Senate and house republicans are very much against diversity visa and if this block is going to vote against it because of that and if their votes are needed, some compromise will have to be done.Originally Posted by gs1968
Senate and house republicans are very much against diversity visa and if this block is going to vote against it because of that and if their votes are needed, some compromise will have to be done.
i agree. i didn't get the impression they would be violently opposed it considering someone in the article states that the merit based thing caem from the CBC when there was talk about removing DV.
To Q,Pedro,Vizcard,Spec and other moderators
I was wondering if it would be a wise idea to split this thread into two-one dealing with the actual provisions and impact of the Bill and the other dealing with the political process involved.I only mention this because some members read this thread to see how it will impact while others like me are more interested in how the politics plays out. There are also thousands of other visitors who are probably not registered here but still visit daily to get their information and analysis(of extremely high quality).I feel that some of my posts seem to interrupt a chain of critical analysis of the Bill's actual provisions
To vizcard
I agree that this is not a deal-breaker and something will be worked out like adding some more points value.I only pointed it out as one of the various moving parts that has impact in the House and not in the Senate where there are only 2 African American members both of whom are replacement appointees and not elected
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...87f_story.html
Agree about 2 diff threads.
We can use the thread i created as one to discuss the bill's language, once we have the anchor posts. However, I don't think you can fully disconnect the politics from the bill's provisions, since a lot of the politics will be based on specific provisions.
NSC (originally TSC, transferred to NSC on 02/13/13) |-| PD - 04/25/08 |-| MD - 01/19/12 |-| RD - 01/27/12 |-| ND - 01/31/12 |-| Check Encashed - 02/02/12 |-| NRD - 02/04/12 |-| FPND - 02/09/12 |-| FPNRD - 02/17/12 |-| FP Early Walk-In - 02/24/12 |-| EAD/AP Approval & card production notice - 03/07/12 |-| EAD/AP RD - 03/12/12 |-| EAD/AP renewal RD - 12/11/12 |-| EAD/AP renewal approval - 01/22/13 |-| 485 Approval notice - 09/04/13 |-| GC RD - 09/11/13|
Pedro,
The potential problem with that is that existing posts may not be able to be moved to your thread, since they mostly predate the anchor posts and would appear above them. I haven't seen a way to "sticky" individual posts in a thread in the same way that can be done with threads in a forum.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
I have a solution for that. We can move and edit other old posts to make them the anchor posts. I'm working on that now.
NSC (originally TSC, transferred to NSC on 02/13/13) |-| PD - 04/25/08 |-| MD - 01/19/12 |-| RD - 01/27/12 |-| ND - 01/31/12 |-| Check Encashed - 02/02/12 |-| NRD - 02/04/12 |-| FPND - 02/09/12 |-| FPNRD - 02/17/12 |-| FP Early Walk-In - 02/24/12 |-| EAD/AP Approval & card production notice - 03/07/12 |-| EAD/AP RD - 03/12/12 |-| EAD/AP renewal RD - 12/11/12 |-| EAD/AP renewal approval - 01/22/13 |-| 485 Approval notice - 09/04/13 |-| GC RD - 09/11/13|
Good Analysis in the article. Politicians will vote on a bill which would benefit them politically however small or big it may be. In this case, both have incentive to vote for it. But by no means it is easy. There might be killer amendments which might sink the bill. Earlier Gang of 8 had announced the strategy that they all will vote against the amendments affecting the core of the bill. However, to decide what is core will be difficult. The bill which is produced after intense negotiations will be fragile. If it is put up as it is, it might have better chance of passing than the one with amendments.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...7#.UXFz4crt5dM
Grassley using Boston tragedy to manipulate CIR movement.
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that the conversation was "especially important in light of everything that's happened in Massachusetts."
"This hearing is an opportunity to refocus" on important issues, such as "securing our homeland," Grassley added.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...earing/275140/
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...p-to-our-vaues
I think the Bill is just a starting point as the Gang of Eight has mentioned before. Based on this article-there is clearly a lot of room for amendment & improvement.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washi...7#.UXGKhMrt5dM
After a meeting with President Obama Friday morning, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also a member of the "Gang of Eight," said he "doesn't see any connection" between what's happening in Boston and the effort to change U.S. immigration laws.
