S386 GOP Politics and Sen. Durbin

[smuggymba]

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.

If you have a better idea/plan @rocketfast, why don't you go ahead with it and help us all backlogged people.

[qesehmk]

Eagle

Can you please be succint and answer question by question so that all people can follow. Here are the questions once again.

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.)

Here are answers to some of your observations/questions:
1) The bill is controversial not to us obviously. But it is controversial to others. No need to elaborate this further I assume.
2) Lindsey Graham is the person who floated the idea of UC. He absolutely did not want to spend senate time on this bill (in other words he was not interested in this bill but did not want to be seen opposing and hey if in the process if dems can be thrown under the bus then why not). Prove me wrong on this.
3) Role of UC - Contrary to what you say UC is not common for serious and controversial legislation. Routine mundane stuff gets done using UC to expedite senate proceedings.
4) IV's role - absolutely does work on the ground. Respect to them. But that is no excuse for making this a political or personal issue.

So please stay focused on my questions and summarize them question by question please so all can read. I will be the first to change my mind if I see anything useful.

[eaglenow]

Can you please be succint and answer question by question so that all people can follow. Here are the questions once again.

I did answer all of your questions in my previous post. I will indulge you once again. i encourage others to read my earlier post as well so as to get the detailed picture.

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.)


Here are answers to some of your observations/questions:
1) The bill is controversial not to us obviously. But it is controversial to others. No need to elaborate this further I assume.

The bill is NOT controversial. It is demonstrated by the broad bipartisan support with support from every single caucus across congress and the fact that it passed the house twice with overwhelming majority.

Please do not confuse opposition with controversial. Every bill will have opposition even things you think/assume are mundane. It’s just that when it passes the floor through UC you do not see how it was handled behind the scenes.

Any truly controversial bill will not be UCed. If a bill is brought out as a UC, it means it has already been vetted with every single office to bring it on as UC. That is the process. This bill has always followed UC for the past decade.

2) Lindsey Graham is the person who floated the idea of UC. He absolutely did not want to spend senate time on this bill (in other words he was not interested in this bill but did not want to be seen opposing and hey if in the process if dems can be thrown under the bus then why not). Prove me wrong on this.

Actually no. I am assuming you are referencing some statement made by him suggesting it be UCed. The history of this bill goes back to 2009 and the approach has always been Suspension in house and UC in senate given the contents and nature of the bill.

only bills that do not have broad support go through regular order given the extensive process and time commitment needed for it.

If more than 95 senators agree to a bill as UC, the senate will not want to spend the time on regular order. In this case, Sen. Durbin is the only hold as of now. The usual suspects, even those who oppose the process in general, have all let it go through.

To give you an example, former Sen.Reid suggested bringing this to regular order if there was time because only Sen. Sessions was blocking it at that time. But it never panned out due to lack of time and debt limit issue.

3) Role of UC - Contrary to what you say UC is not common for serious and controversial legislation. Routine mundane stuff gets done using UC to expedite senate proceedings.

I have explained this above. Serious, controversial etc are all in your mind. On the hill this bill has been accepted as a UC. Any bill with such broad support will not be brought as regular order as it is a waste of time and not needed. If it was, at least a few senators would have opposed bringing this as UC and this would not have hit the floor at all.

That is also the reason in the last Congress, Rep. Yoder added it to appropriations bill, which is a must pass bill. No controversial items will be allowed to be added to must pass bills. That is how hill works.

4) IV's role - absolutely does work on the ground. Respect to them. But that is no excuse for making this a political or personal issue.

It is your opinion that they are making this political or personal. You are entitled to it.
Unless you have worked with them over the years and have seen them handle opposition multiple times, you do not have context to establish the MO needed to see if this is personal, political etc.

I have seen them operate for a decade and they are extremely careful not to take sides or offend any group. Every single opposition has been handled with finesse and great care even when it was unreasonable or looked insurmountable. This has been demonstrated over and over again in the messaging as well to every single office and during trainings. So making this personal or political at this last push point just does not fit the pattern or the goal.

Based on what I have seen, they would not have resorted to this unless this was absolutely the only option. I again request you to see how many times in the past has this happened?

And IV is pretty public about their statements. If other dem offices were offended, which they would be if there was some hidden agenda, they would have already withdrawn support and made it public. The fact that Sen. Durbin is the only one still holding the bill with no support should be telling.

So please stay focused on my questions and summarize them question by question please so all can read. I will be the first to change my mind if I see anything useful.

Hope I have answered your questions. I would be happy if it helped change your mind or answer any follow up questions.

In the end, this bill is not going to impact you in any way and it does not personally benefit me in any way as well.

I have only shared my experience working with IV on this and what I have learnt over the past decade. I will end by saying this bill is the last chance in the next few years unless there is a drastic flip of senate (more than 60 seats) house and presidency. If our community unites behind the bill and the org, it will help push it to the finish line. Otherwise the wait continues. The choice is with the backlogged applicants.

[Ramsen]

Ok What next in the bill? If Sen Durbin continues to hold till this year end. He will win for sure and he may put a hold for another 6 years. So IV is going to continue for UC only option and only removal of country cap and try for another 6 years or 10 years? Why not they consider increasing the quota to 50% which may have lesser opposition. Why not try committee process?

[qesehmk]

Eagle - you don't have to indulge me. just speak normal, with facts and to the point.

I think you really need to come down from your high horse. I too have volunteered at least 10000 hours in my career - not counting what I do here. So take it easy and rest assured you just don't know what others may have done or not in their careers and life. All we can and should do is discuss things as they are in front of us.

Glad to learn that you agree that UC is not used for controversial bills. So that's a start.

Interesting you think that immigration issue which was the central issue (border wall) for Trump, is not a controversial issue. I disagree. Immigration remains the hot button topic perhaps the one that now comes close is china. The bill if it had such a broad support across all caucuses then it should have passed senate. But Lee and Durbin both even after their agreement concluded that it will not pass. So your statements are quite delusional that the bill has broad support and is not controversial. Perhaps you consider minority bipartisan support as broad support. I don't think that way. To me broad means majority.

So lets come back to the questions again.

1. Why did Lindsey Graham think unanimous consent is required for such a controversial bill and senate does not have time to debate this.
- You say "Lindsey was one of persons who said so". And that may be right. But he is one of the senior most GOP leaders and chairman of the judiciary committee. So he is not just speaking for himself. So it was GOP leadership who asked for UC not dems. You also say "The bill was always supposed to be UCd". I think that's baloney. First this bill was tabled in 2019 not 2009. I am amazed you are counting all random efforts since 2009 as this bill. It is not. Second, why would a hot button topic (in case you don't like "controversial") be UCd at all - except to kill the bill? This whole line of thinking is outright stupid. I am sorry for saying so - but you are absolutely wasting my time and challenging everybody's intelligence when you make that kind of argument.

2. Has there ever been a controversial bill passed via Unanimous Consent? EVER?
You already admitted that controversial / hot topic button things don't use UC. Please confirm.

3. Why only Sen. Durbin is being singled out (when he is not acting in his personal capacity.)
You wrote a lot but did not answer this. Durbin is only the whip. But he and Lee both confirmed that the senate does not have majority to pass this bill. If Durbin is the only holdout that means all other Dem senators were on board and this bill could have passed by a simple senate majority. UC was not required at all.

See here is the problem with your arguments. They are hollow and without reason and common sense. I say it again. If UC was such a problem, they could have simply tabled the bill and vote on it. They just didn't have the numbers for a simple majority. How do you expect a bill that does not have simple majority get Unanimous Consent i.e. 100 votes.

4. IV's role. Has it hurt EB-I community.
I do agree this is subjective. But IV's emails are not subjective. They are very vivid and pointed. And they were not just addressed to any senator. They are addressed to the minority whip. So that is shocking to say the least.

If you disagree, I will be happy to indulge you. My only request is to please stick to these four points rationally and factually.

I did answer all of your questions in my previous post. I will indulge you once again. i encourage others to read my earlier post as well so as to get the detailed picture.



The bill is NOT controversial. It is demonstrated by the broad bipartisan support with support from every single caucus across congress and the fact that it passed the house twice with overwhelming majority.

Please do not confuse opposition with controversial. Every bill will have opposition even things you think/assume are mundane. It’s just that when it passes the floor through UC you do not see how it was handled behind the scenes.

Any truly controversial bill will not be UCed. If a bill is brought out as a UC, it means it has already been vetted with every single office to bring it on as UC. That is the process. This bill has always followed UC for the past decade.



Actually no. I am assuming you are referencing some statement made by him suggesting it be UCed. The history of this bill goes back to 2009 and the approach has always been Suspension in house and UC in senate given the contents and nature of the bill.

only bills that do not have broad support go through regular order given the extensive process and time commitment needed for it.

