Since they are sincerely considering CIR, will that have an immediate impact on the upcoming visa bulletins? Meaniing will they try to clear as much backlog as possible like for EB3 ROW before September?
Since they are sincerely considering CIR, will that have an immediate impact on the upcoming visa bulletins? Meaniing will they try to clear as much backlog as possible like for EB3 ROW before September?
No, because the discussions do not alter the number of visas currently available.Originally Posted by Caramail
Only when something is passed and if it includes extra visas and if it became effective immediately would there be any effect.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Durbin expressing concerns about H1b component. It is very hypocritical that person who supports making 11m people legal is concerned about few thousand h1bs.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...?taxonomyId=70
I haven't seen anyone highlight the fact that the proposed i-squared Act also alters the % of EB visas given to EB1-EB3.
Under the proposal, the current 28.6%, 28.6%, 28.6% would change to :
EB1 - 12.0%
EB2 - 36.9%
EB3 - 36.9%
If we just take the effect of Dependents being excluded from Numerical Limits, that has the following effect.
EB1
16,800 visas. However, EB1A & EB1B are no longer counted within Numerical Limits. Using the historical ratio for dependents, that is the equivalent of 39,800 visas for EB1C.
EB2
51,660 visas. Using the historical ratio for dependents, that is the equivalent of 103,300 visas for EB2.
EB3
51,660 visas. Using the historical ratio for dependents, that is the equivalent of 118,800 visas for EB3.
Effectively, it raises the number of visas available to EB1-EB3 from 120,000 to 262,000 and increases the numbers available to EB2 & EB3 by between 2.5-3 times.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Politico reports - I-squared sponsors ready to wrap the bill in CIR.
I-SQUARED TO GET WRAPPED IN, SPONSORS SAY http://www.politico.com/morningtech/...gtech9931.html — While neither the Gang of Eight’s proposal nor the White House’s desires are in legislative form yet, co-sponsors of the I-Squared Act say they expect the measure to get folded in when the time comes. “My view is that we can only make progress on immigration through a comprehensive approach that addresses the whole range of issues from path to citizenship, to family reunification, to agricultural workers, to due process concerns, to skill gap and high-skilled immigration concerns,” Sen. Chris Coons says. And the proposal “is not in competition with any effort,” Sen. Marco Rubio says.
Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, gave the following statement regarding the immigration proposal put forth by Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin and Michael Bennet.
“We’ve seen efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform come and go with little success. And, while efforts in the past have not been successful, most of us can agree that a long-term solution is needed. Another Congress shouldn’t be faced with this problem again. So, there’s a lot to be said for these members working together and moving the issue forward. And, while I especially appreciate the group’s focus on legal avenues of immigration, there are a lot of questions to be answered on even the most mundane of topics. The proposal also lacks specificity on a number of big, difficult issues such as preventing illegal hiring through E-Verify and reducing chain migration so there’s more focus on merit.
“In order for legislation of this magnitude to get the buy-in and support from the American people and their Senators, regular order must be restored in the Senate. Chairman Leahy and I have spoken, and the Judiciary Committee is ready for hearings to consider legislation and move the process along.”
Thanks Spectatator. However, a huge bill like CIR could be potentially effective immediately? Wouldn t they give an adjustement period to USCIS like 6 months to implement?
Personally, I don't think all provisions would come into effect immediately - probably from the next FY if enacted late in the year (although if it passed in August, that is going to be pretty much immediately).
The only measure likely to have immediate effect would be setting the date for existing applications which the undocumented would have to wait to be cleared before they could become a full PR.
Currently, there are at least 5 million legal people waiting in the queue (of which around 90% are FB). Unless FB4 (which accounts for over 50% of the backlog) gets scrapped, I don't see how it will be cleared very quickly.
I also can't see how either DOS or USCIS can possibly handle the workload in the short term, so I suspect the average processing time to get a CP interview or to process an AOS case to completion is going to increase fairly dramatically. No proposal to date has suggested allocating any extra resources to DOS/USCIS.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
C-Span is running Schumer and McCain interview from today morning....
Interesting points:
"The men said they wanted the legislation to go through regular committee order."
“The hope is late spring, early summer,” for the bill to go to the floor, Schumer said."
I came across this interesting counterpoint on my twitter feed-just some food for thought. Might explain the reluctance of whole-hearted GOP support so far.
Maybe as the process moves along these extreme viewpoints might change-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-latino-voters
PS-The comments section is interesting also
I do not agree with the analysis that immigration issue did not alienate Hispanic voters. There is tons of other analysis which say that that was the reason and I believe GOP has already done the analysis and come to this conclusion.
This article is flawed. This just another proof that GOP is not ready to embrace the reality yet.
GOP has always been an anti-immigrant party except for a few lawmakers.
1. ˇes la economía, estúpido!
What would you expect of a "Fox"-latino poll !
2. Latinos are liberal
Fact is GOP is too "conservative" and right wing fanatics that they consider Fox news as the nuetral channel.
It is not latinos that need to change their mentaility, it is the GOP.
3. Even "Latino-friendly" GOP politicians never did that well
This doesn't mention who that latino-friendly politician is if at all there is one.
4. Demographics don't swing elections
GOP decides to turn their face away from reality.
5. Most Latino voters don't live in swing states
Florida is a swing state and a deciding one. Author doesn't want to acknowledge that.
To gcq & rupen
I agree with both of you in terms of flaws in the article. The question this article raises is what the tangible benefit is going to be for the GOP if this passes. The credit will be shared by both parties and if the President steps in at the right moment this would be clearly become a Democratic success. Of the various senators involved in this-only Schumer & Graham are on the Judiciary Committee. The conservative opposition is already starting in the Senate as the following article suggests
http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index....ngly_nave.html
There is going to be opposition which is expected and no one expects smoother ride for it. It only needs 60 votes in senate to pass filibuster and I think it is going to get that. Schumer has predicted as high as 80 votes for it. In the house, it will have tougher situation but I think there also it is going to end up having similar situation as fiscal cliff deal where majority of democrats supported it and few republicans joined. Senators like Vitter are going to oppose anything and everything. He was the one who had problems with HR 3012 also. There are also senators like Durbin who do not have problems adding 11m illegal but have problems with adding few thousand h1bs.
Even though President and Democrats end up receiving the credit, the problem would be solved for once and all and Hispanics would look for other issues during voting rather than immigration. Then republicans would be back in the game and can hope to reduce democrats' lead.
I agree with the top para ... but the second para is difficult to agree with. Here is why - (and this goes beyond immigration so perhaps lets not beat this to death) - any president in his second term hardly has 8-9 months MAX during which he can pursue his own agenda. So Obama MUST clear this before September. After that he can't even control his own party because of the mid term election and after mid term he is quite a sitting duck. So Obama in his 6-8 months he has - has chosen to use immigration as his agenda (Legacy if you will !!). And why is this important to him? It's because he expects this to be a lasting legacy with hispanics who he certainly don't want to flock to republican side like they did for GW Bush. That's why this is critical to him and his party.
It just beats me - how he has been able to divide the republican side - and quite a few republicans are following him on his agenda. I actually agree with the article above that talked about how latino vote is less consequential than it is made out.
I do believe that if this gets passed (and of course the chances look 80%+) that Obama will have built solid foundation within Latino base which will last democrats for a couple of decades.
I also do not believe that this solves the immigration problem once and for all. The world is getting more and more chaotic and America is the first choice for immigration and will remain so for a loooooong time - legal and illegal. So what Vitter and others say is actually true... but hey I am not on Vitter's side ... and I believe diversity is good for America and a diverse America is good for the world.
Now coming back to what republicans would get out of this... the answer is zero. Had they opposed this - they would be punished again. But if they support - this would still be seen as democratic victory. So perhaps that's their logic.... to blunt the latino wrath by being supporting of this. But republicans are going to have different winning strategy such as - allow rich to pay more taxes - oppose stupid wars - support obamacare in some form - stop beating on gay lesbians and women. That's the ONLY way they are going to win. They have divided america into too many slices already and have cornered themselves as the party of white middle aged disgruntled men. If Paul Ryan is their 2016 nominee then god bless their ambitions to catpture white house. I will bet my money on Hillary.
I no longer provide calculations/predictions ever since whereismyGC.com was created.
I do run this site only as an administrator. Our goal is to improve clarity of GC process to help people plan their lives better.
Use the info at your risk. None of this is legal advice.
Forum Glossary | Forum Rules and Guidelines | If your published post disappeared, check - Lies and Misinformation thread
White House is participating in a Google Hangout on the immigration reform efforts -
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/imm...n?sid=24774966
PD - 3/15/2008 EB2 I TSC l RD - 1/6/2012 l ND - 1/10/2012
CPO - Awaited
Even though Republicans may not end up receiving support from Hispanics, the fact that they are talking about it and participating in the reform process suggests that they have taken calculated decision at high level that doing this might be one way of getting out of the pain caused by presidential election. They would not have come this far if they thought it is going to cost them more.
House hearing on 2/5
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/..._02052013.html
Senate's hearing is scheduled on 2/13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ration-feb-13/
Fun starts now !!!
Why Silicon Valley needs immigration reform
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/30/39...eform-congress
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why...orm-2013-01-31
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/...-point-of.html
Today saw an ad on CNN by anti-immigrant group FAIR targeting H1B in CIR.
Yes, don't go after the other 11 million uneducated and underskilled illegals who will suck at the taxpayers' teat.
It's disgraceful that we're the bargaining chip for 11 million illegals. We who obeyed the law, we who are usually highly qualified (yes, even the IT bodyshoppers - at least relative to the strawberry pickers), we who are net contributors to the economy, we... - we are the same as the illegals.
Good job, Mr. President and Democrats. If I ever do become a citizen of this fine country, I will surely reconsider my allegiance to the Democratic party.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