I am very concerned about Leahy's comments. He seems to be questioning everything that democrats have compromised including same-sex marriage, siblings, border security and triggers and wait period for illegals. If he tries to move this bill to the left, it will fail. Hopefully as agreed principle, gang of 8 would oppose all amendments which change the core of the bill. As some of the gang members are part of the committee, I hope those amendments would fail. Nancy Pelsoi who is such a liberal has praised the bill. Leahy, if he is serious about the bill, should stay away from those amendments.
On one side I am concerned about Leahy's comments. Wondering what he was thinking when gang of 8 members were negotiating. It was obvious it is going to be a compromise. So both sides won't get everything they want. I assume he is just posturing.
On the other hand, having a strong left leaning guy as committee chairman would balance out anti-immigrant Grassley. For Nancy Pelosi, she is the house minority leader. There is no way she can criticize the bill. It is her responsibility to get all the democrat votes in house.
It's done. Discussion on the bill's contents have been moved here, and placeholders created for anchor posts. To the extent folks don't want to fill in their thoughts there, we can always delete those anchor posts later.
Pedro,
Well done!
I realize the effort involved in doing that.
Ive changed the title of this thread to Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise) to make it clearer.
Last edited by Spectator; 04-19-2013 at 02:12 PM.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Thank you Pedro for all the work-I did not intend to be disruptive but I felt that not everyone of the many visitors daily to this site is a political junkie and are more interested in sound,technical analysis of the various implications of the Bill.
To gcq/rupen
Most likely posturing to create an impression of impartiality. The other Senator to watch is Mazie Hirono who also sits on the Judiciary Committee.She has from day#1 focused on the family aspect of the Bill being of Asian origin
http://www.seattlepi.com/default/art...ll-4442246.php
A picture of the CIR Bill on Twitter-how can this be complicated?
https://twitter.com/Geoff_Holtzman/s...461440/photo/1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...dd9_story.html
BOSTON — As Congress readies for a drawn-out immigration debate, an expanding network of Republican fundraisers is pressing for a path to legal status for millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.
Business leaders and donors who raised tens of millions in the last election are meeting with top GOP fundraisers and Republican lawmakers who may be reluctant to support what critics call “amnesty” for immigrants who broke the law.
In most cases, the donors have ties to Wall Street and businesses that want more high- and low-skilled immigrants in the nation’s legal labor pool. Backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, these business-minded Republican fundraisers say they’re getting a relatively receptive audience in the face of an undeniable new political reality. Record Hispanic turnout helped President Barack Obama defeat Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney last fall. And projected population growth ensures that immigrants’ political clout will grow stronger.
douches will be douches.
the idiot doesn't get that those illegals are already inside the US. so the only way to "check" them is to give them a pathway to citizenship and run background checks on them (although I'm not sure what a background check would show).
Ted Cruz is another guy to watch out for. He's Republican, from Texas and also on the Senate Judiciary Cmte. Atleast Hirono is a Democrat from Hawaii. She'll fall in line.
He is just trying to buy time as always. He did the same thing last year.
Q & Other Moderators
Please move this thread to other page, if you think soo..
From - http://www.immigration-law.com/Temporary%20II.html.
I am not seeing any big advantages with CIR Bill for legal immigrants..
I was hoping to remove country limits but it appears to be from a year after this bill becomes LAW.
Also, I see that NOT all of the present EB1 will be exempt from Annual Quota...
Changes in Per Country Numerical Limitation of Immigration Visas: Readers may remember that the last Congress passed H.R. 3012 which was introduced by Rep. Jason Chafetz of Utah in abolute majority 'Yeah' vote but the Senate failed to pass this bill despite the last minute successful negotiation and compromise with Sen. Chuck Glassley of Iowa who objected to the bill. The bill was reintroduced in this Congress by the same Congressman and this time around, the bill was successful to persuade the Gang of 8 to be a part of the nick-name CIR 2013. Thus the CIR 2013, Section 2306 proposes to "eliminate" per country numerical limitation in the entire employment-based immigration. However, the per country numerical limitation in the family-based immigration will stay in the immigration statute, and yet the per country limit will increase from the current 7% to 15% accross the board, and not just certain named specific countries. The per country limit elimination in the employment-based immigration system was one of the hottest piecemeal employment-based immigration bill last year and it is anticipated that debate will arise hot again, albeit at a different level. Then, when this reform will be materialized and implemented, assuming this part of reform passes both the Senate and House? It will be not until 1-year from the date when bill is passed in the Congress and the President signs it into law.
Regards
Tatikonda..
tatikonda - check my post here http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...4767#post34767
The bill is actually too good to be true. Who knows ... it could actually pass..
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
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote