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

[sportsfan33]

Q,

If the EO goes as reported in which BO grants an extension of stay to X million people by granting them EADs while applying bandaid patches to legal immigrants, it is going to have the following short term effects:

- People will be extremely angry.
- Immigration bipartisanship will end at least temporarily.
- Illegals will get EADs. Legals won't.

Now, after 2008, when we bailed out banks without punishing the miscreants, we are again sending a draconian message to Americans that this is no longer a country of law. It is rather a country of opportunists. We can have a philosophical discussion about whether opportunism works (it does work in some cases) and whether the society as a whole benefits from it.

I totally understand that we are victims of being legal. Giving EADs to illegals is a non issue to me. We simply cannot compare an average EAD holder illegal and an average H1B holder legal. The H1B holder still has it much better. The biggest gripe is that BO will shut the door towards any real immigration reform by passing a unilateral action on this issue.

On top of it, the OPT bandaid is a joke. I have come across many IT job openings on craigslist for "OPT holders only" starting at $12 an hour. Talk about some real wage suppression and getting an average American college student completely out of IT.

[gcq]

Q,

If the EO goes as reported in which BO grants an extension of stay to X million people by granting them EADs while applying bandaid patches to legal immigrants, it is going to have the following short term effects:

- People will be extremely angry.
- Immigration bipartisanship will end at least temporarily.
- Illegals will get EADs. Legals won't.

Now, after 2008, when we bailed out banks without punishing the miscreants, we are again sending a draconian message to Americans that this is no longer a country of law. It is rather a country of opportunists. We can have a philosophical discussion about whether opportunism works (it does work in some cases) and whether the society as a whole benefits from it.

I totally understand that we are victims of being legal. Giving EADs to illegals is a non issue to me. We simply cannot compare an average EAD holder illegal and an average H1B holder legal. The H1B holder still has it much better. The biggest gripe is that BO will shut the door towards any real immigration reform by passing a unilateral action on this issue.

On top of it, the OPT bandaid is a joke. I have come across many IT job openings on craigslist for "OPT holders only" starting at $12 an hour. Talk about some real wage suppression and getting an average American college student completely out of IT.

This could work both ways. Once illegals are in, GOP won't have any more reason to hold up immigration reform. They have been trying to prevent illegals from legalizing and making life miserable for legal immigrants. Now they will have to act or they will be the ones that will be losing politically and emotionally. And they know BO is going to veto any bill that does not legalize illegals since BO doesn't care about his political future any more. He is going to retire as an ex-president.

[anuprab]

from another website..

"We should know all of the answers in about nine hours. Without any knowledge beyond what has been written here (well, almost), I'd like to offer a few thoughts. The common thread that we see running through all of the leaks is that something is in the works that will benefit "about half a million" employment based individuals. There aren't that many STEM students in the U.S. - not even close. If the half million figure is accurate, and it seems to be the only thing everyone agrees on, then that rules out OPT as the big solution for tech workers.

I continue to believe that the solution they are offering will be a reinterpretation of the quota statute in such a way that dependents are not counted. Every legal scholar I've seen write on this agrees that it is within the President's legal authority.

I could be wrong (and often am) but I believe this to be the case. We will know for sure this evening.
Ron"

why are there so many reports with conflicting views on whether not counting dependents is ok or not in an EO. isnt this pretty straightforward for highly paid lawyers to interpret?

[qesehmk]

Q,

I'm with you on this, hence my lack of comments on the subject.

I will reiterate something I said at the very beginning when the prospect of EO was first raised.

It is significantly harder to help, via EO, those already in the legal immigration system precisely because they are in legal status. That is very well covered by the INA and allows less discretion. My understanding is that EO can neither create new law, nor ignore/break current law. That must be done via Congress in the form of a Bill.

On the other hand, action for those not in legal status, is in the form of prosecutorial discretion within the current law. That is significantly easier for EO to accomplish.

Whatever happens, my biggest gripe with the approach remains that significant portions of the legal community do not have access to benefits such as EAD. It seems grossly unfair to accord that privilege to a group that do not have legal status while denying it to people that have maintained legal status.

Spec - agree with you on EO's dependence on prosecutorial discretion. But legals don't need that anyway. All they need is EAD and a visa number.

I think what BO might do for legals is issue an order to DOS to start counting EB dependents under FB quota. Thus he is using his administrative powers.

As per EAD for legals again ... I think that falls under his administrative powers. So we might very well see that.

One thing we miss with illegals is that there is sound policy behind most of these decisions. US is a sound nation with sound economic policies. Is there politics involved here .. yes there is. But are these decisions devoid of sound thinking - absolutely not.

e.g. The administrative aim of deferred action is to use the government resources (already less thanks to our GOP friends) wisely in pursuing the criminal rather than non-criminal elements in the undocumented community. Even the fiercest critique of BO would agree that when it comes to prioritization - the priority should be hardened criminals and drug merchants rather than my gardner!

So once we allow deferred action - these people are going to come out of shadows and ask for government help. Do we want that to happen or rather lets give them EADs and then let them not be dependent on the government.

I am very confident that's exactly what the policy makers are thinking.

Sometimes - some people get very emotional with their own plight. I hope people seek information, read, understand and empathize with others before they pass judgements on "undocumented" workers. There is a human side to this problem that is actually bigger than any of the political or economic angle. I am sure BO or even a president like GWB or Reagan understand this. The noise on GOP side aside - I believe America is still a nation of immigrants. So once BO issues this EO - there is no turning back and no courts will intervene and overrule him.

[qesehmk]

why are there so many reports with conflicting views on whether not counting dependents is ok or not in an EO. isnt this pretty straightforward for highly paid lawyers to interpret?

In this case I would tend to believe even one lawyer that believes in a theory that is pro immigrant. The reason is simple - the lawyers are very very conservative by nature. So most lawyers would err on the side of status quo. If you find one lawyer (and there are actually many many including one from Yale) who believes that the president can choose to count or not dependents - then I think we should put our money on that opinion.

[gcq]

At this point nobody knows for sure what is in the EO. One person who definitely knows what is in EO is congressman Gutierez ( http://gutierrez.house.gov/) . He is the main guy for congress Hispanic Caucus. When asked about the details about the EO, he declined to give details. So I guess whatever we are hearing from news outlets is speculation.

[PD2008AUG25]

This could work both ways. Once illegals are in, GOP won't have any more reason to hold up immigration reform. They have been trying to prevent illegals from legalizing and making life miserable for legal immigrants. Now they will have to act or they will be the ones that will be losing politically and emotionally. And they know BO is going to veto any bill that does not legalize illegals since BO doesn't care about his political future any more. He is going to retire as an ex-president.

I think all "poisoning the well" arguments are wishful thinking, there is only poison in the well. There is no reason to believe that Republicans would have wised up and passed something in absence of EO.

Also, an EO won't make any kind of reform more plausible. They have spent last 4 years trying to repeal Obamacare and will spend 2 more trying to override EO. 2014 results have solidified their anti-immigrant stand and won't risk passing anything that could turn off their base for 2016.

EO or wihtout EO, legal immigrants are screwed.

[PD2008AUG25]

Q,

My understanding is that EO can neither create new law, nor ignore/break current law. That must be done via Congress in the form of a Bill.

Isn't W's EO of expedited citizenship of GC holders who joined military is an example against this?

[kkruna]

Even if one's actions conform to statutes, opponents look for openings - and "natural justice" is one of them. Providing EAD to undocumented (in 5 years?) ahead of many EB applicants will obviously be a miscarriage of this natural justice and against common sense.

I would imagine that this will weigh on the minds of people taking decision. If not they deserve to be criticised and attacked for this.

Waiting some more to find out is a good idea.

[qesehmk]

Isn't W's EO of expedited citizenship of GC holders who joined military is an example against this?

No because that one is leverages .. "statutory exception to the naturalization requirements, as provided in section 1440(b) of title 8, United States Code"

[qesehmk]

Sport - All these actions / decisions are not frivolous. They are well thought out.

EAD is a way to keep them off government help once they come out of the shadows. It is important to bring them out of shadow from national security perspective.

BO is not giving them any status. He is only deferring taking action on them. The congress still has to pass a law giving them legal status and eventually citizenship.

p.s. - Agree w you on 2008 bailouts of the banks! But worse than the bailouts was buying the bad debt from banks dollar for dollar. That was the greatest wealth transfer from the bottom to the top in the history of mankind.

Q,

If the EO goes as reported in which BO grants an extension of stay to X million people by granting them EADs while applying bandaid patches to legal immigrants, it is going to have the following short term effects:

- People will be extremely angry.
- Immigration bipartisanship will end at least temporarily.
- Illegals will get EADs. Legals won't.

Now, after 2008, when we bailed out banks without punishing the miscreants, we are again sending a draconian message to Americans that this is no longer a country of law. It is rather a country of opportunists. We can have a philosophical discussion about whether opportunism works (it does work in some cases) and whether the society as a whole benefits from it.

I totally understand that we are victims of being legal. Giving EADs to illegals is a non issue to me. We simply cannot compare an average EAD holder illegal and an average H1B holder legal. The H1B holder still has it much better. The biggest gripe is that BO will shut the door towards any real immigration reform by passing a unilateral action on this issue.

On top of it, the OPT bandaid is a joke. I have come across many IT job openings on craigslist for "OPT holders only" starting at $12 an hour. Talk about some real wage suppression and getting an average American college student completely out of IT.

[anuprab]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/1...#ixzz3Jd4v5qkE

as mentioned by Q earlier, there is something for legals. As of now its modest changes, just have to wait till 8pm to see what the changes are.

[sportsfan33]

In this case I would tend to believe even one lawyer that believes in a theory that is pro immigrant. The reason is simple - the lawyers are very very conservative by nature. So most lawyers would err on the side of status quo. If you find one lawyer (and there are actually many many including one from Yale) who believes that the president can choose to count or not dependents - then I think we should put our money on that opinion.

Except that Ron has been egregiously wrong on almost everything. In his world:

- Porting was going down substantially.
- Date movement was completely disconnected from the underlying demand.
- USCIS processes only a fraction of the cases by design.

and many other tidbits.

[qesehmk]

Except that Ron has been egregiously wrong on almost everything. In his world:

- Porting was going down substantially.
- Date movement was completely disconnected from the underlying demand.
- USCIS processes only a fraction of the cases by design.

and many other tidbits.

Touche! Touche!

[PD2008AUG25]

400,000 highly-skilled workers will be eligible for visas.

more specifics. No idea what that sentence means.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama...ry?id=27052740

[anuprab]

400,000 highly-skilled workers will be eligible for visas.

more specifics. No idea what that sentence means.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama...ry?id=27052740

wow this means legals are still in the game

[imdeng]

This report seems more "leak-like" than "speculation-like". They are quoting specific numbers. Of course the 400K jumps out - and they specifically mention visas (OPT or EAD is not a visa - so the 400K does not refer to them).

400,000 highly-skilled workers will be eligible for visas.

more specifics. No idea what that sentence means.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama...ry?id=27052740

[psychedelicNerd]

This report seems more "leak-like" than "speculation-like". They are quoting specific numbers. Of course the 400K jumps out - and they specifically mention visas (OPT or EAD is not a visa - so the 400K does not refer to them).

Agreed. This is as if they got the dirt (papers) from the source itself, rather than speculation.

[nbk1976]

Why is Obama even talking about H-1b visas. That is a temporary and more importantly a non-immigrant visa. Sure, it is often a stepping stone to an immigration visa, but the reform is needed for immigrants currently stuck in the system.

[PD2008AUG25]

This report seems more "leak-like" than "speculation-like". They are quoting specific numbers. Of course the 400K jumps out - and they specifically mention visas (OPT or EAD is not a visa - so the 400K does not refer to them).

My only wish is 400k doesn't refer to H1Bs. If EO somehow captures unused H1Bs from earlier years, that would be worst nightmare for EB immigration community.

[kd2008]

400,000 highly-skilled workers will be eligible for visas.

more specifics. No idea what that sentence means.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama...ry?id=27052740

H1-B spouses eligible for work authorization are in the range of 400K. But they need EADs and not visas. So don't what to make of these incomplete conjectures. I guess 48 hours everything will be before us to evaluate. But this is one of the latest/newest article on the topic. So who knows?

Many sources have confirmed no visa recapture and no counting spouses and children w/ principal applicant together as one unit. But that was before this article.

[aquatican]

The highest level of irony will be that illegals and spouses of Green Card Applicants waiting for a Visa # will be issued EADs.
They can then work for any employer without restriction and start their own businesses.

Meanwhile Legal Applicants who have been waiting for years or decades will still be in H1B LaLaLand looking for sponsorship and paying legal fees.

[CowBoyInDenial]

Another Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6188450.html

[kkruna]

Such ironies already exist. If you are on L1, you cannot change job but your spouse on L2 can.

[la_2002_ch]

CNN Money Article:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/smal...kup/index.html