doing because of his agenda. He feigns concern for others ho are not in the system yet and is blocking the bill he negotiated with Sen. Lee.

His reasoning is it is not the same bill he negotiated. Here is the summary. Removal of Do no harm provision. This was due to the concern from agencies implementing it in a concrete way. So the same concept was achieved by increasing the reserved numbers during initial years of transition. This is a more concrete way and achieves the same effect as Do no harm provision.

The other reasons are the addition of EAD through early filing when dates are not current. Again this was updated to take effect after 2 years. This is to prevent overwhelming the agencies and so they can hire required resources to process the deluge of applications. The third item of implementing 50:50 rule was delayed by 3 years, again so as to not disrupt existing structure abruptly. Note that the core of the bill or the negotiated items were not changed. The implementation was updated to prevent confusion, ambiguity and disruption.

But the great senator is opposing this and holding the bill. No one is asking him to just support it, just to negotiate in good faith to get this bill done. He is even refusing to negotiate. It’s his way or highway. In the meantime Indian backlog applicants are impacted. He is fine if Indians bear the brunt of a broken system and never get GC for 150 years, but is not ready to treat them equally if it means everyone will share the burden of a broken system and will wait approximately 8 to 9 years. So you can keep buttering him and enabling the bad behavior, it’s not going to change his mind. It’s time to call a spade a spade.

As for strategy, approach, falling into trap etc, are comments with no base. The core team has been at this since 2006 and has made every mistake there is and the strategy, approach are decided after consulting with the pros, lobbyists, strategists etc who do this for a living, not arm chair critics like many of us.

You can negotiate with yourself and say asking for 50% is easier, 10% is easier etc..but if the most powerful ideology of equality does not get you something done, you can rest assured nothing else will. Also all these easy, difficult, reasonable, controversial, substantial etc are in your mind and is not the reality of the hill. I suggest you take up advocacy and volunteer through IV and see for yourself what it takes. That is your only way out of you have PD beyond 2009.

First of all Q and others- I apologise and if you think it is inappropriate, please delete my post.

Here we go again. This is the argument IV has used every single time if someone criticizes anything they do from the beginning. They make people feel they are worthless, low life - sitting on their couches, do-nothing, know-nothing unlike them. Anyone who says against them has no idea on how advocacy works. They know all and others are stupid.
Many people have been quite for too long against IV. I have had it enough of IV.
And FYI. Dude you not the only one who has volunteered since 2008. Before you start talking shit about people ..ask. FYI.. I have been involved as long as you have been..I have made advocacy trips to DC before I moved to DC. I live in DC now and I am still involved with advocacy.. I still show up at Senate/house when I can. I have personally met with reps and senators in support of these bills for over a decade now. And all these not just thru any other organization but as a volunteer of IV.
I have heard this argument on telegram for 100 times now if people ask questions, they make them feel worthless.
Well, you might have more knowledge then many of us but stop treating people like shit. You could talk to people like this if you were da shit but you are not otherwise the bill would have passed a long time ago. Again i am not saying that IV is not working hard.. you are working hard. But my argument is ..you are not working smart. you are no smarter than a fifth grader in this. Just my opinion. IV is still not sitting at grown up table.
Also, if things do happen now..I don't think it will only happen because of IV's actions now.. things might move because people will see there are people suffering due to inaction of Congress on this issue.market demands will also be a factor.. but IV will take full credit for any thing positive now
I do thank IV for providing platform for advocacy for people like us but at the same I do blame IV for missteps they have taken so far for dragging this bill so far.
If you demand someone to come to table for a negotiation with good faith..- you don't call them racist because he did not support your UC request the way you wanted and call him racist repeatedly before asking them to come to the table. Looks like to me that You have not shown good faith effort to start the negotiations..
Again I sincerely hope I am wrong about this strategy (even though I diasree with the approach) and IV pulls this off before November..

[rocketfast]

As IV volunteer who has advocated for various versions of the bill since 2008, I am amused by the comments of arm chair critics who talk policy, strategy and approach when they have zero idea about advocacy or experience working on the hill for anything. This is akin to a first grader criticizing the approach of a quantum physics Nobel prize winner in their area of speciality. Unless you have seen up close how to advocate for a bill, you have no idea what the strategy should be or approach. I mean that in the nicest possible way and not to offend anyone.

Sorry. You cannot compare IV leadership to nobel prize winners. Extremely thin skinned and immature. Removal of country caps made sense in 2012, when others would suffer for 5 years. Not in 2020 where everyone else will have to suffer for 10-15 years. In 2012, Indian service companies were not sponsoring green cards. For them H1B was simply outsourcing visa. Now, they sponsor en-masse mainly to get I-140 and unlimited extensions. You cannot in a serious face say that European researchers need to wait for 15 years to get their green cards and not expect any opposition. So the fix has to be something different. Either more green cards or some other filtering.

[eaglenow]

Here we go again. This is the argument IV has used every single time if someone criticizes anything they do from the beginning. They make people feel they are worthless, low life - sitting on their couches, do-nothing, know-nothing unlike them. Anyone who says against them has no idea on how advocacy works. They know all and others are stupid.
Many people have been quite for too long against IV. I have had it enough of IV.
And FYI. Dude you not the only one who has volunteered since 2008. Before you start talking shit about people ..ask. FYI.. I have been involved as long as you have been..I have made advocacy trips to DC before I moved to DC. I live in DC now and I am still involved with advocacy.. I still show up at Senate/house when I can. I have personally met with reps and senators in support of these bills for over a decade now. And all these not just thru any other organization but as a volunteer of IV.
I have heard this argument on telegram for 100 times now if people ask questions, they make them feel worthless.

First of all, thanks for volunteering, advocating for the bill and showing up to advocacy events. I never addressed my comments at you specifically.

Since you addressed my comment specifically, I will respond. The majority of the folks questioning strategy, approach etc have zero experience advocating for anything on the hill. My comment was towards those folks. Telling someone they don’t know something because they don’t have relevant experience in that area is not to make them feel worthless or anything else you mentioned. On the contrary, it is just being pointed out that they are just sharing their opinions based on their knowledge and experience, which is lacking critical details necessary to make sound judgements.

Also to clarify, I am not IV and I am not part of the core team nor am I as active as I was in the past. There have been hundreds of volunteers over the years who have advocated for the bill and I am just one of them, same as you. I have tried to convey this in the best possible manner and every single time, people keep popping up with the same air of superiority that they know something better. Do this hundreds of times and then tell me how you feel and would handle it. Since you have been to advocacy events, you know the questions are immature. So why don’t you volunteer to explain in the nicest possible way to make sure people understand. What is stopping you?

I don’t know why you are done with IV. Were you doing IV a favor when you advocated for the bill? You want to go against IV, feel free to do so. IV is not the one being impacted. You are. Go ahead, cut off your nose to spite your face. You talk as if IV was single person or a couple of people running a for profit company. Since you have been to events, you know how many people volunteered their time and effort every single time. Thousands of meetings have been done with lawmakers on the hill.

I was in the same boat a decade back. But instead of just being an arm chair critic, I decided to go for an event and see for myself. It is readily apparent what it takes to get something done on the hill. The experience humbled me and I learnt how active democracy works. So while I may have my opinions, I have the humility to try to understand what is happening based on what I am seeing and what I have learnt form the past. It is very easy to see why something is being done the way it is done.

Well, you might have more knowledge then many of us but stop treating people like shit. You could talk to people like this if you were da shit but you are not otherwise the bill would have passed a long time ago. Again i am not saying that IV is not working hard.. you are working hard. But my argument is ..you are not working smart. you are no smarter than a fifth grader in this. Just my opinion. IV is still not sitting at grown up table.

I am not treating anyone poorly. Please point to what I said that led you to conclude this and feel free to point out how you would phrase it. I mean that in the sincerest way.

In your opinion, IV is not working smart, no smarter than 5th grader and is not sitting at the adult table and the bill would have passed a long time ago if IV done things your way. You are entitled to your opinion. Since you have been to events before, why do you think hundreds of others who have been to far more events, worked harder and more closer to this than you and I have, do not share the same opinion? Do you not think they would have voiced their thoughts? Once you get to the events you know that you can interact with more experienced folks and see easily they do not share these thoughts? Do you honestly think you are smarter then all of them or do you think all of them are just sheep who follow instructions without questioning them? Since you are already a volunteer who has been to many events, have you tried reaching out to fellow experienced volunteers to discuss your thoughts?

Also, if things do happen now..I don't think it will only happen because of IV's actions now.. things might move because people will see there are people suffering due to inaction of Congress on this issue.market demands will also be a factor.. but IV will take full credit for any thing positive now

Take full credit? Who else do you think paved the way for this? How do you think people come to see that immigrants are suffering due to inaction of congress? What market demands are you talking about? I will agree that things will need to fall in place for the bill to pass and we should be thankful for everyone who supported the bill. Who else do you think worked on the bill, advocated for it every single day, hired lobbyists, formulated strategy, messaging, coordinated events, sessions etc? Why do you think the bill passed with such overwhelming bipartisan majority in the house? Please feel free to elaborate.

I will just quote what I heard from Aman in the past. “Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan”

I do thank IV for providing platform for advocacy for people like us but at the same I do blame IV for missteps they have taken so far for dragging this bill so far.
If you demand someone to come to table for a negotiation with good faith..- you don't call them racist because he did not support your UC request the way you wanted and call him racist repeatedly before asking them to come to the table. Looks like to me that You have not shown good faith effort to start the negotiations..
Again I sincerely hope I am wrong about this strategy (even though I diasree with the approach) and IV pulls this off before November..

Can you please elaborate on the missteps? Do you have any idea on what is going on behind the scenes with Sen. Durbin? What he is doing to derail the bill and the pressure he is under? You seriously think IV is doing things in a knee jerk fashion, which will derail something that hundreds of volunteers have spent thousands of hours and meetings over the past decade?

While I have heard what’s going on, I am not going to believe everything I hear. I will analyze myself. I will share some hints. Has IV done this in the past with any other senators or reps, even some who can easily be alleged as racists? Are they doing this with every senator/rep who opposed the bill? How did they handle the opposition? Is this the first senator to oppose the bill in the past decade? HR3012, which Senator Durbin also cosponsored was also meant to pass through UC. Why did he not oppose then? Why is the senator not ready to negotiate this bill to completion?

I am not sure why the core team is still working on this bill. They are already done with their process. Some of the comments I see and the questions I see about IV, if it were me, I would have been out a long time ago. Even now, this bill will not help me personally. And I don’t know how long I will keep advocating for this. We need the community to come together. Otherwise there will be no end in sight. You have a choice. You can sit on the sidelines hoping for a miracle. You can join a new org or start your own org and try to do it your way reinventing the wheel and get the same experience IV got over the past decade. or you can join the org and become a volunteer and leverage the experience they have. In any case, you are not doing anyone a favor or depriving them of any opportunity. You decide what you want to do.

[eaglenow]

Sorry. You cannot compare IV leadership to nobel prize winners. Extremely thin skinned and immature. Removal of country caps made sense in 2012, when others would suffer for 5 years. Not in 2020 where everyone else will have to suffer for 10-15 years. In 2012, Indian service companies were not sponsoring green cards. For them H1B was simply outsourcing visa. Now, they sponsor en-masse mainly to get I-140 and unlimited extensions. You cannot in a serious face say that European researchers need to wait for 15 years to get their green cards and not expect any opposition. So the fix has to be something different. Either more green cards or some other filtering.

Not sure what to say other than that the example was an analogy not a literal comparison.

And you think country cap removal doesn’t make sense now? Wow. If there are problems in the system, it has to be borne by everyone not one specific group. You think it’s ok for Indian researchers to wait 150 years because there were a lot of other Indian applicants before them? Equality is timeless.

Boy, am I glad I am not dependent on the bill with even impacted people thinking like this. Don’t know what to say. You may be fine with discrimination based on country of birth. I will not accept punishment just because there are a lot of applicants from the same country I was born in and for no fault of my own. I will recognize that Nobel prize winners take precedence before me, but anyone else with the same skill, education and experience as me getting GC before me just because they were born in a different country is plain discrimination based on my country of birth. I am not fine with that and it is not justifiable.

Also there is a 9 year transition before all GCs are allocated on a first come first served basis. Till that time, some visas are reserved for the European researchers.

[eaglenow]

And here is the kicker. This is the only immigration bill that has any chance of passing for the next few years if not a decade. If you think CIR will pass, GC increase will happen, recapture will happen etc, dream on. In 2008 there was a chance, but the admin decided that they did not have the votes. The climate has grown more partisan now.

Let’s give the benefit of doubt to Sen. Durbin. If he thought recapture, increasing GC or anything else was possible, he would have removed the hold and worked on the other bill. He knows it’s not possible. He said so on the floor. Yet he wants you to rally behind his bill to increase GC.

Here is another clue. The bill to recapture visas for Doctors directly serving COVID is also not moving. That should tell you something. The only way CIR will pass is if dems capture more than 60 seats in the senate and have a majority in the house with a dem President.

[rocketfast]

Not sure what to say other than that the example was an analogy not a literal comparison.

And you think country cap removal doesn’t make sense now? Wow. If there are problems in the system, it has to be borne by everyone not one specific group. You think it’s ok for Indian researchers to wait 150 years because there were a lot of other Indian applicants before them? Equality is timeless.

Boy, am I glad I am not dependent on the bill with even impacted people thinking like this. Don’t know what to say. You may be fine with discrimination based on country of birth. I will not accept punishment just because there are a lot of applicants from the same country I was born in and for no fault of my own. I will recognize that Nobel prize winners take precedence before me, but anyone else with the same skill, education and experience as me getting GC before me just because they were born in a different country is plain discrimination based on my country of birth. I am not fine with that and it is not justifiable.

Also there is a 9 year transition before all GCs are allocated on a first come first served basis. Till that time, some visas are reserved for the European researchers.

You are looking for an idealistic solution and I happily support that idealistic solution. (Before any condescension towards me, do know that I have met Zoe Lofgren and Anna Eshoo to advocate for this. I have contributed money to IV and made many calls to others). Immigration bills don't pass easily. So, telling that let everyone suffer and then there will be a fix is a easy cop-out. You are basically saying that you don't want any opposition and others should not fight your bill and shut up. People who are getting GCs in a year are not going to sit silently if something is going to mean that they now have to wait 15 years. You don't realize how much stupid it sounds.

[eaglenow]

You are looking for an idealistic solution and I happily support that idealistic solution. (Before any condescension towards me, do know that I have met Zoe Lofgren and Anna Eshoo to advocate for this. I have contributed money to IV and made many calls to others). Immigration bills don't pass easily. So, telling that let everyone suffer and then there will be a fix is a easy cop-out. You are basically saying that you don't want any opposition and others should not fight your bill and shut up. People who are getting GCs in a year are not going to sit silently if something is going to mean that they now have to wait 15 years. You don't realize how much stupid it sounds.

I am not asking anyone to suffer nor am I saying there will/should be no opposition and I am also not telling everyone to suffer before there will be a fix. Not sure where you got that from in my message. Also, I will not be condescending towards anyone. If anything, I am just saddened that our community still has not come together even after suffering so much due to the discrimination.

I am fine if people who are benefited from current discrimination oppose the bill, which in fact they do. All I am saying is that I will advocate to be treated equally and not be discriminated based on my country of birth. If that means people who currently benefit from discrimination will have to share the burden, so be it. They can advocate for why the discrimination should continue, which they are doing anyway.

Note that the bill is not favoring Indians, it just removes discrimination. Since mostly Indians are discriminated in the current system, they directly benefit from removal of discrimination.

There is a transition of 9 years after which all GCs will be FCFS. The do no harm provision exits by reserving higher numbers initially and with early filing of 485, ead and 50:50 rule, the system will be cleaned up. After the bill passes, any Indian starting the process will have the same wait as another applicant from any other country. What is unfair about this?

Asking for more GC is the idealistic situation, not asking for equal treatment or saying country of birth is not a skill. You can compromise as much as you want, at the end of the day, the discrimination has to go and it is not based on preconditions. The ask is for the senator to come to negotiating table. To your point, if you say let’s do 50% country caps, it still is discrimination. But that is what is in place with the transition albeit with less cap.

As an analogy, when segregation was in place, the idea was separate but equal. You know how it turned out. If someone argued that segregation will need to be removed slowly or only parts of segregation must be removed and others must remain in place, would that be a good argument?

Asking for equal treatment is not stupid. It is the right thing to do. If people impacted by the discrimination don’t ask for its removal, no one else will. I understand in your mind negotiating with yourself is being reasonable, but in oppositions mind, no nothing is reasonable other than current system.

For ROW who have already started the process, with transition numbers, they will get GC in 2 to 3 years and they can get ead at the end of 2 years. For EBI folks who started in 2015, they will still get GC only after the existing row folks will get GC. So this is compromise anyway. Not sure what other compromise you are talking about. Please elaborate.

[rocketfast]

I am fine if people who are benefited from current discrimination oppose the bill, which in fact they do. All I am saying is that I will advocate to be treated equally and not be discriminated based on my country of birth. If that means people who currently benefit from discrimination will have to share the burden, so be it. They can advocate for why the discrimination should continue, which they are doing anyway.

Sorry. I don't agree with you. What opponents are saying is that Indian outsourcers have taken 70% of H1Bs by mass-applying. They need head-count and not individual with a skill. In top silicon valley companies, Indians are not beyond 30% of headcount. They want reforms there - which is what Durbin advocated. In his initially agreed upon text, Indian outsources would be shut out of the system. Naturally ( I am conjecturing via John Cornyn), they lobbied and got it fixed by moving it to a hypothetical future date. Now, if you ask me, it is a losing battle for us. We can't expect that Indian outsources has to be shut-out for it to be fixed for us.

I would guess that our opposition would have not existed if country-cap was slowly removed with something like
a) A country can take a max of 10% a year for the first year
b) It can take 15% a year for the second year and so on and given it a long fat tail. And only complete removal after 15 years or so - if that is the ideal goal. This would keep all people currently in the US (say studying or working and haven't started their PERM) as non-carers.

Instead, we have the opposite implementation. The no-harm clause is muddied. It leaves out all people that have spent thousands of dollars to study in the US.

You are also shutting out other professions like Nurses, agriculture workers and so on. There are industries dependent on it.

[qesehmk]

Eagle - let's stay factual and objective. This is not about IV. This is about backlogged community.

Let's discuss this objectively along these questions rather than getting personal or emotional.

If I and others are indeed arm chair critics then it should be easy to answer the following questions. I have also included them at the top of the thread.

Key Questions

1. Why did Lindsey Graham think unanimous consent is required for such a controversial bill and senate does not have time to debate this.
2. Has there ever been a controversial bill passed via Unanimous Consent? EVER?
3. Why only Sen. Graham is being singled out (when he is not acting in his personal capacity.)

I think IV has unnecessarily politicized and personalized this. So lets deconstruct the whole propaganda and speak objectively.

[eaglenow]

Sorry. I don't agree with you. What opponents are saying is that Indian outsourcers have taken 70% of H1Bs by mass-applying. They need head-count and not individual with a skill. In top silicon valley companies, Indians are not beyond 30% of headcount. They want reforms there - which is what Durbin advocated. In his initially agreed upon text, Indian outsources would be shut out of the system. Naturally ( I am conjecturing via John Cornyn), they lobbied and got it fixed by moving it to a hypothetical future date. Now, if you ask me, it is a losing battle for us. We can't expect that Indian outsources has to be shut-out for it to be fixed for us.

I would guess that our opposition would have not existed if country-cap was slowly removed with something like
a) A country can take a max of 10% a year for the first year
b) It can take 15% a year for the second year and so on and given it a long fat tail. And only complete removal after 15 years or so - if that is the ideal goal. This would keep all people currently in the US (say studying or working and haven't started their PERM) as non-carers.

Instead, we have the opposite implementation. The no-harm clause is muddied. It leaves out all people that have spent thousands of dollars to study in the US.

You are also shutting out other professions like Nurses, agriculture workers and so on. There are industries dependent on it.

I will add a few points which will hopefully answer your question. The applicants from witch companies are already in the system. They are not going anywhere whether anyone likes it or not. They went through the system and process the same as anyone else. So if there is an issue, they need to be addressed separately. Also regardless of what you do you cannot make existing applicants disappear from the system. Only future applicants can be controlled.

The 50:50 rule will take care of this issue in the future, which was originally part of Durbin-Grassley bill. The request from few senators was to push this out to take effect after 3 years so as not to disrupt the existing system abruptly. This is required for orderly transition as you cannot immediately push half of the employees of outsourcers and many startups out that quickly without impacting the companies and the economy. As such many outsourcing companies have stopped bringing their employees on visas and are hiring locally though they are definitely far off the required number.

Since you mentioned outsourcers, I would request you do some research on Nurse staffing companies. You will find that witch companies are actually saints by comparison. And guess where majority of folks for Nursing come from? Not all over the world, but from a few places. In fact Nurses don’t even qualify for H1B because it is a 2 year certification course.

And there is a carve out specifically for Nurses for the 9 year period precisely because of this inability to bring them on any other visa.

Also agriculture workers today are primarily hired through H2B and not through employment based immigration. The very few who are can still go through the transition reserved visas.

One final item about your suggestion. While I am sure you think it is reasonable, the opposition will still not go for it. Given the transition numbers, EAD and early filing in 2 years the existing students as well as existing applicants not be impacted. And even with the no harm provision and all the original provisions, the opposition was still present and they did not agree to it.

Also finally, Sen. Durbin is holding the bill not because of opposition but because of his agenda. In fact he is trying to get more senators to oppose it in vain. Even if there was one senator who was willing to oppose this, he would release the hold. If in fact it was the opposition that is making him hold this, he would not say that he will let the original bill go through as there was still opposition for that one as well.

So regardless of your compromise, he will still find a way to hold this. Th only way forward I can see is to call a spade a spade and continue to push for this bill. Unless you are willing to be known as a racist forever, there is no choice but to release the hold. All the other senators are seeing through what is happening. If not, being the minority whip, he would have found another senator to hold the bill. I am sure he is missing Sessions in the senate.

I am not saying no other senator will oppose this bill in the future, but as of now no one has expressed any concern other than this one senator.

[eaglenow]

Eagle - let's stay factual and objective. This is not about IV. This is about backlogged community.

Let's discuss this objectively along these questions rather than getting personal or emotional.

If I and others are indeed arm chair critics then it should be easy to answer the following questions. I have also included them at the top of the thread.

Key Questions

1. Why did Lindsey Graham think unanimous consent is required for such a controversial bill and senate does not have time to debate this.
2. Has there ever been a controversial bill passed via Unanimous Consent? EVER?
3. Why only Sen. Graham is being singled out (when he is not acting in his personal capacity.)

I think IV has unnecessarily politicized and personalized this. So lets deconstruct the whole propaganda and speak objectively.

I am assuming you are referring to Sen. Durbin not Sen.Graham. I think you have identified the core of the issue. You think it is a controversial bill and hence the reasoning for your questions. It is not controversial at all. Therein lies the disconnect.

The proof is the passage of the bill with more than 85% of the house votes in a bipartisan manner through suspension of rules, a process similar to UC in senate. This is the most cosponsored immigration bill in the last 30 years.

Based on what I have seen and heard over the last decade, this bill has already died a thousand deaths and come back to life. Senator Durbin is not the first or only senator to hold the bill and the same is the case with representatives as well. I have seen how the opposition was handled, pretty much through advocacy by working with that office one day at time with the help of constituents. Even senators who can easily be alleged as racist were not called out as such.

The content of the bill is equality and no one denies that. When anyone had objections, they had a valid reason to oppose and when it was addressed, they removed their hold or at least were willing to negotiate in good faith.

The only other senator who would not even engage is sessions who has thankfully left the senate. This bill almost passed last year when Rep. Kevin Yoder made it part of appropriations. Unfortunately the timing did not help and the shutdown and politics around it led to CRs and no appropriations bill passing. Otherwise it would have passed then.

This time I was a shocker to see Senator Durbin hold the bill while all along he said he agreed with the bill and had no objections. And he literally manufactured opposition using the constituent coffee event. Talk to the people who went there and read their accounts. One such account is on medium.

While every other senator was willing to engage in a negotiation, he simply refused until he was pressured into it by his constituents. But he insisted no one else be part of the negotiation but kept leaking details to opposition and tried to get more senators to oppose. In the end when the negotiations were done he insisted that he bill be directly brought to the floor and not review it with anyone else because he wanted to derail the bill and claim someone else did it.

There was a call campaign asking the senator to not bring the bill to the floor before Sen. Lee has a chance to discuss with others as the negotiations were supposed to be private. Eventually he relented. Now after review, there were 3 minor edits to implementation and now he is refusing to come to the table for any negotiation.

That is not how any law is passed. The negotiations are ongoing till the last minute.

And as for your question about UC, unless you are talking about something like healthcare bill, social security, Medicare, tax reform etc, which are extensive all other bills go through UC. UC is not about controversy bill or not but rather based on agreement between senators and the size of the bill. Also this bill is not controversial at all and hence the path for UC. While UC May look like a simple process, there is still a process for it behind the scenes before something is brought to the floor for UC.

The reality is this bill has broad bipartisan support from every single caucus on the hill from the extreme left to the extreme right. Show me another bill where a liberal democrat like Rep. Lofgren and a tea party candidate like former rep. Chaffetz cosponsor and are original sponsors of a bill. On the senate side, there are 30 bipartisan cosponsors.

I have seen how patient the core team is and how they move very cautiously on EVERYTHING. So for them to do what they are doing, in my opinion, it just means all other options have been exhausted. Again I go back to my earlier comment. In the past decade how many times has IV done what they are doing now.

Hope this helps.

[eaglenow]

An additional point, UC requires a very extensive process behind the scenes and is not something that anyone can just get through. In fact before something is considered for UC, all offices are consulted and if anyone has any objections, it is not brought to the floor. If more than a few senators object it is not even considered for UC.

For any bill to be in UC, it is literally passed by checking with every single office before it is decided. That is the reason I say that this is not something that anyone is deceived or tricked into doing. The process just does not lend itself for it.

Also for every time you see a bill on the floor for UC, it is not brought to the floor due to some objection a hundred times.

Whether people like IV or not, there is imply no other org that has the experience, know-how, strategy, resources, credibility on the hill and most importantly the willingness and dedication to work on relief for backlogged immigrants. All the other orgs simply do not have all the above criteria.

One example I can give is before the bill passed the house another group went for advocacy for the same bill and the messaging was so off base that many offices got the impression and angry that this was a Indian IT only bill.

Then the volunteers had to spend weeks of their time and effort both locally and in DC to work with the office again and get the office back to supporting the bill. While it may look simple on the surface, advocacy is not just about calling offices. That has to be preceded by strategy, messaging, expected outcome, grassroots support and continuously monitoring the progress and shifting messaging based on ground realities. This is a tedious effort. The easiest part is the grassroots engagement of calling the offices, hence the request to do so when it is deemed necessary.

Get any one of this wrong and your efforts are in vain.