Obama's vote on CIR in 2007.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2653411.html
Obama's vote on CIR in 2007.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2653411.html
I think this is big.
Tea party embraces immigration reform including path to citizenship.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,387435.story
What do you guys think about the State of Union Speech? and Comp Immi Reform for legal immigration being prioritized?
just wanted to hear the thoughts from experts about the possibility of removal of % quota on Countries under EB category.
Originally Posted by rupen86
While I do not consider myself expert, I will give my opinion regardless. State of union speech on immigration was symbolic and not going to achieve anything more than what is currently going on. In reaction to the speech, republicans seemed to agree only on this topic where they can co-operate. This is going to be in center-stage now for next few months.
Well now the tea party is officially on board so CIR should be happening soon.
Read the link below :
Quote "In his tea party-sponsored rebuke to President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, Sen. Rand Paul will say Republicans should be the party that embraces immigrants as “assets, not liabilities." End Quote
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,387435.story
Completely agree that the immigration coverage on the SOTU was a "check the box" exercise. In all fairness though, the SOTU is a soap box...no policy really comes from it.
Another fish in the stream not sure of where it is going or if it will ever make it!
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/...migration-bill
A re-hash of a similar bill by the same group last year (I think it was called Start-up 2.0). The only good thing is the inclusion of similar language to 3012 with elimination of country cap and increase in FB percentage to 15.Another positive is the addition of 2 more senators (Moran & Blunt) to the no-objection to country cap removal group.The enrollment for this group has increased to 18. This does not include the likes of Sens.Schumer,Leahy,Durbin who seemed to be OK with this last year but have not proposed or co-sponsored any legislation in this session
PS-Hopefully immigration is sorted out this year and there is no Start-Up 4.0!!
From Oh Law firm,
02/13/2013: Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah Introduces H.R. 633 to Eliminate Per Country Limit in Employment-Based Immigration
The Congressman announced that he introduced this bill today. He introduced the similar bill H.R. 3012 in the 112th Congress which was successfully passed in the Republican House but failed in the Democratic Senate. As soon as the text of this bill is made available, we will post it.
Elimination of per country limit in the employment-based immigration was also introduced by another Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, as part of the Innovation Immigration bill.
This bill is not going anywhere unless supported by President Obama and Democrats.
http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/arc...-reform-bills/
Last edited by pakkpk; 02-13-2013 at 10:22 PM.
well let them keep trying but the Dems are not going for any piecemeal immigration reform
From Oh Law firm,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...06b_story.html
An interesting article from a non-political source
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...s-guest-worker
The article says that close to half of the illegal aliens are overstays. I brought this up only because if the Democrats say the Border is secure then the Republicans will ask for full implementation of a secure exit-entry system before agreeing to reform and the goalposts will keep getting moved
I tend to agree with most points that guy is making. Except the one where he lumped legal & illegal immigrants together and stated a point of utilizing government resources. I would strongly disagree with any point that would equate legal & illegal immigrants because they are not as far as "immigration" is concerned. In fact, all of H1-B workers have actually "paid" to US government not just appropriate federal/state taxes but also "social security & medicare taxes". Without Green Card or US Citizenship, these "social security & medicare taxes" are essentially a gift to the US government. Thus, there is no evidence of legal immigrants putting burden on government resources.
To seahawks
I think he is referring to legal immigration in general which is not just H-1B or EB categories but other avenues also including Family based immigrants,refugees,asylum-seekers etc. Some of the legal immigrants in those categories do depend on welfare services to survive.
Schumer, Leahy and Durbin are not signing up because they are Dems and they only want CIR not piecemeal. So I won't read anything into that. I don't why some congressmen are introducing piecemeal bills. They aren't going anywhere...
http://24ahead.com/marco-rubio-leads...amnesty-groups
This is the key to CIR's success. These 3 organizations must be defeated. These are the organizations who brought down Bush administration's CIR proposal.