If more than 95 senators agree to a bill as UC, the senate will not want to spend the time on regular order. In this case, Sen. Durbin is the only hold as of now. The usual suspects, even those who oppose the process in general, have all let it go through.

To give you an example, former Sen.Reid suggested bringing this to regular order if there was time because only Sen. Sessions was blocking it at that time. But it never panned out due to lack of time and debt limit issue.



I have explained this above. Serious, controversial etc are all in your mind. On the hill this bill has been accepted as a UC. Any bill with such broad support will not be brought as regular order as it is a waste of time and not needed. If it was, at least a few senators would have opposed bringing this as UC and this would not have hit the floor at all.

That is also the reason in the last Congress, Rep. Yoder added it to appropriations bill, which is a must pass bill. No controversial items will be allowed to be added to must pass bills. That is how hill works.



It is your opinion that they are making this political or personal. You are entitled to it.
Unless you have worked with them over the years and have seen them handle opposition multiple times, you do not have context to establish the MO needed to see if this is personal, political etc.

I have seen them operate for a decade and they are extremely careful not to take sides or offend any group. Every single opposition has been handled with finesse and great care even when it was unreasonable or looked insurmountable. This has been demonstrated over and over again in the messaging as well to every single office and during trainings. So making this personal or political at this last push point just does not fit the pattern or the goal.

Based on what I have seen, they would not have resorted to this unless this was absolutely the only option. I again request you to see how many times in the past has this happened?

And IV is pretty public about their statements. If other dem offices were offended, which they would be if there was some hidden agenda, they would have already withdrawn support and made it public. The fact that Sen. Durbin is the only one still holding the bill with no support should be telling.



Hope I have answered your questions. I would be happy if it helped change your mind or answer any follow up questions.

In the end, this bill is not going to impact you in any way and it does not personally benefit me in any way as well.

I have only shared my experience working with IV on this and what I have learnt over the past decade. I will end by saying this bill is the last chance in the next few years unless there is a drastic flip of senate (more than 60 seats) house and presidency. If our community unites behind the bill and the org, it will help push it to the finish line. Otherwise the wait continues. The choice is with the backlogged applicants.

[eaglenow]

Eagle - you don't have to indulge me. just speak normal, with facts and to the point.

I think you really need to come down from your high horse. I too have volunteered at least 10000 hours in my career - not counting what I do here. So take it easy and rest assured you just don't know what others may have done or not in their careers and life. All we can and should do is discuss things as they are in front of us.

Alright, I tried to answer you exactly how you asked. Now you are getting personal. I am not on any high horse. I never questioned whether you volunteered or not and never mentioned anything about your volunteering or what you have or have not done in your career. From your questions, it is clear to me you don’t have experience working on the hill.

So I have been trying to answer your questions from that perspective. If you have indeed worked on the hill for a bill, please let me know and we will shift to different language so you don’t feel I am on a high horse.

Glad to learn that you agree that UC is not used for controversial bills. So that's a start.

Interesting you think that immigration issue which was the central issue (border wall) for Trump, is not a controversial issue. I disagree. Immigration remains the hot button topic perhaps the one that now comes close is china. The bill if it had such a broad support across all caucuses then it should have passed senate.

While it is true that immigration is a hit button issue, this particular bill is not. DACA has broad support as well but is not on UC, why?

On the hill everything is about trade off and compromises. In this case, it has been through the ringer and is close to being passed.

But Lee and Durbin both even after their agreement concluded that it will not pass.

Now I am truly baffled. Please point me to what you are looking at to arrive at your statement that both lee and Durbin concluded it will not pass.

So your statements are quite delusional that the bill has broad support and is not controversial. Perhaps you consider minority bipartisan support as broad support. I don't think that way. To me broad means majority.

Yep, minority bipartisan support is the reason the bill passed in the house with 365 votes. Is this the minority support you are referring to? Who is delusional here? In the senate there are 19 Republican and 16 Democrat cosponsors.

So lets come back to the questions again.

1. Why did Lindsey Graham think unanimous consent is required for such a controversial bill and senate does not have time to debate this.
- You say "Lindsey was one of persons who said so". And that may be right. But he is one of the senior most GOP leaders and chairman of the judiciary committee. So he is not just speaking for himself. So it was GOP leadership who asked for UC not dems. You also say "The bill was always supposed to be UCd". I think that's baloney. First this bill was tabled in 2019 not 2009. I am amazed you are counting all random efforts since 2009 as this bill. It is not. Second, why would a hot button topic (in case you don't like "controversial") be UCd at all - except to kill the bill? This whole line of thinking is outright stupid. I am sorry for saying so - but you are absolutely wasting my time and challenging everybody's intelligence when you make that kind of argument.

Random efforts? Refer to HR3012 from 112th congress. Since then the bill has been introduced every single congress finally resulting in HR1044 in the current congress.

I keep telling you how UC is decided and yet you refuse to see it and insist that dems did not accept it. I don’t know what to say.

For someone who doesn’t know the process on the hill and just providing opinions, you are quite confident. I do not want to waste any more of your time.

And no I am not challenging anyone’s intelligence. Just stating facts. Let’s leave it up to the folks to make their own determination. I have already mentioned that my comments are based on advocating for this bill for a decade and working closely with the org. Please feel free to mention your experience on the hill.

You really seem to believe that you are more intelligent and know better than all the the hundreds of volunteers who have spent thousands of hours, the core leadership team who are working on this day in and out on the hill and all the lobbyists and consultants and people who have worked as staffers on the hill. More power to you.

2. Has there ever been a controversial bill passed via Unanimous Consent? EVER?
You already admitted that controversial / hot topic button things don't use UC. Please confirm.

Yep, hot button/controversial bills will never be brought to the floor for UC. Nobody can trick anyone into doing it. The UC process will by itself prevent any such bill to be considered for UC, unless the senator is just trolling. They also don’t get added to must pass appropriations bills nor do they pass the house twice with more than 80% of the votes broad bipartisan support.

3. Why only Sen. Durbin is being singled out (when he is not acting in his personal capacity.)
You wrote a lot but did not answer this. Durbin is only the whip. But he and Lee both confirmed that the senate does not have majority to pass this bill. If Durbin is the only holdout that means all other Dem senators were on board and this bill could have passed by a simple senate majority. UC was not required at all.

They did not confirm the senate does not have majority to pass the bill. Where are you seeing this? Please provide reference.

Yes all other Dem senators are on board. Yes, it can pass with a simple majority. But the process for that is tedious and requires time commitment and allocation. So, If something can pass through UC, it will be considered for UC and not for regular order. If the bill is small, such as this one, then it will get added to another bill that goes through regular order, usually a must pass bill.

See here is the problem with your arguments. They are hollow and without reason and common sense. I say it again. If UC was such a problem, they could have simply tabled the bill and vote on it. They just didn't have the numbers for a simple majority. How do you expect a bill that does not have simple majority get Unanimous Consent i.e. 100 votes.

If a bill doesn’t have majority, it will never even qualify for UC. I have no idea how you concluded that the bill does not have simple majority. Please provide reference.

The core issue is you seem to have some assumptions and are basing your opinions on that.

My reference is the work of various volunteers who have worked with every single office.

4. IV's role. Has it hurt EB-I community.
I do agree this is subjective. But IV's emails are not subjective. They are very vivid and pointed. And they were not just addressed to any senator. They are addressed to the minority whip. So that is shocking to say the least.

If you disagree, I will be happy to indulge you. My only request is to please stick to these four points rationally and factually.

Exactly. Taking on minority whip is not a simple decision. And since he is still holding the bill with support from no one else, it should be telling.

[eaglenow]

Ok What next in the bill? If Sen Durbin continues to hold till this year end. He will win for sure and he may put a hold for another 6 years. So IV is going to continue for UC only option and only removal of country cap and try for another 6 years or 10 years? Why not they consider increasing the quota to 50% which may have lesser opposition. Why not try committee process?

That’s where we need the community to come together. The bill is on the verge of passing but for one senator. It almost passed twice in the past. So if the community comes together and asks the senator to lift the hold, especially the constituents of the senator, he has no choice but to remove the hold or negotiate. I can see where this is going, but don’t want to call it out.

One thing that will certainly derail the bill is if our folks get desperate and start negotiating with ourselves. The senator is not even willing to negotiate, that has to change first. For that our community needs to come together and push for the bill.

It’s time we get out of our perennial meekness and start pushing for equality.

At this point don’t undermine the efforts of others. This is the exact same crap our folks did in 2014. When we already got admin to agree to making dates current and filing early 485, some people pushed for H4EAD. Guess what, admin decided that is sufficient and backed off the making filing dates current. So stop negotiating with yourself.

Equality is the strongest value and principle of America. All we are asking is equality and equal treatment and remove discrimination based on country of birth.

[qesehmk]

I never questioned whether you volunteered or not and never mentioned anything about your volunteering or what you have or have not done in your career. From your questions, it is clear to me you don’t have experience working on the hill.

So I have been trying to answer your questions from that perspective. If you have indeed worked on the hill for a bill, please let me know and we will shift to different language so you don’t feel I am on a high horse.

Do you see how full of you are. You guys make it sound like working on hill is rocket science. It is not. You are talking BS just to avoid admitting mistakes.

[android09]

That’s where we need the community to come together. The bill is on the verge of passing but for one senator. It almost passed twice in the past. So if the community comes together and asks the senator to lift the hold, especially the constituents of the senator, he has no choice but to remove the hold or negotiate. I can see where this is going, but don’t want to call it out.

One thing that will certainly derail the bill is if our folks get desperate and start negotiating with ourselves. The senator is not even willing to negotiate, that has to change first. For that our community needs to come together and push for the bill.

It’s time we get out of our perennial meekness and start pushing for equality.

At this point don’t undermine the efforts of others. This is the exact same crap our folks did in 2014. When we already got admin to agree to making dates current and filing early 485, some people pushed for H4EAD. Guess what, admin decided that is sufficient and backed off the making filing dates current. So stop negotiating with yourself.

Equality is the strongest value and principle of America. All we are asking is equality and equal treatment and remove discrimination based on country of birth.

Keep your papers ready....Any minute now. Its a done deal. We've had dinners with folks who matter on the hill, posted pictures on facebook and twitter of members standing outside Congressional folks office room, we've sent flowers to USCIS, we've called a sitting senator a racist even though we know if the democrats win the elections, this man is going to have immense influence and we'd have to deal with him, we've stormed cities with our Mercedes, Audis and BMWs and attended rallies, we've carpet bombed the senator's office with calls, we've stood in the rain with our little kids and held posters outside his home asking him to negotiate and calling him a racist in other slogans, we've worn our suits to the congress, we are tone-deaf and expect everyone else to be as well. Everything is all set....

[qesehmk]

If a bill doesn’t have majority, it will never even qualify for UC.

I dont think there is such a process of qualification. Prove me wrong. Show me the process.
Don't tell me the only way you know this is because somebody told you.
If so , whoever you are talking to are making a fool of you.
And that precisely my point. GOP trained IV's guns on Dems and shot down the bill and shot down dems.
You better come to terms with it.

[qesehmk]

Now I am truly baffled. Please point me to what you are looking at to arrive at your statement that both lee and Durbin concluded it will not pass.

They did not confirm the senate does not have majority to pass the bill. Where are you seeing this? Please provide reference.

Really? you don't know this? He said it on the senate floor!! Watch clip 3:10

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48404...agreement-s386

and also in the news:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/72894768.cms

SMH. Is this how you guys do advocacy? And I am the rookie here.

My friend - in case you don't know this get this straight from me. I am the very person who FIRST EVER made an argument that country quota is the root cause of evil behind EB-IC backlog. I am the one who EVER talked first about making the pain universal. So I am dead serious about all these matters. Your IV masters will never tell this to you.

[qesehmk]

Eagle - there are many other silly things you said. But I will let you decide if there is anything else you would like me to explain or clarify.

To summarize:
1) You did agree that UC is not used for hot button / controversial things.
2) Your understanding of UC is completely wrong. There is no process for UC. They just announce it. Just see the transcript of the clip I provided above. They talk about UC so many times - I lost count.
3) You say this topic is broadly agreed upon and is not controversial. The proof of the pudding is in passing it - which - did not happen.
4) I have provided proof that Durbin himself says on the floor that he has agreement with Lee but they don't have votes.
5) Finally you think IV was in line in isolating and attacking Durbin and calling him racist (which he absolutely is not). IV letter is open to read by all. I just don't think such personal and vicious attack was necessary.

What else can I answer or clarify? I really think you guys should use your own site for propaganda and leave this site alone.

I am trying my best to help people have good clarity on numbers, the politics, the dynamics of it. I am not going to your site to post my thoughts - oh wait - they banned me. That's the whole reason I am here !!!!!

[eaglenow]

Do you see how full of you are. You guys make it sound like working on hill is rocket science. It is not. You are talking BS just to avoid admitting mistakes.

You are getting too emotional. I guess we are no longer being rational and sticking to facts. Politics and advocacy is not rocket science. Got it. We should tell that to DACA folks and all the other advocacy groups on the hill. I am sure they will appreciate the news.

[eaglenow]

Keep your papers ready....Any minute now. Its a done deal. We've had dinners with folks who matter on the hill, posted pictures on facebook and twitter of members standing outside Congressional folks office room, we've sent flowers to USCIS, we've called a sitting senator a racist even though we know if the democrats win the elections, this man is going to have immense influence and we'd have to deal with him, we've stormed cities with our Mercedes, Audis and BMWs and attended rallies, we've carpet bombed the senator's office with calls, we've stood in the rain with our little kids and held posters outside his home asking him to negotiate and calling him a racist in other slogans, we've worn our suits to the congress, we are tone-deaf and expect everyone else to be as well. Everything is all set....

Feel free to find an organization that works for you. Or not. Your choice. Like I said, I don’t personally benefit from the bill.

I understand your frustration but you are directing it at the wrong person. Hope you get GC in the near future.

[eaglenow]

Really? you don't know this? He said it on the senate floor!! Watch clip 3:10

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48404...agreement-s386

and also in the news:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/72894768.cms

SMH. Is this how you guys do advocacy? And I am the rookie here.

My friend - in case you don't know this get this straight from me. I am the very person who FIRST EVER made an argument that country quota is the root cause of evil behind EB-IC backlog. I am the one who EVER talked first about making the pain universal. So I am dead serious about all these matters. Your IV masters will never tell this to you.

Now you are onto personal attacks. I don’t have masters and I don’t think I am the genius who knows it all either. I am just a volunteer who advocated for a bill I believed in with an organization that I found through experience was doing credible work.

As for the last point, this is when Durbin demanded secrecy during negotiations and then wanted to bring the bill to the floor without discussing with other senators. There was a call campaign asking him not to do so and give time to Sen. lee to socialize the agreement and address concerns and get consensus. This speech was made during that time.

Listen to the full speech and you can hear Sen. Lee clearly say that they want to make sure that the original cosponsors are comfortable with the negotiated changes and get their buy-in. Because that is the UC process. He also clearly says that he believes this will pass.

[eaglenow]

Eagle - there are many other silly things you said. But I will let you decide if there is anything else you would like me to explain or clarify.

To summarize:
1) You did agree that UC is not used for hot button / controversial things.
2) Your understanding of UC is completely wrong. There is no process for UC. They just announce it. Just see the transcript of the clip I provided above. They talk about UC so many times - I lost count.
3) You say this topic is broadly agreed upon and is not controversial. The proof of the pudding is in passing it - which - did not happen.
4) I have provided proof that Durbin himself says on the floor that he has agreement with Lee but they don't have votes.
5) Finally you think IV was in line in isolating and attacking Durbin and calling him racist (which he absolutely is not). IV letter is open to read by all. I just don't think such personal and vicious attack was necessary.

What else can I answer or clarify? I really think you guys should use your own site for propaganda and leave this site alone.

I am trying my best to help people have good clarity on numbers, the politics, the dynamics of it. I am not going to your site to post my thoughts - oh wait - they banned me. That's the whole reason I am here !!!!!

This is what you got from all my explanations?

My site? I am not a core member of IV, just a volunteer. Since you think my thoughts are propaganda and this is your site and want me to leave it alone, I will stop sharing my thoughts. And I thought it was about backlogged people.

I will let others take what they will from our conversation. I know you had a bad experience with IV and it’s obvious you can never see beyond that. Just know that your uninformed opinions will lead people astray and it’s on you.

I will only request you to learn more about the process before commenting. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

[eaglenow]

I dont think there is such a process of qualification. Prove me wrong. Show me the process.
Don't tell me the only way you know this is because somebody told you.
If so , whoever you are talking to are making a fool of you.
And that precisely my point. GOP trained IV's guns on Dems and shot down the bill and shot down dems.
You better come to terms with it.

Believe what you want. I am just sharing my experience.

In UC, they follow a process called hot lining. Before it is brought to the floor, every office is intimated about the bill being brought up and asked if they have any objections. If they do not, then on the floor it is brought up and passed even with almost no members present.

If there are objections, the original sponsors of the bill are notified and they decide what to do. They will reach out to the concerned offices and discuss concerns and try to address them. Then the process is repeated until there are no objections.

Sometimes the bill sponsors will go through the floor process if they feel they can address the concerns before the UC on the floor. Sometimes they will push it out if they feel it would take time to discuss.

There are times when initially an office does not have objections and at the last minute some group reaches out and the senator holds it to request changes. This is what happened when Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Perdue raised objections. When their objections were addressed, the changes were then socialized and the process repeated.

In the current scenario, after the agreement was reached, it was socialized with others and to address their concerns a few implementation details were updated. Now Sen. Durbin is using that as an excuse to hold the bill and is not even willing to negotiate. Note that the changes did not make changes to any core of the bill, just implementation details. So either Durbin should express his concerns and work with other senators to fix them or let the bill go. He is not doing either and is simply holding the bill.

On the hill, everything is a negotiation and it will last till the last minute of passing the bill. If someone stops negotiations, they just want to kill the bill. Sen. Sessions did it in previous congresses and this time it is Durbin.

[qesehmk]

You are getting too emotional. I guess we are no longer being rational and sticking to facts. Politics and advocacy is not rocket science. Got it. We should tell that to DACA folks and all the other advocacy groups on the hill. I am sure they will appreciate the news.

Everybody knows it except you guys who make it a voodoo thing. This is not new. Some things never change.

[qesehmk]

Feel free to find an organization that works for you. Or not. Your choice. Like I said, I don’t personally benefit from the bill.

I understand your frustration but you are directing it at the wrong person. Hope you get GC in the near future.

I got mine 9 years back. I am past my citizenship application by 4 years.

[qesehmk]

Now you are onto personal attacks. I don’t have masters and I don’t think I am the genius who knows it all either. I am just a volunteer who advocated for a bill I believed in with an organization that I found through experience was doing credible work.

As for the last point, this is when Durbin demanded secrecy during negotiations and then wanted to bring the bill to the floor without discussing with other senators. There was a call campaign asking him not to do so and give time to Sen. lee to socialize the agreement and address concerns and get consensus. This speech was made during that time.

Listen to the full speech and you can hear Sen. Lee clearly say that they want to make sure that the original cosponsors are comfortable with the negotiated changes and get their buy-in. Because that is the UC process. He also clearly says that he believes this will pass.

Durbin also says at 5:55 and lee at 8:55 that this still needs to be bought in by co-sponsors and others. But the fact is that support never materialized. You again talk about UC process. I don't understand it, every bill needs backroom dealings. Every single. But no serious bill gets passed through UC. Only mundane stuff. Just look at the transcript will you. Tell me how many times you see UC there. The point is - there is your proof that they did not have majority then nor they had it later.

[qesehmk]

I will only request you to learn more about the process before commenting.

Where is the process? Give us a link.

[qesehmk]

Believe what you want. I am just sharing my experience.

In UC, they follow a process called hot lining. Before it is brought to the floor, every office is intimated about the bill being brought up and asked if they have any objections. If they do not, then on the floor it is brought up and passed even with almost no members present.

If there are objections, the original sponsors of the bill are notified and they decide what to do. They will reach out to the concerned offices and discuss concerns and try to address them. Then the process is repeated until there are no objections.

Sometimes the bill sponsors will go through the floor process if they feel they can address the concerns before the UC on the floor. Sometimes they will push it out if they feel it would take time to discuss.

There are times when initially an office does not have objections and at the last minute some group reaches out and the senator holds it to request changes. This is what happened when Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Perdue raised objections. When their objections were addressed, the changes were then socialized and the process repeated.

In the current scenario, after the agreement was reached, it was socialized with others and to address their concerns a few implementation details were updated. Now Sen. Durbin is using that as an excuse to hold the bill and is not even willing to negotiate. Note that the changes did not make changes to any core of the bill, just implementation details. So either Durbin should express his concerns and work with other senators to fix them or let the bill go. He is not doing either and is simply holding the bill.

On the hill, everything is a negotiation and it will last till the last minute of passing the bill. If someone stops negotiations, they just want to kill the bill. Sen. Sessions did it in previous congresses and this time it is Durbin.

Here is a simpler explanation found from a google search.

A majority of non-controversial bills passed by the Senate are “hotlined,” meaning they pass without an actual voice or recorded vote, but by unanimous consent, without any debate or amendments. “Holds” are placed when a Senator wants to object to a unanimous consent request or to simply review and negotiate changes to the bill.

So any mature advocacy effort would understand the purpose of UC as outlined above is to really EXPEDITE senate proceedings on trivial matter. If people have objections (which is absolutely fine in a political process) then UC can not be used. GOP leadership asked for UC on an issue where people have serious reservations. I just don't understand for the life of me why you folks don't understand that this is not a non-controversial topic. Just because congress passed it doesn't make it non-controversial. Even if Congress you had 65 congressmen against it. So if you had tried UC in congress it would stuck there too.

If Durbin has a hold that does not make him racist. He has a constituency he needs to look after. The advocacy efforts can't bypass minority whip. You just don't use UC on complex topics. Immigration is a complex hot button controversial topic.

Most importantly you don't go around calling important people racist. People who actually are not racist. Durbin for heavens sake was the very first senator in the united states who encouraged Obama to run for presidency. Calling Durbin racist is a sign of entitled mind.

[eaglenow]

Q, my final comment on this. I know you are already a citizen. I know about your issue with IV as well. My comment on working with an org was meant for someone else.

Just one example of your ignorance. In house, there is no UC, only in senate. In house a similar process is called suspension of rules and that is how the bill passed in the house. I can go into details of what is UC etc, you will never agree. You just don’t have the humility to learn as you feel you already know all this. Your hate for IV is so intense, you cannot see beyond that.

And as for the senate you make sweeping statements like there is no support for the bill, it is controversial etc, yet you offer no proof. The video you linked only states they need to socialize the changes and doesn’t say after socializing there was no support. only Durbin is holding the bill. If he let go, it would fail right? So why is he holding the bill?

You make all these statements and push your opinions as facts. Just based on your comments, it is clear you have zero experience working for anything on the hill. Yet you are very confident you know more than anyone else working closely on the bill. Like I said, you are an arm chair critic. Clearly state for everyone how many times have you advocated for any bill on the hill?

I surrender. You know more about the process, policy, strategy and approach by googling and sitting in your home than all the lobbyists, consultants, people who do this for a living and the volunteers who have worked on it every day for a decade combined. I hope every advocacy group consults with you to formulate their strategy and pass bills easily as you can make them realize this is not rocket science.

[qesehmk]

You are a sly person. You always take conversation in an irrelevant direction but never speak objectively to specific issues. My citizenship status, or issue with IV is irrelevant. What's important is - "Who put us on UC path which was impossible to begin with? How and why IV decide Durbin is the EVIL? Did they get played? Have they hurt EB-I? And what can be done to fix the damage?"

Despite me having issues with IV, I have actively encouraged people to do what they can along side IV. But they once again proved me wrong.

UC or no UC in house, it was an example that if there was UC in house even house would not pass HR1044. I never said there is no support. I said the bill doesn't enjoy majority support (in the senate). On the contrary you are saying ONLY durbin is in the way i.e. 99% people are supporting. That is a lie and I proved it. You say this topic is not controversial. That is a lie. Immigration is one of the most controversial topics since GB Bush.

It is a good thing you are surrendering because you are doing a disservice to EB-I.

This animosity with Durbin is very detrimental to EB-I and must stop and be reversed.

p.s. - I also never said I am a citizen. I said I am 4 years past my citizenship application. And you know why? Because it was painful for me to give away my Indian passport.

Q, my final comment on this. I know you are already a citizen. I know about your issue with IV as well. My comment on working with an org was meant for someone else.

Just one example of your ignorance. In house, there is no UC, only in senate. In house a similar process is called suspension of rules and that is how the bill passed in the house. I can go into details of what is UC etc, you will never agree. You just don’t have the humility to learn as you feel you already know all this. Your hate for IV is so intense, you cannot see beyond that.

And as for the senate you make sweeping statements like there is no support for the bill, it is controversial etc, yet you offer no proof. The video you linked only states they need to socialize the changes and doesn’t say after socializing there was no support. only Durbin is holding the bill. If he let go, it would fail right? So why is he holding the bill?

You make all these statements and push your opinions as facts. Just based on your comments, it is clear you have zero experience working for anything on the hill. Yet you are very confident you know more than anyone else working closely on the bill. Like I said, you are an arm chair critic. Clearly state for everyone how many times have you advocated for any bill on the hill?

I surrender. You know more about the process, policy, strategy and approach by googling and sitting in your home than all the lobbyists, consultants, people who do this for a living and the volunteers who have worked on it every day for a decade combined. I hope every advocacy group consults with you to formulate their strategy and pass bills easily as you can make them realize this is not rocket science.

[smuggymba]

Main reason for this mess and summary of this thread:

1.) Infighting
2.) I know more than you
3.) You don't know anything
4.) $$$ problems; illegal immigrants raise more sometimes.

These are the main attributes of Indians and this is cause of backlogs.