Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise)

[qesehmk]

Here is the text - read the red one. Unless .... I am making a mistake in interpreting it!

The bill amends the definition of “immediate relative” to include a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence, and the child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Hi Q,

I don't think parents of GC holders are considered immediate relatives and they will not be granted any GCs I guess.

Thanks

[qesehmk]

We can only guess ...
To me it looks like they want fresh talent right out of the college that an employer thinks is worthy of GC to get GCs faster - as opposed to talent that an employer took some time to file GC perhaps in the 6th year since employment when H1 might be coming to an end. In other words - they don't want an employer to wait till the end of H1 and keep talented people in perpetual limbo.

Again ... this is as good or bad guess!! I am not really very confident.

Hi Q,

Under the categories with annual numerical limits the exact text is:

"US STEM Master Degree holders who earned the degree 5 years immediately before petition is filed: 40%"

Any insight into why they kept the condition of earning a degree 5 yrs immly before petition is filed?

[justvisiting]

Here is the text - read the red one. Unless .... I am making a mistake in interpreting it!

You are, you broke up the sentence They are talking about derivatives of immediate relatives.

[feedmyback]

In fact I interpreted it this way:

The bill amends the definition of "immediate relative" to include
1. A child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,
2. The child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Here is the text - read the red one. Unless .... I am making a mistake in interpreting it!

[iwait3]

We can only guess ...
To me it looks like they want fresh talent right out of the college that an employer thinks is worthy of GC to get GCs faster - as opposed to talent that an employer took some time to file GC perhaps in the 6th year since employment when H1 might be coming to an end. In other words - they don't want an employer to wait till the end of H1 and keep talented people in perpetual limbo.

Again ... this is as good or bad guess!! I am not really very confident.

Q,

Would it be fair to assume that new EB2 = old EB2 + new applicants with STEM masters + Job.?

[feedmyback]

Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation....

We can only guess ...
To me it looks like they want fresh talent right out of the college that an employer thinks is worthy of GC to get GCs faster - as opposed to talent that an employer took some time to file GC perhaps in the 6th year since employment when H1 might be coming to an end. In other words - they don't want an employer to wait till the end of H1 and keep talented people in perpetual limbo.

Again ... this is as good or bad guess!! I am not really very confident.

[vizcard]

In fact I interpreted it this way:

The bill amends the definition of "immediate relative" to include
1. A child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,
2. The child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner . That's how I interpreted it too.

[qesehmk]

I read it as follows - which is the only way to make sense if you read carefully:

The bill amends the definition of "immediate relative" to include
1. A child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,
2. The child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child.
3. Parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

In fact I interpreted it this way:

The bill amends the definition of "immediate relative" to include
1. A child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,
2. The child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

You are, you broke up the sentence They are talking about derivatives of immediate relatives.

Mind explain it over those 2-3 sentences above? Because #2 as feedback mentioned above doesn't make sense to me at all.

p.s. - in the following sentence
The child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

lets take a subset e.g. "alien who is accompanying the parent of a LPR."

What does that mean? Looks quite senseless to me.

[qesehmk]

iwait3 - yes that's my interpretation too.

Q,
Would it be fair to assume that new EB2 = old EB2 + new applicants with STEM masters + Job.?

[qesehmk]

Spec - honestly I am struggling with the wording. I am glad I am not the only one. Clearly it is poorly written.

I think there is no doubt about

a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,

and the child or spouse of an alien

The fun really starts here onwards.

who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

My interpretation is that "who" refers to the alien who in the second sentence is yet to be admitted as against the first one where he is already admitted. If you interpret that way then all the rest makes perfect sense except the word parent. So remove the word parent and read it like I said and it is ok. Now if you insert word parent ... everything breaks down!!

Anyway ... I think at least we can agree that it is poorly written. May be Kanmani can help us understand.

p.s. - Oops ... now I can't find your post.

[abcx13]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...057_print.html

This is interesting.

[Spectator]

Spec - honestly I am struggling with the wording. I am glad I am not the only one. Clearly it is poorly written.

I think there is no doubt about

a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence,

and the child or spouse of an alien

The fun really starts here onwards.

who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

My interpretation is that "who" refers to the alien who in the second sentence is yet to be admitted as against the first one where he is already admitted. If you interpret that way then all the rest makes perfect sense except the word parent. So remove the word parent and read it like I said and it is ok. Now if you insert word parent ... everything breaks down!!

Anyway ... I think at least we can agree that it is poorly written. May be Kanmani can help us understand.

p.s. - Oops ... now I can't find your post.

Q,

Sorry about that!!

By the time I posted, I saw the subject had been done to death.

Here's an oddity.

The scribd document contains the sentence under debate

The bill amends the definition of “immediate relative” to include a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence, and the child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

However, the document posted by AILA http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44052 contains a different sentence in the same place

The bill amends the definition of “immediate relative” to include a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence.

which is much simpler and makes more sense.

[qesehmk]

I know ... I think that Aila document probably is closer to truth then. Lets leave it at that.

Q,

Sorry about that!!

By the time I posted, I saw the subject had been done to death.

Here's an oddity.

The scribd document contains the sentence under debate



However, the document posted by AILA http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44052 contains a different sentence in the same place



which is much simpler and makes more sense.

[gs1968]

THE QUEST FOR 60

I was interested in assessing the actual prospects for passage of the Bill in the Senate and will attempt to provide a brief prediction based on the Senators' previous stands on immigration and voting records.I am confident that the Bill will clear the Senate Judiciary Committee by 10-8 at the worst (most likely 12-8)
Once the Bill reaches the Senate Chamber I have broken down the possible YES & NO votes by party.I have not included a grey area for better clarity.I will tally the votes at the end and attempt a prediction

DEMOCRATIC YES VOTES (44)
Baldwin,Bennet,Blumenthal,Boxer,Brown,Cantwell,Car din,Carper,Casey,Coons,Cowan
(possibly Markey),Durbin,Feinstein,Franken,Gillibrand,Harkin ,Heinrich,Hirono,Johnson,Kaine,King,Klobuchar,Leah y,Levin,Menendez,Merkley,Mikulski,Murphy,Murray,Ne lson,Reid,Reed,Rockefeller,Sanders,Schatz,Schumer, Shaheen,Stabenow,Udall,Udall,Warner,Warren,Whiteho use,Wyden
DEMOCRATIC NO VOTES (10)
Baucus-From a very conservative state facing re-election next year
Begich-Same situation as above although from a state where immigration legal or illegal is not an issue
Donnelly-First time senator from a Republican state with no voting record as a Senator on immigration Bills.However he has a strong anti-amnesty record as a House Representative
Hagan-Facing tough re-election in a conservative state
Heitkamp-First time Senator with no record on immigration issues having never served i Congress before (previous attorney general in ND).Won election by a tight 3000 vote margin in a heavily republican state
Landrieu-Fence-sitter in tight votes facing another tough re-election
Manchin-Conservative Democrat who skipped the vote on the DREAM Act but clearly stated he opposes it
McCaskill-Strongly opposes any form of amnesty
Pryor-Most likely a no vote considering his tough re-election race next year.Cast the first no vote for cloture on gun control
Tester-Same situation as Baucus.Voted against the DREAM Act saying he represented the desires of his constituents

REPUBLICAN NO VOTES (30)
Ayotte,Barrasso,Boozman,Burr,Chambliss,Coats,Cobur n,Cochran,Corker,Cornyn,Crapo,Cruz,Enzi,Fischer,He ller,Inhofe,Isakson,Johanns,Johnson,Lee,McConnell, Risch,Roberts,Scott,Sessions,Shelby,Thune,Vitter,W icker
REPUBLICAN YES VOTES (15)
Alexander-Voting record shows no strong feeling against amnesty.Supporter of legal immigratio reform and sponsored Start-Up Act
Blunt-Co-sponsored Start-Up Act and has a moderate record on immigration
Collins-Another moderate GOP senator with numerous YES votes for illegals to receive instate tuition and welfare benefits
Flake-For obvious reasons
Graham-same as above
Hatch-This may surprise some but I strongly feel he will vote YES given his previous record.Also he will be 85 years old with the next election cycle in 2018 and will likely retire and will not face re-election
Hoeven-This was a tough call given his limited voting record and previous job being ND governor and no Congressional experience.However my feeling is that he is part of the younger,fresher breed of Republicans with hopefully a broad-minded approach
Kirk-GOP senator elected in Tea-Party wave in 2010 from a heavily Democratic state with a growing Latino population.
McCain
Moran-Same logic as Hoeven with strong pro-legal immigratin stance but no record on amnesty.
Murkowski-Same logic here as applied to Sen.Begich and can be persuaded
Paul-Think Presidential 2016! Has to back up his words and will atleast vote to start debate if not vote for the final product
Portman-Previous voting records do not suggest a strong antiamnesty stance and recent words on the subject seem reasonable and sympathetic
Rubio
Toomey-Another tea party freshman from my state and I strongly believe he will vote YES
The total tally at this point would be 59-40 in favor of cloture.This brings us to the question of Sen.Lautenberg's inability to participate in Senate proceedings at this time. His vote may become crucial and he is already being missed during the gun-control debate.According to NJ law,If he decided to retire before August he will be replaced by an appointee of Gov.Christie (GOP) and this will be a Republican till an election is held this November.If it is later than that then the appointee will continue till the next election in 2014 robbing the Democrats of a crucial vote
Please fell free to make your own calculations about the tally above.I feel I am probably over-estimating GOP yes votes but time will tell.These are the armchair observations of a sworn political junkie and I hope that the real situation of the ground is a lot more favorable to the Bill.I do not foresee a strong bi-partisan showing for this Bill and this will impact how the house deals with immigration
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ar,immigration
Obviously the fate of the Bill will depend on how amendments are offered and handled and if some Senators are happy with their chance to amend it -then the tally will be much higher

[gcq]

Google, HP, Microsoft seek stricter visa rules for TCS, Infosys

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/enterprise-it/strategy/Google-HP-Microsoft-seek-stricter-visa-rules-for-TCS-Infosys/articleshow/19593629.cms

To the uninformed, Norman Matloff is a long time anti-immigrant.

[gcq]

gs1968,

Regarding your calculations for votes, many GOP senators who say publicly that they oppose amnesty, in fact supports it. Cornyn from texas is one of them.

[abcx13]

Obama praising Rubio: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...A-31C1D84601A1

[gs1968]

To abcx13
Keep the dream going
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/sc...ithin-8-weeks/

[vizcard]

To abcx13
Keep the dream going
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/sc...ithin-8-weeks/

I think June is realistic. Its gets voted then (and hopefully passes) and then the House spends the summer ripping it apart and then hopefully it comes back to the Senate in the fall for Senate reapproval.

[gs1968]

To vizcard
The quicker it moves through the Senate,the lesser the Republican support it will have and its pace will be much slower in the House. It is very likely that the House will pass its own version and reconcile it with the Senate Bill in conference. The House is the Republican backstop for the conservatives

[rupen86]

That would indeed be a dream as there is enough backlog demand to not have to do that until atleast Q3...and even then it would be slow movement. Also, there is no incentive to make it retroactive to FY14.

They may be expecting this to pass after October and not want to make changes in the middle of the year. So, that's why might have put it for the FY2015. But that is one complete year will pass by without any changes. That is not good.

But Bill is great. With Recapture, Elimination of per country quota and exemption for dependents, we are golden.

So, ** was right in saying that the draft that was circulating was old.

[abcx13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/op...t.html?hp&_r=0

Can someone please post a comment here? The commentors, seemingly both Americans and some H1Bs who have been waiting for a while, are going crazy without having any conception of what the bill actually contains. They seem to think that this doesn't solve legal immigrants' problems - BUT IT DOES.

Someone needs to set these idiots straight. Most of the NYT picked reader comments are just plain wrong...

[abcx13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us...asures.html?hp

Let's hope this doesn't happen to our bill...

[idiotic]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s744#overview

S.744 is the official bill. Please make your voice heard and actively support.

[gs1968]

Some more links
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/29...migration-bill

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...202.html?hp=l2