More backlog on the way
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...0&pageNumber=1
The numbers seem a little bit suspect and the true number could be lower
We DO need restrictions on the H1B. A simple filter such as x% of the workforce must be American for any company with a size over y employees should do the trick. I suggest 50% as a baseline for x and maybe 50 or 100 for y. This is nothing but labor arbitrage and wage suppression. Hopefully the Indian IT guys will realize this once they become citizens. Considering that a job at Infy/TCS/etc. requires a lower level of skills than a job at Google/Intel/etc. and those guys don't have such an Indian-dominated employee mix, it starts to become clear that the rise in the use of H1B by Indian outsourcers is not about a lack of domestic talent, or the inability to foster domestic talent. In other words, I find it hard to believe that India has a monopoly on mediocre average skilled programmers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/us...pagewanted=all
Read the comments. Click Reader Picks. Unlike the folks here, almost all commenters (mostly Americans by the looks of it, but some H1Bs with long waits) have the common sense and courage to admit that legals deserve better than this. The NYT has a liberal readership, yet the majority of comments are against amnesty for illegals and a 8 year path to perm residency.
This is the most recommended comment by a wide margin:
Personally, I think 8 years is ridiculous for a GC. Many highly qualified people have waited much longer in the EB2/3 backlogs. This is a slap in the face. Illegals should not get a GC until there is no legal backlog in my view - if that means never, so be it - unless that's the policy, you are rewarding people for breaking the law, i.e. it's not just amnesty, you are actually rewarding someone for breaking the law by putting them ahead of someone who didn't break the law.I am a legal immigrant. I have been in this country 10 years. My husband and I pay taxes, follow the law, pay hundreds in fees to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services department to maintain our visa status, sometimes every year, sometimes every three years. I have filing cabinets full of documents covering every single day of our stay in this country.
And we are STILL in line for our green cards, which could still be years away because the lines for those born in India and China are extremely long. My husband, a physician in a remote northern rural town, is on an H1-B and I am on a dependent H-4. This H-4 visa does NOT allow me to work, despite my being in this country legally and having NO criminal history, unless a parking ticket counts as being criminal.
You're telling me that if I had entered this country ILLEGALLY, I would be able to get a work permit and be welcomed as a prospective citizen?
Well, slap me stupid, because that's what thousands of LEGAL immigrants like us must be.
I am a social liberal. I believe in EVERY human being's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But even my tolerance has limits.
Oh, and while we're reveling in this spirit of forgiveness for people who OPENLY commit felonies (fake SSNs, fake drivers IDs, entering and staying in the country illegally), why not give drunk drivers their licenses back? Gosh, everyone's got a sob story behind the crimes they commit, right?
Again, I would remind that the NYT has one of the most liberal readerships and this is what liberals think. Imagine what conservatives think of this dumb amnesty plan. The leak was really really stupid in my view. BO could have salvaged it by having some meaningful sops in terms of prioritizing legals over illegals, but no siree! This is amateur politics at its finest.
Last edited by abcx13; 02-18-2013 at 05:02 PM.
Seems legal immigration part also has been discussed in the article. Nothing in detail but it says that plan would not be able to cut time shorter than 8 years for legal immigration which I believe is mostly about FB.
For the proponents of country cap elimination (both FB & EB) here is an interesting editorial from the Dallas morning news
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/ed...ion-reform.ece
Please refer to the last paragraph where it says that the 7% limit was never designed to be etched in stone but over the years has become the standard and almost impossible to abolish
Though not mentioned specifically, article seems to be focusing on FB. The solution in the last para seems to be giving preference to western countries and deciding quota dynamically based on recent trend. In my opinion, it does not seem like good solution.
rupen,
Let's be clear. The article says exempting Western Hemisphere Countries NOT Western Countries. There is a big difference. Countries that make up the Western Hemisphere in DOS reports are:
Western Hemisphere
Argentina
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Curacao
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Venezuela
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
I strongly believe the proposal or guiding principles by the Gang of Eight will be the basis for the CIR bill. All the BS from other constituents including Obama and the extreme right will not really impact it to any significant degree. The other major dynamic here is the issue of the sequesters. I'm sure there will be some give and take between that and CIR in terms of compromises.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote