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

[vizcard]

Exactly. I think that is the problem. Senate support for the bill is just about lacking. Someone has to step up and ask for consideration of the bill. I think they were expecting Sen. Schumer, but he was only interested in this bill so can get some 'Irish' into it. So was Sen. Brown. Sen. Reid has no compulsions for a 'piece-meal' bill. Sen. Leahy and Sen. Conrad on the very last day got up talked and asked for EB-5/Conrad 30 and they got it. No one did that for H.R. 3012.

There are two similar / companion bills in the Senate (S1857 and S1983) that have Senator sponsorship (not in Committee review). Technically those can still be moved post committee review even if the House version of the Bill gets killed.

[chengisk]

There are two similar / companion bills in the Senate (S1857 and S1983) that have Senator sponsorship (not in Committee review). Technically those can still be moved post committee review even if the House version of the Bill gets killed.

What do you estimate are the chances for these companion bills to pass in September or lame-duck? As far as I can see, the senate majority leader has the authority to discharge the committee by unanimous consent - which is what he did for Leahy's EB5 bill. I think 1857 was introduced in the senate by a senator from Utah, so there must have been some understanding between him and Chaffetz.

[kd2008]

Please make the best use of the town halls happening during this break. Show up. tell your plight and ask if they will pass HR 3012. Simple as that.

I did my part. Have you?

[neduguy]

** is organising a rally on Aug 25 in San Jose. Let all make it a success and show our support to HR 3012 by attending

[bvsamrat]

Why not August 15th?

[chengisk]

Why not August 15th?

They might end up with the wrong flag !

[qesehmk]

Anybody who claims they are doing something and asking donations - people really need to ask and understand what exactly kind of advocacy efforts are being done by them. ** to me is a fake arrogant organization that really knows how to claim credit for things that they didn't really do. Enough said .... but anybody supporting such pricks should really ask for transparency in everything. An organization that is not transparent with its "supposed" constituents can't be trusted to be truly working effectively for those constituents. My 2 cents and my last on this.

** is organising a rally on Aug 25 in San Jose. Let all make it a success and show our support to HR 3012 by attending

[vizcard]

Anybody who claims they are doing something and asking donations - people really need to ask and understand what exactly kind of advocacy efforts are being done by them. ** to me is a fake arrogant organization that really knows how to claim credit for things that they didn't really do. Enough said .... but anybody supporting such pricks should really ask for transparency in everything. An organization that is not transparent with its "supposed" constituents can't be trusted to be truly working effectively for those constituents. My 2 cents and my last on this.

I totally second this. ** takes more credit than they deserve.

[GhostWriter]

I would have agreed to parts of what you say an year ago (mostly out of ignorance), but the way ** has truly given EB-IC community a voice and stayed committed to the cause, i have tremendous respect for them.
I think one needs to understand that it is not just a forum for exchange of information, it is also an action-oriented group. The latter requires top-down leadership to an extent just like any other company. Regarding their forum, yes it is not comparable to this one in terms of openness and quality but that is also a reflection on us (EB-I community) besides the moderators. People (we) are always ready to fight on EB1 vs EB2 or EB2 vs EB3 or IT vs. non-IT divisions (and even this forum vs that forum ) even without any provocation.
It is sad that we forgot the most valuable lesson from our history that it was our divisions that resulted in us being ruled by British.
** has in spite of many challenges at least provided a common objective and taken it to a level where there is hope for passage of a bill. It strongly stood against the lawyer community (if nothing else, that was worthwhile in itself ). Could it be more transparent, yes, but lack of transparency in this case does not necessarily imply misuse of funds (in my opinion).
Just wanted to present an alternative view point (in spirit of this forum).

Anybody who claims they are doing something and asking donations - people really need to ask and understand what exactly kind of advocacy efforts are being done by them. ** to me is a fake arrogant organization that really knows how to claim credit for things that they didn't really do. Enough said .... but anybody supporting such pricks should really ask for transparency in everything. An organization that is not transparent with its "supposed" constituents can't be trusted to be truly working effectively for those constituents. My 2 cents and my last on this.

[Nov2010]

Ghost,

I agree with you.
Sometimes in the interest of the bill they might not be revealing all the details which is understandable, also when Congressman introduced the bill in the House ** name was mentioned I think that should be good enough on the credibility question.
Most of the time here we are discussing and predicting based on the existing law, atleast ** is trying to change something which is arguably something we all have to accept.

[qesehmk]

Just to make clear, what I wrote above is quite a matter of fact rational statement. There is no provocation nor fight. Our key goal here is clarity and self education. Orgs that "claim" leadership but provide little transparency are in fact a disservice to eb community.

People (we) are always ready to fight on EB1 vs EB2 or EB2 vs EB3 or IT vs. non-IT divisions (and even this forum vs that forum ) even without any provocation.

[iamdeb]

Hi All,

While watching Olympics one idea provoked me.Compare the Olympic participation for all the countries. Let China remain as China and USA replaces India.
So if we apply the existing 7% per country limit to the Olympic criteria then USA wont be able to send 530 athletes to Olympics this year and neither would China be able to send such large contigent in every Olympics. I am sure it would raise many eyebrows if that happens.But in Sports it doesn't matter which country you belong from as long as you make the cut. HR 3012 can make that happen in the immigration process too.

So if someone could explain this point to the American senators it might make more sense to them.

Thanks!
Deb

[Spectator]

Hi All,

While watching Olympics one idea provoked me.Compare the Olympic participation for all the countries. Let China remain as China and USA replaces India.
So if we apply the existing 7% per country limit to the Olympic criteria then USA wont be able to send 530 athletes to Olympics this year and neither would China be able to send such large contigent in every Olympics. I am sure it would raise many eyebrows if that happens.But in Sports it doesn't matter which country you belong from as long as you make the cut. HR 3012 can make that happen in the immigration process too.

So if someone could explain this point to the American senators it might make more sense to them.

Thanks!
Deb

Actually. the Olympics is a better analogy for the current system.

Most, if not all events have a maximum number of competitors who can represent their Country. The rule is equally applied to every Country.

In the women's gymnastics, only two could enter the all-around individual competition, meaning the world champion did not take part. In the track cycling, only one competitor could take part in the sprint competition, so the Olympic champion did not take part.

Some of the best competitors are not even at the Olympics because they failed to qualify through their Countries qualification events.

The reason some Countries have larger teams is that they participate in more events.

If it were not so, the likes of USA, China and Russia would send far larger teams because they have many more competitors who can reach the Olympic qualifying mark and some Countries would be unable to send any competitors as a result.

I think that would be a very sad day indeed.

[rupen86]

I totally second this. ** takes more credit than they deserve.

Do we have any other better alternative? Whatever it is doing, it is doing something that is going to benefit us. There is no other organization which would advocate us and make effort to advance the bill that will benefit us.

[rupen86]

Hi All,

While watching Olympics one idea provoked me.Compare the Olympic participation for all the countries. Let China remain as China and USA replaces India.
So if we apply the existing 7% per country limit to the Olympic criteria then USA wont be able to send 530 athletes to Olympics this year and neither would China be able to send such large contigent in every Olympics. I am sure it would raise many eyebrows if that happens.But in Sports it doesn't matter which country you belong from as long as you make the cut. HR 3012 can make that happen in the immigration process too.

So if someone could explain this point to the American senators it might make more sense to them.

Thanks!
Deb

If such quota limit law would have to be passed today, it won't and it would be counted as discrimination. Common sense would tell that quota system is not fair. But life is not about fairness. They know that. They do not care whether it is fair or not. All they are interested in is vote. Can this give them vote ? NO.

[Kanmani]

Except for very few events like gymnastics, the per country limitation is imposed before the athelets and players depart from their country for the olympiad. The olympic committee slelects the finalists from each country carefully after conducting trials comparing their ability to compete in the respective events . They are not simply rejected for the reason being born in a certain country except for these one or two mishaps. Olympic committee is even admitting wild card entrants for the first timers participating from a particular country in a particular event, like recent Qatar female track competitor to skip preliminary trials.

It is horrible to practice per country limitation discrimination after bringing them into the olympic statium , just like we are here in US.

US olympians have already raised their voice to bring to an end to this kind of per country limitation .

[Spectator]

Kanmani,

I like you too much to respond.

I will not be pulled into an argument on this subject.

I've yet to see a good analogy.

[Kanmani]

Spec,

I am not ready for an argument on this either. In general I differ from you in comparing Olympic rules with that of the current system. In my opinion they have more fairness for sure.

[Spectator]

Spec,

I am not ready for an argument on this either. In general I differ from you in comparing Olympic rules with that of the current system. In my opinion they have more fairness for sure.

Kanmani,

I was only responding to the initial post, which made a poor analogy in my mind and failed to understand why some Countries have larger teams than others.

The End

PS I, like a lot of people here have taken to watching the BBC coverage, since the NBC alternative is so excruciatingly bad.

[qesehmk]

...I heard a saying in a movie "Uske Dushman bahot hai; aadmi achcha hoga"

That is originally from Mirza Galib. He is many many times quoted in Hindi movies and songs ..... including ... e.g. Dil Dhondhata hai phir wohi phurasat ke raat din.

[chengisk]

That is originally from Mirza Galib. He is many many times quoted in Hindi movies and songs ..... including ... e.g. Dil Dhondhata hai phir wohi purasat ke raat din.

I can see words like enemy, man, good, and that is it. A translation would be nice. If you use devanagiri, then I can use google translate too.

[qesehmk]

Will post it in poetry!

I can see words like enemy, man, good, and that is it. A translation would be nice. If you use devanagiri, then I can use google translate too.

[immitime]

Just to make clear, what I wrote above is quite a matter of fact rational statement. There is no provocation nor fight. Our key goal here is clarity and self education. Orgs that "claim" leadership but provide little transparency are in fact a disservice to eb community.

Yes, ** is not transparent at all, as far as EB community is concerned. If anybody asks questions which touches the truth immediate effect is he/she is banned from ** and his IP is permanently banned (not alone his IP, the domain even).

Nothing against people working (if at all they are working) in the name of **. but the policy of ** the ideology they stand for, they split the EB community into divisions, The EB2 egos are poked and nurtured, EB-3 has been totally damaged.( all along they have the answer for EB-3 India was--Port Port and Port) their selfishness never considered there are people in circumstances which they can never port, even if they are qualified, EB-ROW not to talk about them, lappu was tortured on Trackit.. he won't even mention trackit name on his posts The spillover law interpretation change added salt to the wound of EB-3. Majority of the EB-3 applicants have EAD, that is the only one reason ** still survives by collecting money. I have doubts that they are bribing top officials of USCIS for the visa date movement. Otherwise why a non-profit organisation have meetings with a government agency for visa data movements and favours only one particular category?

The EB community is totally split by this so called Non-profit organisation. Suppose... GOD forbid.. it won't happen ... by any chance H.R.3012 is never taken up in the Senate. the messiha lappu or Adamant2 of ** will appear with his usual bamboo stick blaming EB community.. like a school teacher he will post. The reason for failure is You!!! and no unity blah blah etc...

First of all why ** created this division, only for the selfishness of a group of useless Id****, and where the money goes?? no one knows exactly. visit **sucks.blogspot.com there should be some truths on it...even though 2 years old blog

[GhostWriter]

Spec i agree Olympic is a country based sports competition and a poor choice of analogy.
Nobel prizes (even with all their controversies) probably represent a better choice. They do not have country based limitations, so if an American physicist wins the award it does not mean that an American Chemist or Biologist can not. Even for selection of best physicist there is no limitation that all the top contenders can't be from a single country. The idea is to pick the best physicist.

There is an alternate (and interesting) way to look at Olympics as well. Even Olympics does not limit the number of Golds (or medals) a country can win. Let us apply current USCIS policy to Olympics and see how it will look.
Assume only three games - Tennis, Swimming and Volleyball. USCIS will allow any number of entries from a country in each game (unlike the current Olympic policy), but it will cap the golds a country can win. So if US wins Swimming and Tennis its Volleyball team will be denied a medal even if it were the best.

Compare a GC (and the underlying job offer) to a medal (only for driving the point, i know the difference in stature !!!). There are three organizations - Intel, Boston Medical center and Citigroup. Any number of people from any of the countries can apply for these jobs. But if Intel and Citigroup have hired an Indian, then Boston Medical Center is forbidden from having an Indian doctor even if he is the best for the job.

Logic can often be twisted to arrive at results that we beleive in anyway .

Keeping diversity as an immigration objective is not necessarily wrong but its impact on skills based categories certainly does not seem right.

I've yet to see a good analogy.

[qesehmk]

This actually is a good anology. I know spec thinks differently. And that's how we all will be. Which is why I really believe that no quota is the right thing. If a company is willing to hire skilled labor let them do.it. and tax that labor 50k and have the company pay for it. This will avoid abuse.

Any quota is unfair to the basic principle of economic benefit - both for the individual and for the host.

Spec i agree Olympic is a country based sports competition and a poor choice of analogy.
Nobel prizes (even with all their controversies) probably represent a better choice. They do not have country based limitations, so if an American physicist wins the award it does not mean that an American Chemist or Biologist can not. Even for selection of best physicist there is no limitation that all the top contenders can't be from a single country. The idea is to pick the best physicist.

There is an alternate (and interesting) way to look at Olympics as well. Even Olympics does not limit the number of Golds (or medals) a country can win. Let us apply current USCIS policy to Olympics and see how it will look.
Assume only three games - Tennis, Swimming and Volleyball. USCIS will allow any number of entries from a country in each game (unlike the current Olympic policy), but it will cap the golds a country can win. So if US wins Swimming and Tennis its Volleyball team will be denied a medal even if it were the best.

Compare a GC (and the underlying job offer) to a medal (only for driving the point, i know the difference in stature !!!). There are three organizations - Intel, Boston Medical center and Citigroup. Any number of people from any of the countries can apply for these jobs. But if Intel and Citigroup have hired an Indian, then Boston Medical Center is forbidden from having an Indian doctor even if he is the best for the job.

Logic can often be twisted to arrive at results that we beleive in anyway .

Keeping diversity as an immigration objective is not necessarily wrong but its impact on skills based categories certainly does not seem right.